Podcast appearances and mentions of john well

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 28, 2024 48:00

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with playwright and screenwriter Jeffrey Hatcher on Columbo, Sherlock Holmes, favorite mysteries and more!LINKSA Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Jeffrey Hatcher Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.hatcher.3/The Good Liar (Trailer): https://youtu.be/ljKzFGpPHhwMr. Holmes (Trailer): https://youtu.be/0G1lIBgk4PAStage Beauty (Trailer): https://youtu.be/-uc6xEBfdD0Columbo Clips from “Ashes to Ashes”Clip One: https://youtu.be/OCKECiaFsMQClip Two: https://youtu.be/BbO9SDz9FEcClip Three: https://youtu.be/GlNDAVAwMCIEli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcastTRANSCRIPTJohn: Can you remember your very first mystery, a movie, book, TV show, play, a mystery that really captured your imagination? Jeffrey: You know, I was thinking about this, and what came to mind was a Disney movie called Emile and the Detectives from 1964. So, I would have been six or seven years old. It's based on a series of German books by Eric Kastner about a young man named Emile and his group of friends who think of themselves as detectives. So, I remember that—I know that might've been the first film. And obviously it's not a play because, you know, little kids don't tend to go to stage thrillers or mysteries and, “Daddy, please take me to Sleuth.But there was a show called Burke's Law that I really loved. Gene Barry played Captain Amos Burke of the Homicide Division in Los Angeles, and he was very rich. That was the bit. The bit was that Captain Burke drove around in a gorgeous Rolls Royce Silver Ghost, and he had a chauffeur. And every mystery was structured classically as a whodunit.In fact, I think every title of every episode was “Who Killed Cock Robin?” “Who Killed Johnny Friendly?” that kind of thing. And they would have a cast of well-known Hollywood actors, so they were all of equal status. Because I always think that's one of the easiest ways to guess the killer is if it's like: Unknown Guy, Unknown Guy, Derek Jacobi, Unknown Guy, Unknown Guy. It's always going to be Derek Jacobi. John: Yeah, it's true. I remember that show. He was really cool. Jim: Well, now I'm going to have to look that up.Jeffrey: It had a great score, and he would gather all of the suspects, you know, at the end of the thing. I think my favorite was when he caught Paul Lynde as a murderer. And, of course, Paul Lynde, you know, kept it very low key when he was dragged off. He did his Alice Ghostly impersonation as he was taken away.John: They did have very similar vocal patterns, those two.Jeffrey: Yep. They're kind of the exact same person. Jim: I never saw them together. John: You might have on Bewitched. Jim: You're probably right.Jeffrey: Well, I might be wrong about this, either Alice Ghostly or Charlotte Ray went to school with Paul Lynde. And Charlotte Ray has that same sound too. You know, kind of warbly thing. Yes. I think they all went to Northwestern in the late 40s and early 50s. So maybe that was a way that they taught actors back then. John: They learned it all from Marion Horne, who had the very same warble in her voice. So, as you got a little older, were there other mysteries that you were attracted to?Jeffrey: Yeah. Luckily, my parents were very liberal about letting me see things that other people probably shouldn't have. I remember late in elementary school, fifth grade or so, I was reading Casino Royale. And one of the teachers said, “Well, you know, most kids, we wouldn't want to have read this, but it's okay if you do.”And I thought, what's that? And I'm so not dangerous; other kids are, well they would be affected oddly by James Bond? But yeah, I, I love spy stuff. You know, The Man from Uncle and The Wild Wild West, all those kind of things. I love James Bond. And very quickly I started reading the major mysteries. I think probably the first big book that I remember, the first novel, was The Hound of the Baskervilles. That's probably an entrance point for a lot of kids. So that's what comes in mind immediately. Jim: I certainly revisit that on—if not yearly basis, at least every few years I will reread The Hound of the Baskervilles. Love that story. That's good. Do you have, Jeffrey, favorite mystery fiction writers?Jeffrey: Oh, sure. But none of them are, you know, bizarre Japanese, Santa Domingo kind of writers that people always pull out of their back pockets to prove how cool they are. I mean, they're the usual suspects. Conan Doyle and Christie and Chandler and Hammett, you know, all of those. John Dickson Carr, all the locked room mysteries, that kind of thing. I can't say that I go very far off in one direction or another to pick up somebody who's completely bizarre. But if you go all the way back, I love reading Wilkie Collins.I've adapted at least one Wilkie Collins, and they read beautifully. You know, terrifically put together, and they've got a lot of blood and thunder to them. I think he called them sensation novels as opposed to mysteries, but they always have some mystery element. And he was, you know, a close friend of Charles Dickens and Dickens said that there were some things that Collins taught him about construction. In those days, they would write their novels in installments for magazines. So, you know, the desire or the need, frankly, to create a cliffhanger at the end of every episode or every chapter seems to have been born then from a capitalist instinct. John: Jeff, I know you studied acting. What inspired the move into playwriting?Jeffrey: I don't think I was a very good actor. I was the kind of actor who always played older, middle aged or older characters in college and high school, like Judge Brack in Hedda Gabler, those kind of people. My dream back in those days was to play Dr. Dysart in Equus and Andrew Wyke in Sleuth. So, I mean, that was my target. And then I moved to New York, and I auditioned for things and casting directors would say, “Well, you know, we actually do have 50 year old actors in New York and we don't need to put white gunk in their hair or anything like that. So, why don't you play your own age, 22 or 23?” And I was not very good at playing 22 or 23. But I'd always done some writing, and a friend of mine, Graham Slayton, who was out at the Playwrights Center here, and we'd gone to college together. He encouraged me to write a play, you know, write one act, and then write a full length. So, I always say this, I think most people go into the theater to be an actor, you know, probably 98%, and then bit by bit, we, you know, we peel off. We either leave the profession completely or we become directors, designers, writers, what have you. So, I don't think it's unnatural what I did. It's very rare to be like a Tom Stoppard who never wanted to act. It's a lot more normal to find the Harold Pinter who, you know, acted a lot in regional theaters in England before he wrote The Caretaker.Jim: Fascinating. Can we talk about Columbo?Jeffrey: Oh, yes, please. Jim: This is where I am so tickled pink for this conversation, because I was a huge and am a huge Peter Falk Columbo fan. I went back and watched the episode Ashes To Ashes, with Patrick McGowan that you created. Tell us how that came about. Jeffrey: I too was a huge fan of Columbo in the 70s. I remember for most of its run, it was on Sunday nights. It was part of that murder mystery wheel with things like Hec Ramsey and McCloud, right? But Columbo was the best of those, obviously. Everything, from the structure—the inverted mystery—to thw guest star of the week. Sometimes it was somebody very big and exciting, like Donald Pleasence or Ruth Gordon, but often it was slightly TV stars on the skids.John: Jack Cassidy, Jim: I was just going to say Jack Cassidy.Jeffrey: But at any rate, yeah, I loved it. I loved it. I remembered in high school, a friend and I doing a parody of Columbo where he played Columbo and I played the murderer of the week. And so many years later, when they rebooted the show in the nineties, my father died and I spent a lot of time at the funeral home with the funeral director. And having nothing to say to the funeral director one day, I said, “Have you got the good stories?”And he told me all these great stories about, you know, bodies that weren't really in the casket and what you can't cremate, et cetera. So, I suddenly had this idea of a Hollywood funeral director to the stars. And, via my agent, I knew Dan Luria, the actor. He's a close friend or was a close friend of Peter's. And so, he was able to take this one-page idea and show it to Peter. And then, one day, I get a phone call and it's, “Uh, hello Jeff, this is Peter Falk calling. I want to talk to you about your idea.” And they flew me out there. It was great fun, because Falk really ran the show. He was the executive producer at that point. He always kind of ran the show. I think he only wrote one episode, the one with Faye Dunaway, but he liked the idea.I spent a lot of time with him, I'd go to his house where he would do his drawings back in the studio and all that. But what he said he liked about it was he liked a new setting, they always liked a murderer and a setting that was special, with clues that are connected to, say, the murderer's profession. So, the Donald Pleasant one about the wine connoisseur and all the clues are about wine. Or the Dick Van Dyke one, where he's a photographer and most of the clues are about photography. So, he really liked that. And he said, “You gotta have that first clue and you gotta have the pop at the end.”So, and we worked on the treatment and then I wrote the screenplay. And then he asked McGoohan if he would do it, and McGoohan said, “Well, if I can direct it too.” And, you know, I've adored McGoohan from, you know, Secret Agent and The Prisoner. I mean, I'd say The Prisoner is like one of my favorite television shows ever. So, the idea that the two of them were going to work together on that script was just, you know, it was incredible. John: Were you able to be there during production at all? Jeffrey: No, I went out there about four times to write, because it took like a year or so. It was a kind of laborious process with ABC and all that, but I didn't go out during the shooting.Occasionally, this was, you know, the days of faxes, I'd get a phone call: “Can you redo something here?” And then I'd fax it out. So, I never met McGoohan. I would only fax with him. But they built this whole Hollywood crematorium thing on the set. And Falk was saying at one point, “I'm getting pushback from Universal that we've got to do all this stuff. We've got to build everything.” And I was saying, “Well, you know, 60 percent of the script takes place there. If you're going to try to find a funeral home like it, you're going to have all that hassle.” And eventually they made the point that, yeah, to build this is going to cost less than searching around Hollywood for the right crematorium, And it had a great cast, you know, it had Richard Libertini and Sally Kellerman, and Rue McClanahan was our murder victim.Jim: I'll tell you every scene that Peter Falk and Mr. McGoohan had together. They looked to me as an actor, like they were having a blast being on together. Jeffrey: They really loved each other. They first met when McGoohan did that episode, By Dawn's Early Light, where he played the head of the military school. It's a terrific episode. It was a great performance. And although their acting styles are completely different, You know, Falk much more, you know, fifties, methody, shambolic. And McGoohan very, you know, his voice cracking, you know, and very affected and brittle. But they really loved each other and they liked to throw each other curveballs.There are things in the, in the show that are ad libs that they throw. There's one bit, I think it's hilarious. It's when Columbo tells the murderer that basically knows he did it, but he doesn't have a way to nail him. And, McGoohan is saying, “So then I suppose you have no case, do you?” And Falk says, “Ah, no, sir, I don't.” And he walks right off camera, you know, like down a hallway. And McGoohan stares off and says, “Have you gone?” And none of that was scripted. Peter just walks off set. And if you watch the episode, they had to dub in McGoohan saying, “Have you gone,” because the crew was laughing at the fact that Peter just strolled away. So McGoohan adlibs that and then they had to cover it later to make sure the sound wasn't screwed up. Jim: Fantastic. John: Kudos to you for that script, because every piece is there. Every clue is there. Everything pays off. It's just it is so tight, and it has that pop at the end that he wanted. It's really an excellent, excellent mystery.Jim: And a terrific closing line. Terrific closing line. Jeffrey: Yeah, that I did right. That was not an ad lib. Jim: It's a fantastic moment. And he, Peter Falk, looks just almost right at the camera and delivers that line as if it's, Hey, check this line out. It was great. Enjoyed every minute of it. Can we, um, can I ask some questions about Sherlock Holmes now?Jeffrey: Oh, yes. Jim: So, I enjoyed immensely Holmes and Watson that I saw a couple summers ago at Park Square. I was completely riveted and had no, absolutely no idea how it was going to pay off or who was who or what. And when it became clear, it was so much fun for me as an audience member. So I know that you have done a number of Holmes adaptations.There's Larry Millet, a St. Paul writer here and I know you adapted him, but as far as I can tell this one, pillar to post was all you. This wasn't an adaptation. You created this out of whole cloth. Am I right on that? Jeffrey: Yes. The, the idea came from doing the Larry Millet one, actually, because Steve Hendrickson was playing Holmes. And on opening night—the day of opening night—he had an aortic aneurysm, which they had to repair. And so, he wasn't able to do the show. And Peter Moore, the director, he went in and played Holmes for a couple of performances. And then I played Holmes for like three performances until Steve could get back. But in the interim, we've sat around saying, “All right, who can we get to play the role for like a week?” And we thought about all of the usual suspects, by which I mean, tall, ascetic looking actors. And everybody was booked, everybody was busy. Nobody could do it. So that's why Peter did it, and then I did it.But it struck me in thinking about casting Holmes, that there are a bunch of actors that you would say, you are a Holmes type. You are Sherlock Holmes. And it suddenly struck me, okay, back in the day, if Holmes were real, if he died—if he'd gone over to the falls of Reichenbach—people probably showed up and say, “Well, I'm Sherlock Holmes.”So, I thought, well, let's take that idea of casting Holmes to its logical conclusion: That a couple of people would come forward and say, “I'm Sherlock Holmes,” and then we'd wrap it together into another mystery. And we're sitting around—Bob Davis was playing Watson. And I said, “So, maybe, they're all in a hospital and Watson has to come to figure out which is which. And Bob said, “Oh, of course, Watson's gonna know which one is Holmes.”And that's what immediately gave me the idea for the twist at the end, why Watson wouldn't know which one was Holmes. So, I'm very grateful whenever an idea comes quickly like that, but it depends on Steve getting sick usually. Jim: Well, I thoroughly enjoyed it. If it's ever staged again anywhere, I will go. There was so much lovely about that show, just in terms of it being a mystery. And I'm a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. I don't want to give too much away in case people are seeing this at some point, but when it starts to be revealed—when Pierce's character starts talking about the reviews that he got in, in the West End—I I almost wet myself with laughter. It was so perfectly delivered and well written. I had just a great time at the theater that night. Jeffrey: It's one of those things where, well, you know how it is. You get an idea for something, and you pray to God that nobody else has done it. And I couldn't think of anybody having done this bit. I mean, some people have joked and said, it's kind of To Tell the Truth, isn't it? Because you have three people who come on and say, “I'm Sherlock Holmes.” “I'm Sherlock Holmes.” “I'm Sherlock Holmes.” Now surely somebody has done this before, but Nobody had. Jim: Well, it's wonderful. John: It's all in the timing. So, what is the, what's the hardest part about adapting Holmes to this stage?Jeffrey: Well, I suppose from a purist point of view‑by which I mean people like the Baker Street Irregulars and other organizations like that, the Norwegian Explorers here in Minnesota‑is can you fit your own‑they always call them pastiches, even if they're not comic‑can you fit your own Holmes pastiche into the canon?People spend a lot of time working out exactly where Holmes and Watson were on any given day between 1878 and 1930. So, one of the nice things about Holmes and Watson was, okay, so we're going to make it take place during the three-year interregnum when Holmes is pretending to be dead. And it works if you fit Holmes and Watson in between The Final Problem and The Adventure of the Empty House, it works. And that's hard to do. I would say, I mean, I really love Larry Millett's book and all that, but I'm sure it doesn't fit, so to speak. But that's up to you to care. If you're not a purist, you can fiddle around any old way you like. But I think it's kind of great to, to, to have the, the BSI types, the Baker Street Irregular types say, “Yes, this clicked into place.”Jim: So that's the most difficult thing. What's the easiest part?Jeffrey: Well, I think it's frankly the language, the dialogue. Somebody pointed out that Holmes is the most dramatically depicted character in history. More than Robin Hood, more than Jesus Christ. There are more actor versions of Holmes than any other fictional character.We've been surrounded by Holmes speak. Either if we've read the books or seen the movies or seen any of the plays for over 140 years. Right. So, in a way, if you're like me, you kind of absorb that language by osmosis. So, for some reason, it's very easy for me to click into the way I think Holmes talks. That very cerebral, very fast, sometimes complicated syntax. That I find probably the easiest part. Working out the plots, you want them to be Holmesian. You don't want them to be plots from, you know, don't want the case to be solved in a way that Sam Spade would, or Philip Marlowe would. And that takes a little bit of work. But for whatever reason, it's the actor in you, it's saying, all right, if you have to ad lib or improv your way of Sherlock Holmes this afternoon, you know, you'd be able to do it, right? I mean, he really has permeated our culture, no matter who the actor is.Jim: Speaking of great actors that have played Sherlock Holmes, you adapted a movie that Ian McKellen played, and I just watched it recently in preparation for this interview.Having not seen it before, I was riveted by it. His performance is terrific and heartbreaking at the same time. Can we talk about that? How did you come to that project? And just give us everything.Jeffrey: Well, it's based on a book called A Slight Trick of the Mind by Mitch Cullen, and it's about a very old Sherlock Holmes in Surrey, tending to his bees, as people in Holmesland know that he retired to do. And it involves a couple of cases, one in Japan and one about 20 years earlier in his life that he's trying to remember. And it also has to do with his relationship with his housekeeper and the housekeeper's son. The book was given to me by Anne Carey, the producer, and I worked on it probably off and on for about five years.A lot of time was spent talking about casting, because you had to have somebody play very old. I remember I went to meet with Ralph Fiennes once because we thought, well, Ralph Fiennes could play him at his own age,‑then probably his forties‑and with makeup in the nineties.And Ralph said‑Ralph was in another film that I'd done‑and he said, “Oh, I don't wear all that makeup. That's just far too much.” And I said, “Well, you did in Harry Potter and The English Patient, you kind of looked like a melted candle.” And he said, “Yes, and I don't want to do that again.” So, we always had a very short list of actors, probably like six actors in the whole world And McKellen was one of them and we waited for him to become available And yeah, he was terrific. I'll tell you one funny story: One day, he had a lot of prosthetics, not a lot, but enough. He wanted to build up his cheekbones and his nose a bit. He wanted a bit, he thought his own nose was a bit too potatoish. So, he wanted a more Roman nose. So, he was taking a nap one day between takes. And they brought him in, said, “Ian, it's time for you to do the, this scene,” and he'd been sleeping, I guess, on one side, and his fake cheek and his nose had moved up his face. But he hadn't looked in the mirror, and he didn't know. So he came on and said, “Very well, I'm all ready to go.” And it was like Quasimodo.It's like 5:52 and they're supposed to stop shooting at six. And there was a mad panic of, Fix Ian's face! Get that cheekbone back where it's supposed to be! Knock that nose into place! A six o'clock, we go into overtime!” But it was very funny that he hadn't noticed it. You kind of think you'd feel if your own nose or cheekbone had been crushed, but of course it was a makeup. So, he didn't feel anything. Jim: This is just the, uh, the actor fan boy in me. I'm an enormous fan of his work straight across the board. Did you have much interaction with him and what kind of fella is he just in general?Jeffrey: He's a hoot. Bill Condon, the director, said, “Ian is kind of methody. So, when you see him on set, he'll be very decorous, you know, he'll be kind of like Sherlock Holmes.” And it was true, he goes, “Oh, Jeffrey Hatcher, it's very good to meet you.” And he was kind of slow talking, all that. Ian was like 72 then, so he wasn't that old. But then when it was all over, they were doing all those--remember those ice Dumps, where people dump a tub of ice on you? You have these challenges? A the end of shooting, they had this challenge, and Ian comes out in short shorts, and a bunch of ballet dancers surrounds him. And he's like, “Alright, everyone, let's do the ice challenge.” And, he turned into this bright dancer. He's kind of a gay poster boy, you know, ever since he was one of the most famous coming out of the last 20 some years. So, you know, he was suddenly bright and splashy and, you know, all that old stuff dropped away. He has all of his headgear at his house and his townhouse. He had a party for us at the end of shooting. And so, there's a Gandalf's weird hat and there's Magneto's helmet, you know, along with top hats and things like that. And they're all kind of lined up there. And then people in the crew would say, can I take a picture of you as Gandalf? “Well, why, of course,” and he does all that stuff. So no, he's wonderful. Jim: You do a very good impression as well. That was great. Now, how did you come to the project, The Good Liar, which again, I watched in preparation for this and was mesmerized by the whole thing, especially the mystery part of it, the ending, it was brilliant.How did you come to that project?Jeffrey: Well, again, it was a book and Warner Brothers had the rights to it. And because Bill and I had worked on Mr. Holmes--Bill Condon--Bill was attached to direct. And so I went in to talk about how to adapt it.This is kind of odd. It's again based in McKellen. In the meeting room at Warner Brothers, there was a life size version of Ian as Gandalf done in Legos. So, it was always, it'll be Ian McKellen and somebody in The Good Liar. Ian as the con man. And that one kind of moved very quickly, because something changed in Bill Condon's schedule. Then they asked Helen Mirren, and she said yes very quickly.And it's a very interesting book, but it had to be condensed rather a lot. There's a lot of flashbacks and going back and forth in time. And we all decided that the main story had to be about this one con that had a weird connection to the past. So, a lot of that kind of adaptation work is deciding what not to include, so you can't really be completely faithful to a book that way. But I do take the point with certain books. When my son was young, he'd go to a Harry Potter movie, and he'd get all pissed off. Pissed off because he'd say Dobby the Elf did a lot more in the book.But if it's a book that's not quite so well-known—The Good Liar isn't a terribly well-known book, nor was A Slight Trick of the Mind--you're able to have a lot more room to play. Jim: It's a very twisty story. Now that you're talking about the book, I'll probably have to go get the book and read it just for comparison. But what I saw on the screen, how did you keep it--because it was very clear at the end--it hits you like a freight train when it all sort of unravels and you start seeing all of these things. How did you keep that so clear for an audience? Because I'll admit, I'm not a huge mystery guy, and I'm not the brightest human, and yet I was able to follow that story completely.Jeffrey: Well, again, I think it's mostly about cutting things, I'm sure. And there are various versions of the script where there are a lot of other details. There's probably too much of one thing or another. And then of course, you know, you get in the editing room and you lose a couple of scenes too. These kinds of things are very tricky. I'm not sure that we were entirely successful in doing it, because you say, which is more important, surprise or suspense? Hitchcock used to have that line about, suspense is knowing there's a bomb under the table. And you watch the characters gather at the table. As opposed to simply having a bomb blow up and you didn't know about it.So, we often went back and forth about Should we reveal that the Helen Mirren character knows that Ian's character is doing something bad? Or do we try to keep it a secret until the end? But do you risk the audience getting ahead of you? I don't mind if the audience is slightly ahead. You know, it's that feeling you get in the theater where there's a reveal and you hear a couple of people say, “Oh, I knew it and they guessed it may be a minute before. But you don't want to get to the point where the audience is, you know, 20 minutes or a half an hour ahead of you.Jim: I certainly was not, I was not in any way. It unfolded perfectly for me in terms of it being a mystery and how it paid off. And Helen Mirren was brilliant. In fact, for a long time during it, I thought they were dueling con men, the way it was set up in the beginning where they were both entering their information and altering facts about themselves.I thought, “Oh, well, they're both con men and, and now we're going to see who is the better con man in the end.” And so. when it paid off. In a way different sort of way, it was terrific for me. Absolutely. Jeffrey: Well, and I thank you. But in a way, they were both con men. Jim: Yes, yes. But she wasn't a professional con man.Jeffrey: She wasn't just out to steal the money from him. She was out for something else. She was out for vengeance. Jim: Yes. Very good. Very, if you haven't seen it, The Good Liar folks, don't wait. I got it on Amazon prime and so can you.Jeffrey: I watched them do a scene, I was over there for about five days during the shooting.And watching the two of them work together was just unbelievable. The textures, the tones, the little lifts of the eyebrow, the shading on one word versus another. Just wonderful, wonderful stuff. Jim: Yeah. I will say I am a huge Marvel Cinematic Universe fan along with my son. We came to those together and I'm a big fan of that sort of movie. So I was delighted by this, because it was such a taut story. And I was involved in every second of what was going on and couldn't quite tell who the good guys were and who the bad guys were and how is this going to work and who's working with who?And it was great. And in my head, I was comparing my love for that sort of big blow it up with rayguns story to this very cerebral, internal. And I loved it, I guess is what I'm saying. And, I am, I think, as close to middle America as you're going to find in terms of a moviegoer. And I thought it was just dynamite. Jeffrey: It was very successful during the pandemic--so many things were when people were streaming--but it was weirdly successful when it hit Amazon or Netflix or whatever it was. And, I think you don't have to be British to understand two elderly people trying to find a relationship. And then it turns out that they both have reasons to hate and kill each other. But nonetheless, there is still a relationship there. So, I pictured a lot of lonely people watching The Good Liar and saying, “Yeah, I'd hang out with Ian McKellen, even if he did steal all my money.” John: Well, speaking of movies, I am occasionally handed notes here while we're live on the air from my wife. And she wants you to just say something about the adaptation you did of your play, Stage Beauty, and what that process was like and how, how that process went.Jeffrey: That was terrific because, primarily Richard Eyre--the director who used to run the National Theater and all that--because he's a theater man and the play's about theater. I love working with Bill Condon and I've loved working with Lassa Hallstrom and other people, but Richard was the first person to direct a film of any of my stuff. And he would call me up and say, “Well, we're thinking of offering it to Claire Danes.” or we're thinking…And usually you just hear later, Oh, somebody else got this role. But the relationship was more like a theater director and a playwright. I was there on set for rehearsals and all that.Which I haven't in the others. No, it was a wonderful experience, but I think primarily because the, the culture of theater saturated the process of making it and the process of rehearsing it and—again--his level of respect. It's different in Hollywood, everybody's very polite, they know they can fire you and you know, they can fire you and they're going to have somebody else write the dialogue if you're not going to do it, or if you don't do it well enough. In the theater, we just don't do that. It's a different world, a different culture, different kind of contracts too. But Richard really made that wonderful. And again, the cast that he put together: Billy Crudup and Claire and Rupert Everett and Edward Fox and Richard Griffiths. I remember one day when I was about to fly home, I told Richard Griffiths what a fan Evan-- my son, Evan--was of him in the Harry Potter movie. And he made his wife drive an hour to come to Shepperton with a photograph of him as Mr. Dursley that he could autograph for my son. John: Well, speaking of stage and adaptations, before we go into our lightning round here, you did two recent adaptations of existing thrillers--not necessarily mysteries, but thrillers--one of which Hitchcock made into a movie, which are Dial M for Murder and Wait Until Dark. And I'm just wondering what was that process for you? Why changes need to be made? And what kind of changes did you make?Jeffrey: Well, in both cases, I think you could argue that no, changes don't need to be made. They're wildly successful plays by Frederick Knott, and they've been successful for, you know, alternately 70 or 60 years.But in both cases, I got a call from a director or an artistic director saying, “We'd like to do it, but we'd like to change this or that.” And I'm a huge fan of Frederick Knott. He put things together beautifully. The intricacies of Dial M for Murder, you don't want to screw around with. And there are things in Wait Until Dark having to do just with the way he describes the set, you don't want to change anything or else the rather famous ending won't work. But in both cases, the women are probably not the most well drawn characters that he ever came up with. And Wait Until Dark, oddly, they're in a Greenwich Village apartment, but it always feels like they're really in Westchester or in Terre Haute, Indiana. It doesn't feel like you're in Greenwich Village in the 60s, especially not in the movie version with Audrey Hepburn. So, the director, Matt Shackman, said, why don't we throw it back into the 40s and see if we can have fun with that. And so it played out: The whole war and noir setting allowed me to play around with who the main character was. And I know this is a cliche to say, well, you know, can we find more agency for female characters in old plays or old films? But in a sense, it's true, because if you're going to ask an actress to play blind for two hours a night for a couple of months, it can't just be, I'm a blind victim. And I got lucky and killed the guy. You've got a somewhat better dialogue and maybe some other twists and turns. nSo that's what we did with Wait Until Dark. And then at The Old Globe, Barry Edelstein said, “well, you did Wait Until Dark. What about Dial? And I said, “Well, I don't think we can update it, because nothing will work. You know, the phones, the keys. And he said, “No, I'll keep it, keep it in the fifties. But what else could you What else could you do with the lover?”And he suggested--so I credit Barry on this--why don't you turn the lover played by Robert Cummings in the movie into a woman and make it a lesbian relationship? And that really opened all sorts of doors. It made the relationship scarier, something that you really want to keep a secret, 1953. And I was luckily able to find a couple of other plot twists that didn't interfere with any of Knott's original plot.So, in both cases, I think it's like you go into a watch. And the watch works great, but you want the watch to have a different appearance and a different feel when you put it on and tick a little differently. John: We've kept you for a way long time. So, let's do this as a speed round. And I know that these questions are the sorts that will change from day to day for some people, but I thought each of us could talk about our favorite mysteries in four different mediums. So, Jeff, your favorite mystery novel”Jeffrey: And Then There Were None. That's an easy one for me. John: That is. Jim, do you have one?Jim: Yeah, yeah, I don't read a lot of mysteries. I really enjoyed a Stephen King book called Mr. Mercedes, which was a cat and mouse game, and I enjoyed that quite a bit. That's only top of mind because I finished it recently.John: That counts. Jim: Does it? John: Yeah. That'll count. Jim: You're going to find that I am so middle America in my answers. John: That's okay. Mine is--I'm going to cheat a little bit and do a short story--which the original Don't Look Now that Daphne du Murier wrote, because as a mystery, it ties itself up. Like I said earlier, I like stuff that ties up right at the end. And it literally is in the last two or three sentences of that short story where everything falls into place. Jeff, your favorite mystery play? I can be one of yours if you want. Jeffrey: It's a battle between Sleuth or Dial M for Murder. Maybe Sleuth because I always wanted to be in it, but it's probably Dial M. But it's also followed up very quickly by Death Trap, which is a great comedy-mystery-thriller. It's kind of a post-modern, Meta play, but it's a play about the play you're watching. John: Excellent choices. My choice is Sleuth. You did have a chance to be in Sleuth because when I directed it, you're the first person I asked. But your schedule wouldn't let you do it. But you would have been a fantastic Andrew Wyke. I'm sorry our timing didn't work on that. Jeffrey: And you got a terrific Andrew in Julian Bailey, but if you wanted to do it again, I'm available. John: Jim, you hear that? Jim: I did hear that. Yes, I did hear that. John: Jim, do you have a favorite mystery play?Jim: You know, it's gonna sound like I'm sucking up, but I don't see a lot of mystery plays. There was a version of Gaslight that I saw with Jim Stoll as the lead. And he was terrific.But I so thoroughly enjoyed Holmes and Watson and would love the opportunity to see that a second time. I saw it so late in the run and it was so sold out that there was no coming back at that point to see it again. But I would love to see it a second time and think to myself, well, now that you know what you know, is it all there? Because my belief is it is all there. John: Yeah. Okay. Jeff, your favorite TV mystery?Jeffrey: Oh, Columbo. That's easy. Columbo.John: I'm gonna go with Poker Face, just because the pace on Poker Face is so much faster than Columbo, even though it's clearly based on Columbo. Jim, a favorite TV mystery?Jim: The Rockford Files, hands down. John: Fair enough. Fair enough. All right. Last question all around. Jeff, your favorite mystery movie? Jeffrey: Laura. Jim: Ah, good one. John: I'm going to go with The Last of Sheila. If you haven't seen The Last of Sheila, it's a terrific mystery directed by Herbert Ross, written by Stephen Sondheim and Anthony Perkins. Fun little Stephen Sondheim trivia. The character of Andrew Wyke and his house were based on Stephen Sondheim. Jeffrey: Sondheim's townhouse has been for sale recently. I don't know if somebody bought it, but for a cool seven point something million, you're going to get it. John: All right. Let's maybe pool our money. Jim, your favorite mystery movie.Jim: I'm walking into the lion's den here with this one. Jeffrey, I hope this is okay, but I really enjoyed the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies. And I revisit the second one in that series on a fairly regular basis, The Game of Shadows. I thought I enjoyed that a lot. Your thoughts on those movies quickly? Jeffrey: My only feeling about those is that I felt they were trying a little too hard not to do some of the traditional stuff. I got it, you know, like no deer stalker, that kind of thing. But I thought it was just trying a tad too hard to be You know, everybody's very good at Kung Fu, that kind of thing.Jim: Yes. And it's Sherlock Holmes as a superhero, which, uh, appeals to me. Jeffrey: I know the producer of those, and I know Guy Ritchie a little bit. And, I know they're still trying to get out a third one. Jim: Well, I hope they do. I really hope they do. Cause I enjoyed that version of Sherlock Holmes quite a bit. I thought it was funny and all of the clues were there and it paid off in the end as a mystery, but fun all along the road.Jeffrey: And the main thing they got right was the Holmes and Watson relationship, which, you know, as anybody will tell you, you can get a lot of things wrong, but get that right and you're more than two thirds there.

america god tv love jesus christ new york amazon netflix game hollywood disney man los angeles england japan law british truth german murder fun japanese mind minnesota adventure abc indiana harry potter daddy mine universal lego shadows james bond stephen king prisoners detectives knock robin hood ashes uncle holmes marvel cinematic universe sherlock holmes dial elf burke northwestern charles dickens kung fu hitchcock warner brothers robert downey jr dickens screenwriters surrey playwright hound pissed gandalf guy ritchie gaslight wild wild west westchester caretakers magneto terrific falk casino royale dumps emile bewitched stephen sondheim audrey hepburn helen mirren greenwich village columbo ralph fiennes poker face knott secret agents dick van dyke sleuths ian mckellen dobby nso faye dunaway claire danes mccloud anthony perkins quasimodo deathtrap ashes to ashes peter falk baskervilles billy crudup terre haute donald pleasence bsi look now equus conan doyle hammett harold pinter tom stoppard dial m philip marlowe empty house english patient sam spade rupert everett reichenbach paul lynde bob davis bill condon wait until dark wilkie collins ruth gordon derek jacobi dursley to tell rue mcclanahan hedda gabler old globe dysart early light national theater sally kellerman mckellen john you john it herbert ross richard eyre richard griffiths final problem john dickson carr jack cassidy john yeah john well baker street irregulars robert cummings holmesian shepperton mcgoohan john all gene barry john they homicide division jeffrey hatcher jim it jim well jim you barry edelstein

AI for legal departments: Managing eDiscovery and data retention risks with Microsoft Copilot

Tech Law Talks

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 20, 2024 23:05 Transcription Available

Anthony Diana and Therese Craparo are joined by John Collins from Lighthouse to provide an overview of some of the challenges and strategies around data retention and eDiscovery with Microsoft's AI tool, Copilot. This episode explores Copilot's functionality within M365 applications and the complexities of preserving, collecting and producing Copilot data for legal purposes. The panelists cover practical tips on managing Copilot data, including considerations for a defensible legal hold process and the potential relevance of Copilot interactions in litigation. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello, and welcome to Tech Law Talks, a podcast brought to you by Reed Smith's Emerging Technologies Group. In each episode of this podcast, we will discuss cutting-edge issues on technology, data, and the law. We will provide practical observations on a wide variety of technology and data topics to give you quick and actionable tips to address the issues you are dealing with every day. Anthony: Hello, this is Anthony Diana, a partner in the Emerging Technologies Group at Reed Smith, and welcome to the latest Tech Law Talks podcast. As part of our ongoing podcast series with Lighthouse on Microsoft M365 Copilot and what legal departments should know about this generative AI tool in M365. Today, we'll be focused on data retention and e-discovery issues and risks with Copilot. I am joined today with Therese Craprro at Reed Smith and John Collins of Lighthouse. Welcome, guys. So, John, before we start, let's get some background on Copilot. We've done a few podcasts already introducing everyone to Copilot. So if you could just give a background on what is Copilot generally in M365. John: Sure. So the Copilot we're talking about today is Copilot for Microsoft 365. It's the experience that's built into tools like Word, Excel. PowerPoint, Teams, Teams meetings. And basically what it is, is Microsoft's running a proprietary version of ChatGPT and they provide that to each one of their subscribers that gets Copilot. And then as the business people are using these different tools, they can use Copilot to help generate new content, summarize meetings, create PowerPoints. And it's generating a lot of information as we're going to be talking about. Anthony: And I think one of the interesting things that we've emphasized in the other podcasts is that each M365 application is slightly different. So, you know, Copilot for Word is different from Copilot for Exchange, and they act differently, and you really have to understand the differences, which we talked about generally. So, okay, so let's just talk generally about the issue, which is retention and storage. So, John, why don't you give us a primer on where is the data generally stored when you're doing a prompt and response and getting information from Copilot? John: So the kind of good news here is that the prompts and responses, so when you're asking Copilot to do something or if you're chatting with Copilot in one of the areas that you can chat with it, it's putting the back and forth into a hidden folder in the user's mailbox. So the user doesn't see it in their outlook. The prompts and responses are there, and that's where Microsoft is storing them. So there's also files that get referenced that are stored in OneDrive and SharePoint, which we may talk about further. But in terms of the back and forth, those are stored in the Exchange mailbox. Anthony: That's helpful. So, Therese, I know we've been working with some clients on trying to figure this out and doing testing and validation, and we've come across some exceptions. You want to talk about that process, I'll say. Therese: I think that's one of the most important things when we're talking about really any aspect of Copilot or frankly, new technology, right? It's constantly developing and changing. And so you need to be testing and validating and make sure you're understanding how it's working. So as you said, Anthony, you know, we found early on when Copilot, our clients first started using Copilot, that the prompts and the responses for Outlook were not being retained in that hidden folder, right? And then Microsoft has since continued to develop the product. And now, in most cases, at least we're seeing they are, you know, similarly, for those of you who are using transcriptionless Copilot, so it's Copilot that doesn't can give you meeting summaries and answer questions during the meeting, but doesn't retain the transcript, because people had some concerns about retaining transcripts, we're seeing that those Copilot artifacts, so the prompt and the response are now currently not being retained in the hidden folder. So a lot of this is you need to understand how Copilot is working, but understand that it's also a dynamic product that's constantly changing. So you need to test it to make sure you're understanding what's happening in your environment with your organization's use of Copilot. Anthony: Yeah. And I think it's critical that it has to constantly be tested and validated. Like any technology, you have to constantly test it because the way it's happening now, maybe even if it's being retained now, could change, right? If they revise the product or whatever. And we've seen this with Microsoft before where they may not always, you know, they change where it's stored because for whatever reason, they decided to change the storage. So if you have an e-discovery process and like, you just have to be aware of it. Or if you're trying to retain things and you're trying to govern retention, you just have to make sure you understand where things are stored. Okay, so John, if you could explain presently sort of how retention works with Copilot data that's stored in the hidden folder of Exchange. John: So what Microsoft has done so far is they've made it possible for the prompts and responses that we were talking about. So when you're in Word or Excel or PowerPoint, or if you're using the chat function inside of the Teams or in general, those are the subject to the same retention that you've set for your one-to-one in your group chats. So if you have a 30-day auto-delete policy for your one-to-one in group chats, that's going to be applied to these Copilot interactions. So I've heard, and I think you guys may have heard this as well, that Microsoft is going to split those off, but it's not on the roadmap that we've seen, but we've heard that they are going to make them two separate things. But right now they're the one in the same. Therese: Yeah, and I think it's the good and the bad news, right, for people who are looking at Copilot and how do I best manage it. The good news is that you can control retention. You can set a retention on it that's within the organization's control and you can make the decision that's right for your organization. The bad news is that it has to be the same as whatever right now is for whatever you're setting for Teams chat, which may or may not be how long you would like to retain the Copilot data. So there are some features that are good, that gives you a little bit control to make decisions that are right for the organization. But right now, they're only partially controllable in that sense. So you have to make some decisions about, you know, how long do you need Teams chat? How long do you need Copilot? And where's the right place in the middle to meet business needs, right? And also to take into consideration how long this data should exist in your organization. Anthony: Yeah. And John, we've heard the same thing and heard from Microsoft that they're working on it, but I haven't heard if there's a roadmap and when that's happening. But we have several clients who are monitoring this and are constantly in contact with Microsoft saying, when are we going to get that split? Because at least for a lot of our clients, they don't want the same retention. And I think, Therese, we could talk a little bit about it in terms of what people are thinking about, what to consider. Once we get to a place where we can actually apply a separate retention for Copilot, what are the factors to consider when you start thinking about what is the appropriate retention for this Copilot data? John: And Therese, do you want them to be ephemeral where you could have a setting where they just go, they aren't captured anywhere? I'd be curious if you guys think that's something that you would want clients to consider as an option. Therese: Well, look, I mean, the first thing all of our clients are looking at is business needs, right? Is this with anything, right? Do the artifacts from Copilot need to exist for a longer period of time for a business use? And in general, the answer has been no. There's no real reason to go back to that. There's no real reason to keep that data sitting in that folder. There's no use of it. The users don't go, like John, as you said, you can't see it. Users aren't going back to that data. So from a business perspective, you know, number one thing that we always consider, the answer has been no, we don't need to retain these Copilot artifacts for any business reason. The next thing we always look to is record retention, right? Is there a legal regulatory obligation to retain this Copilot artifacts that are coming out? And in most cases, when our clients look at it, the answer is no, it's not a record. It's not relied on for running the company. It doesn't currently fall under any of the regulations in terms of what a record is. It's convenience information or transitory information that may exist in the organization. So typically, again, that next component is records. And typically, at least with Copilot, we're seeing that the initial output from Copilot, the question and the response, are not considered records. And so once you get to that point, the question is, why do I need to keep it at all? Which is, John, to what you're alluding to, you know, today for all data types, whether it's Copilot or otherwise, right, over-retention presents risks. It presents privacy risks and security risks, all kinds of risks to the company. So the preference is to retain data only for as long as you need it. And if you don't need it, the question arises, do you need to keep it at all? Do you need it even for a day? Could you make it ephemeral so that it can just disappear when it's gone because it has served its useful life and there's no other reason to keep it? Now, we always have to consider legal holds whenever we have these conversations, because if you have a legal hold and you need to retain data going forward, you need to have a means of doing that. You need to be aware of how to retain that data, how to preserve that data for a legal hold purpose if you deem it to be relevant. of it. So that's always the caveat. But typically when we're seeing people look at this, when they actually sit down and think about it, there hasn't been to date really a business or records reason to retain that data in the ordinary course of business. Anthony: And so it's a matter of how do you enforce that? And whether, John, I mean, when we talk about ephemeral, it is retained. So ephemeral would be probably like one day, right? So it would basically be kept for one day, which raises all kinds of issues because they're there for one day. And as we've seen with other, whether it's team chats or any type of instant messaging, once it's there, and we're gonna talk a little bit about preservation, it's there, right? So for one day it's there. So let's talk a little bit about sort of the e-discovery issues and particularly preservation, which I think is the issue that a lot of people are thinking about now as they're rolling this out is, can I preserve this? So John, how do you preserve Copilot data? John: So that's pretty straightforward, at least in one respect, which is if you're preserving a user's Exchange Online mailbox, unless you put in some kind of condition explicitly to exclude the Copilot prompts and responses, et cetera, they're going to be preserved. So they will be part of what's being preserved along with email and chats and that type of thing. So the only The only question is, and if we're going to get into this, Anthony and Therese, but the reference files, the version shared and all that. But as far as the prompts and responses, those are part of the mailbox. They're going to be preserved. Anthony: So you're talking about a potential gap here then. So let's just talk about that. When you're doing prompts and responses, oftentimes you're referencing a specific document, right? It could be a Word document. You're asking for a summary, for example, of a Word document. it's going to refer to that document in the prompt and response. So what is or isn't preserved when you preserve the mailbox in that situation? John: Well, I know we were talking about this before, but there's really, the question is, do you have the version shared feature enabled? Because the Microsoft documentation says if you want referenced files to be preserved as part of your Copilot implementation, you have to enable version shared. But in our testing, we're seeing inconsistent results. So in one of our tenants, we have version shared, and that's exactly what it's doing is if you say, summarize this document or use this document to create a PowerPoint, it is treating it almost like a cloud attachment. And it's it, but that's not, but that's not for preservation purposes. That's at the collection stage. It goes back to the topic that I know you guys, we talk about this a lot is, well, do I have to preserve every SharePoint and OneDrive where something might live that somebody referenced, right? And that's kind of the question there with the reference files. Anthony: Got it. So you're not preserving it necessarily because like a modern attachment, which we've talked about in the past, it's not preserving it. Although if they're looking at a document from their OneDrive and you have the OneDrive on hold, that document should be there. So when you go to collect it, you can. Assuming that there's this setting, you have to have the version shared. So it's actually linking that attachment to this Copilot data. So a lot to digest there, but it's complicated. And again, I think you point out, this is a work in progress you have to test, right? You cannot assume that based on what we're saying, it's actually going to work that way because we've seen the same thing. You have to test and it often changes because this is a work in progress and it's constantly being changed. But that's an interesting point to think through. And again, I think from a preservation standpoint, Therese, is it required to preserve it if you have Copilot data and they're referring to a document? Is it similar to like an e-comms where we say, generally in the e-comms front where we talk about a Team's message, we always said, well, you need it because it's the complete electronic communication. So therefore to get completeness, we generally say you should be producing it in the like Copilot data, do we think it's going to be any different? Therese: Look, I mean, I think it depends is the answer. And if you look out there, even when we're talking about e-discovery, when you look at the cases that are out there talking about links, right, links to attachments or links to something that's in an email or in an e-comm, it's mixed, right? Right. The courts have not necessarily said in every case you have to preserve every single document for every single link. Right. You need to preserve what is relevant, even with production. Courts have said I'm not going to make them go back and find every single link necessarily. But if there's something that is deemed relevant and they need that link, you may have an obligation to go back and find it and make sure that you can find that document. So I don't think it's as clear cut as you must, you know, turn on version shared to make sure that you can, you are, quote, preserving every single referenced file and every single Copilot, you know, document. We certainly don't preserve every single document that's referenced in a memo, right? Or in a document that it refers to. There's a reference to it and maybe you have to go find that. So I think that it's not really clean cut. It's really a matter of looking at your Copilot setup. And making some strategic decisions about how you are going to approach it and what makes the most sense and making sure you're communicating that, right? That the structure and the setup of Copilot is coordinated with legal and the people who need to explain this to courts or to regulators and the like. And that you're educating your outside counsel so that they can make sure that they are representing it correctly when they're representing you in any particular case that says, this is how our Copilot works. These are the steps that we take to preserve. This is why. And this is how we handle that data. And I think really that's the most important thing. We're sort of, this is a new technology. It's, we're still figuring out what the best practices are and how it should be. I think the most important thing is to be thoughtful. Understand how it functions. Understand what steps you're taking and why. So that those can be adequately communicated. I think most of the time when we see these problems popping up, it's because someone hasn't thought about it or hasn't explained it correctly. Right? And that's the most important thing is understanding the technology and then understanding your approach to that technology from a litigation perspective. Anthony: Yeah. And I think one of the challenges, right? And I think this is both a risk and a challenge. And we've heard this from a lot of litigation teams as this Copilot is being launched is it's not always accurate, right? Like it's, and I think you maybe make the argument that it's not relevant because if I'm a user and I'm asking a question, and it comes back, and it's just answering a question, and it's wrong, but you don't know that. I mean, it's Copilot. It's just giving you an answer. Is it really relevant? What makes it relevant? I may be asking the question of Copilot relating to the case. Let's assume that it's relating to the case in some way, underlying matter. You ask a question, you get a response back. Do you really need to preserve that? I've heard from litigators saying, well, if they go to Google, and they do a Google search on that topic, we're not preserving that necessarily. So what do we think that the arguments are that it's relevant or not relevant to a particular matter? Therese: I mean, look, relevance is always relative, right, to the matter. And I think that it's difficult with any technology to say it's never relevant, right? Because relevance is a subject matter and a substantive determination. Just to say a particular technology is not relevant is a really hard, I think, position to take in any litigation, frankly. It's also very difficult to say, well, it's not reliable, so it's not relevant. Because I can tell you, I've seen a lot of emails that are not reliable, and they are nonetheless very relevant, right? The fact that somebody asked a certain type of prompt in certain litigations could be quite relevant in terms of what they were doing and how they were doing it. But I think it's also true that they're not always going to be relevant. And there's a reliability aspect that often comes in, I think, probably less so at the preservation stage and more so at the production stage. Right, in terms of how reliable is it, is this information? Again, this is about understanding the technology. Does your outside counsel know that if you are one, are you going to take the position that we're not going to produce it because it's not reliable, right? And be upfront about that and take that position and see if that's something that you can sustain in that particular case. Can you can explain that they would not be relevant here and it's not going to be reliable in any case, right? Are you going to take that position or not? Or at the very least, if you are going to produce it, that you understand that it is inherently unreliable, right? A computer gave an answer to a question that may or may not be right, and depends on a user reviewing that. You know, if the user used it and sent it out, you can review, that's when it becomes important or valuable. But understanding the value of the data, so you take appropriate positions in litigation, so that if for some reason Copilot artifacts are relevant, you can say, well, sure, that may be on a topic that is relevant to this case. But the substance of that is unreliable and meaningless, right, in this context. So I think, I mean, one of the funny things that I always think is, right, we say email is relevant, but not all email is relevant. We preserve all email because we don't have a way at the preservation stage to make a determination as to which email is relevant and which email is not, right? But I think that's true, right, with Copilot. I mean, at the end of the day, unless you are being upfront that I'm not preserving this, or you can say this type of data, there are cases where email is not relevant, right, at all for the case, unless you could take that position. You preserve that data because you don't know which of those Copilot interactions are on the topic that could matter or could be relevant. But you're thoughtful again down the road about your strategic positioning about whether or not it should be produced or whether or not it has any value in evidentiary value in that litigation given the nature of the data itself. Anthony: And John, you talked a little bit about this. I know you're doing some testing. Everyone's doing some testing now on collecting and reviewing this data, this Copilot data. What can you tell us about? You got prompts and responses. Are they connected in any way? Is there a thread if you're doing a bunch of them? How does it all work based on what you're seeing so far? John: Right. Well, like a lot of Microsoft, when it comes to e-discovery, some of it's going to depend on your licensing. So if you have premium eDiscovery, then for the most part, what we've been seeing in our testing is that when you collect the chats or when you collect the Copilot information, what it's going to do is if you select the threading option and the cloud attachment option, it's going to treat the Copilot back and forth largely like it's a Teams chat. So you'll see a conversation, it'll present as an HTML, it'll show you, it'll actually collect as cloud attachments, the files that are referenced, if you've got that set up. So to a large degree, in terms of determining if things are relevant and that type of thing, you can do keyword searches against them and all of that. So at this point, what we're seeing with our testing is that for the most part, it's treating the back and forth as these chat conversations similar to what you see with Teams. Anthony: And I'm sure there'll be lots of testing and validation around that and disputes as we go forward. But that's good to know. Okay, well, I think that that covers everything. Obviously, a lot more to come on this. And I suspect we'll be learning a lot more about Copilot and retention and discovery over the next six months or so, as it becomes more and more prevalent, and then starts coming up in litigation. So thank you, John and Therese, and hopefully you all enjoyed this and certainly welcome back. We're going to have plenty more of these podcasts on this topic in the future. Thanks. Outro: Tech Law Talks is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. For more information about Reed Smith's Emerging Technologies practice, please email techlawtalks@reedsmith.com. You can find our podcasts on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts. Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to suggest or establish standards of care applicable to particular lawyers in any given situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any views, opinions, or comments made by any external guest speaker are not to be attributed to Reed Smith LLP or its individual lawyers. All rights reserved. Transcript is auto-generated.

Political Gabfest: Biden's Risky Asylum Policy

Trumpcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 15, 2024 58:06

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss President Biden's new asylum policy; the recent European Parliament elections with The Atlantic's Anne Applebaum; and the jammed congestion pricing in New York City. Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Corvid Research: Help, I've found a baby crow! Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Hamed Aleaziz for The New York Times: In Shift, Biden Issues Order Allowing Temporary Border Closure to Migrants and Miriam Jordan: Biden Opens a New Back Door on Immigration Matthew Yglesias for Slow Boring: Biden is doing the right thing on asylum Matt Collette for Vox: Our identity crisis on immigration Alex Nowrasteh for the Cato Institute: The Most Common Arguments Against Immigration and Why They're Wrong Statista: U.S. immigration/migration – statistics & facts Andres Triay, Robert Legare, Nicole Sganga, Pat Milton, and Camilo Montoya-Galvez for CBS News: ICE arrests 8 with suspected ISIS ties BBC: What is the UK's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda? and Nick Beake and Kostas Kallergis: Greece boat disaster: BBC investigation casts doubt on coastguard's claims Anthony Faiola, Imogen Piper, Joyce Sohyun Lee, Klaas van Dijken, Maud Jullien, and May Bulman for The Washington Post: With Europe's support, North African nations push migrants to the desert Anne Applebaum for The Atlantic: Trump Is Not America's Le Pen Sam Jones for The Guardian: EU elections 2024: how did key countries vote and what does it mean? CBS News: NYC Comptroller Brad Lander announces legal challenge to congestion pricing pause Michelle Kaske, Laura Nahmias, and Zach Williams for Bloomberg: New York Governor Shocks Manhattan With Halt to Congestion Pricing Lauren Sforza for The Hill: Murphy says ‘the biggest policy mistake of the past 50 years in New Jersey' was Christie's decision to cancel Gateway tunnel project The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Curt Anderson for WJHG: Florida jury finds Chiquita Brands liable for Colombia deaths, must pay $38.3M to family members John: Well, This Is Me: A Cartoon Collection from the New Yorker's Asher Perlman by Asher Perlman and Taylor Orth for YouGov: In-flight drama: Where Americans sit on airline etiquette David: City Cast Nashville and Hey Nashville; City Cast Austin and Hey Austin; Open: An Autobiography by Andre Agassi; Dartmouth: 2024 Commencement Address by Roger Federer at Dartmouth; Maxi 4 NBA: Michael Jordan I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career.; and Winning Ugly: Mental Warfare in Tennis—Lessons from a Master by Brad Gilbert and Steve Jamison Listener chatter from Jason Anderson in Chicago, Illinois: Neil Steinberg for the Chicago Sun-Times: Sorry, Ken Griffin – Chicagoans will call the Museum of Science and Industry what they please For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, Emily, John, and David talk about Hunter Biden's conviction. See Jonathan Lemire for Politico: Biden's team was waiting for a Hunter verdict. That didn't make it easier when it arrived. and Abby Phillip for CNN: Hear how conservatives reacted to Hunter Biden's conviction. See also Perry Stein for The Washington Post: Gun counts Hunter Biden faces are rarely stand-alone charges and John Miller for CNN: Meanwhile, Trump said during pre-sentencing interview he had a gun in Florida, weeks after his conviction. In the next Gabfest Reads, David talks with Sierra Greer about her new book, Annie Bot: A Novel. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Cheyna Roth Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

new york city donald trump chicago uk master science americans joe biden new jersey bbc atlantic museum colombia new yorker messages gateway rwanda hunter biden 3m risky migrants roger federer dartmouth european parliament klaas north african john miller andre agassi anne applebaum commencement address zach williams jason anderson john dickerson emily bazelon brad gilbert abby phillip slate plus dijken david plotz political gabfest asylum policy john well asher perlman zolan kanno youngs open an autobiography nick beake laura nahmias

Episode 120: Film Historian Daniel Titley on the classic lost film, “London After Midnight.”

The Option Genius Podcast: Options Trading For Income and Growth

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 10, 2024 54:06

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with the writer of a great new book, “London After Midnight: The Lost Film,” a book about the classic lost Lon Chaney film.LINKS A Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Daniel's Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/p/London-After-Midnight-The-Lost-Film-100075993768254/Buy the Book “London After Midnight: The Lost Film”: https://www.amazon.com/London-After-Midnight-Lost-Film/dp/1399939890Eli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcastTRANSCRIPTJohn: So, Daniel, when did you first become aware of London After Midnight? Daniel: I was about seven years old when I first stumbled into Lon Chaney through my love of all things Universal horror, and just that whole plethora of characters and actors that you just knew by name, but hadn't necessarily seen away from the many still photographs of Frankenstein, Dracula, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. And the Phantom was the one to really spark my interest. But this was prior to eBay. I couldn't see the film of Lon Chaney's Phantom of the Opera for a year. So, I kind of had the ultimate build to books and documentaries, just teasing me, teasing me all the time. And when I eventually did watch a few documentaries, the one thing that they all had in common was the name Lon Chaney. I just thought I need to learn more about this character Lon Chaney, because he just found someone of superhuman proportions just who have done all of these crazy diverse characters. And, that's where London After Midnight eventually peeked out at me and, occupied a separate interest as all the Chaney characterizations do.John: So how did you get into the Universal films? Were you watching them on VHS? Were they on tv? Did the DVDs happen by then?Daniel: I was still in the VHS days. My dad is a real big fan of all this as well. So he first saw Bela Lugosi's Dracula, on TV when he was a kid. And prior to me being born he had amassed a huge VHS collection and a lot of those had Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Henry Hull, Claude Rains, Vincent Price, what have you.And a lot of them were dedicated to Universal horrors. And as a young curious kid, my eyes eventually crossed these beautiful cases and I really wanted to watch them. I think my first one I ever watched was The Mummy's Tomb or Curse of the Mummy. And it's just grown ever since, really.John: You're starting at the lesser end of the Universal monsters. It's like someone's starting the Marx Brothers at The Big Store and going, "oh, these are great. I wonder if there's anything better?" Jim: Well, I kinda like the fact that you have come by this fascination, honestly, as my father would say. You sort of inherited the family business, if you will. The book is great. The book is just great. And I'll be honest, I had no, except for recording the novel that John wrote, I really had no frame of reference for London after Midnight.John: Well, Jim, were you a monster guy? Were you a Universal Monster kid?Jim: Oh yeah. I mean, I had all the models. I love all of that, and certainly knew about Lon Chaney as the Phantom of the Opera, as The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I knew he was the man with a thousand faces. I knew he, when he died, he wrote JR. on his makeup kit and gave it to his kid. So, I knew stuff. But London after Midnight I didn't know at all, except for the sort of iconic makeup and that image, which I was familiar with. What was the inspiration for you in terms of writing this book?Daniel: Like you say, I really had no immediate go-to reference for London after Midnight, away from one or two images in a book. Really clearly they were very impactful images of Chaney, skulking around the old haunted mansion with Edna Tichenor by his side with the lantern, the eyes, the teeth, the cloak, the top hat, the webs, everything. Pretty much everything that embodies a good atmospheric horror movie, but obviously we couldn't see it.So that is all its fangs had deepened itself into my bloodstream at that point, just like, why is it lost? Why can't I see it? And again, the term lost film was an alien concept to me at a young age. I've always been a very curious child. Anything that I don't know or understand that much, even things I do understand that well, I always have to try to find out more, 'cause I just can't accept that it's like a bookend process. It begins and then it ends. And that was the thing with London after Midnight. Everything I found in books or in little interviews, they were just all a bit too brief. And I just thought there has to be a deeper history here, as there are with many of the greatest movies of all time. But same with the movies that are more obscure. There is a full history there somewhere because, 'cause a film takes months to a year to complete.It was definitely a good challenge for me. When we first had our first home computer, it was one of those very few early subjects I was typing in like crazy to try to find out everything that I could. And, that all incubated in my little filing cabinet, which I was able to call upon years later.Some things which were redundant, some things which I had the only links to that I had printed off in advance quite, sensibly so, but then there were certain things that just had lots of question marks to me. Like, what year did the film perish? How did it perish? The people who saw the film originally?And unlike a lot of Chaney films, which have been covered in immense detail, London after Midnight, considering it's the most famous of all lost films, still for me, had major holes in it that I just, really wanted to know the answers to. A lot of those answers, eventually, I found, even people who knew and institutions that knew information to key events like famous MGM Fire, they were hard pressed to connect anything up, in regards to the film. It was like a jigsaw puzzle. I had all these amazing facts. However, none of them kind of made sense with each other.My favorite thing is researching and finding the outcomes to these things. So that's originally what spiraled me into the storm of crafting this, initial dissertation that I set myself, which eventually became so large. I had to do it as a book despite, I'd always wanted to do a book as a kid.When you see people that you idolize for some reason, you just want to write a book on them. Despite, there had been several books on Lon Chaney. But I just always knew from my childhood that I always wanted to contribute a printed volume either on Chaney or a particular film, and London after Midnight seemed to present the opportunity to me.I really just didn't want it to be a rehash of everything that we had seen before or read before in other accounts or in the Famous Monsters of Filmland Magazine, but just with a new cover. So, I thought I would only do a book if I could really contribute a fresh new perspective on the subject, which I hope hopefully did.John: Oh, you absolutely did. And this is an exhaustive book and a little exhausting. There's a ton of stuff in here. You mentioned Famous Monster of the Filmland, which is where I first saw that image. There's at least one cover of the magazine that used that image. And Forrest Ackerman had some good photos and would use them whenever he could and also would compare them to Mark the Vampire, the remake, partially because I think Carol Borland was still alive and he could interview her. And he talked about that remake quite a bit. But that iconic image that he put on the cover and whenever he could in the magazine-- Jim and I were talking before you came on, Daniel, about in my mind when you think of Lon Chaney, there's three images that come to mind: Phantom of the Opera, Quasimoto, and this one. And I think this one, the Man in the Beaver hat probably is the most iconic of his makeups, because, 'cause it is, it's somehow it got adopted into the culture as this is what you go to when it's a creepy guy walking around. And that's the one that everyone remembers. Do you have any idea, specifically what his process was for making that look, because it, it is I think ultimately a fairly simple design. It's just really clever.Daniel: Yes, it probably does fall into the category of his more simplistic makeups. But, again, Chaney did a lot of things simplistic-- today --were never seen back then in say, 1927. Particularly in the Phantom of the Opera's case in 1925, in which a lot of that makeup today would be done through CG, in terms of trying to eliminate the nose or to make your lips move to express dialogue. Chaney was very fortunate to have lived in the pantomime era, where he didn't have to rely on how his voice would sound, trying to talk through those dentures, in which case the makeup would probably have to have been more tamed to allow audio recorded dialogue to properly come through.But with regards to the beaver hat makeup, he had thin wires that fitted around his eyes to give it a more hypnotic stare. The teeth, which he had constructed by a personal dentist, eventually had a wire attached to the very top that held the corners of his mouth, opening to a nice curved, fixated, almost joker like grin.You can imagine with the monocles around his eyes, he was thankful there probably wasn't that much wind on a closed set, because he probably couldn't have closed his eyes that many times. But a lot of these things become spoken about and detailed over time with mythic status. That he had to have his eyes operated on to achieve the constant widening of his eyelids. Or the teeth -- he could only wear the teeth for certain periods of time before accidentally biting his tongue or his lips, et cetera. But Chaney certainly wasn't a sadist, with himself, with his makeups. He was very professional. Although he did go through undoubtedly a lot of discomfort, especially probably the most, explicit case would be for the Hunchback of Notre Dame, in which his whole body is crooked down into a stooped position.But, with London After Midnight, I do highly suspect that the inspiration for that makeup in general came from the Dracula novel. And because MGM had not acquired the rights to the Dracula novel, unlike how Universal acquired the rights of the Hunchback or, more importantly, Phantom of the Opera, by which point Gaston Leroux was still alive.It was just a loose adaptation of Dracula. But nevertheless, when you read the description of Dracula in Bram Stoker's novel, he does bear a similarity to Chaney's vampire, in which it's the long hair, a mouth full of sharp teeth, a ghastly pale palor and just dressed all in black and carries around a lantern.Whereas Bela Lugosi takes extraordinary leaps and turns away from the Stoker novel. But it must have definitely had an impact at the time, enough for MGM to over-market the image of Chaney's vampire, which only appears in the film for probably just under four minutes, compared to his detective disguise, which is the real main character of the film.Although the thing we all wanna see is Cheney moving about as the vampire and what facial expressions he pulled. It's just something that we just want to see because it's Lon Chaney.John: Right. And it makes you wonder if he had lived and had gotten to play Dracula, he kind of boxed himself into a corner, then if he'd already used the look from the book, you wonder what he would've come up with, if Lugosi hadn't done it, and if Chaney had had been our first Dracula.Jim: You know, the other thing that I think of strictly like through my actor filter is here's a guy who -- take Hunchback or Phantom or even this thing -- whatever process he went through to put that makeup on, you know, was hours of work, I'm sure. Hunchback several hours of work to get to that, that he did himself, and then they'd film all day.So, on top of, I mean, I just think that that's like, wow, when you think about today where somebody might go into a makeup chair and have two or three people working on them to get the look they want. Even if it took a few hours, that person is just sitting there getting the makeup done. He's doing all of this, and then turns in a full day, uh, in front of the cameras, which to me is like, wow, that's incredible.Daniel: Definitely, it's like two jobs in one. I imagine for an actor it must be really grueling in adapting to a makeup, especially if it's a heavy makeup where it covers the whole of your head or crushes down your nose, changes your lips, the fumes of chemicals going into your eyes.But then by the end of it, I imagine you are quite exhausted from just your head adapting to that. But then you have to go out and act as well. With Chaney, I suppose he could be more of a perfectionist than take as much time as he wanted within reason. And then once he came to the grueling end of it all, he's actually gotta go out and act countless takes. Probably repair a lot of the makeup as well after, after a couple of takes, certainly with things like the Hunchback or the Phantom of the Opera.John: And, you know, it's not only is he doing the makeup and acting, but in, you know, not so much in London After Midnight, but in Phantom of the Opera, he is quite athletic. When the phantom moves, he really moves. He's not stooped. He's got a lot of energy to him and he's got a makeup on that, unlike the Quasimoto makeup, what he's attempting to do with the phantom is, reductive. He's trying to take things away from his face.Daniel: Mm-hmm.John: And he's using all the tricks he knows and lighting to make that happen, but that means he's gotta hit particular marks for the light to hit it just right. And for you to see that his face is as, you know, skull-like as he made it. When you see him, you know, in London After Midnight as the professor inspector character, he has got a normal full man's face. It's a real face. Much like his son, he had a kind of a full face and what he was able to do with a phantom and take all that away, and be as physical as he was, is just phenomenal. I mean, he was a really, besides the makeup, he was a really good actor.Daniel: Oh, definitely. Jim: I agree with that completely. I kind of in what I watched, I wonder if he was the makeup artist, but not the actor and he did exactly the same makeup on somebody else. And so we had the same image. If those things would've resonated with us the way they do today. I think it had everything to do with who he was and his abilities in addition to the incredible makeup. He was just a tremendous performer.Daniel: Absolutely. He was a true multitasker. In his early days of theater, he was not only an actor, but he was a choreographer. He had a lot of jobs behind the scenes as well. Even when he had become a star in his own time, he would still help actors find the character within them. like Norma Sheera, et cetera. People who were kind of new to the movie making scene and the directors didn't really have that much patience with young actors or actresses. Whereas Chaney, because of his clout in the industry, no one really interfered with Chaney's authority on set. But he would really help actors find the character, find the emotion, 'cause it was just all about how well you translate it over for the audience, as opposed to the actor feeling a certain way that convinces themselves that they're the character. Chaney always tried to get the emotions across to the audience. Patsy Ruth Miller, who played Esemerelda in in the Hunchback, said that Chaney directed the film more than the director actually did.The director was actually even suggested by Chaney. So, Chaney really had his hands everywhere in the making of a film. And Patsy Ruth Miller said the thing that she learned from him was that it's the actress's job to make the audience feel how the character's meant to be feeling, and not necessarily the actor to feel what they should be feeling based on the script and the settings and everything.So I think, that's why Chaney in particular stands out, among all of the actors of his time.John: I think he would've transitioned really well into sound. I think, he had everything necessary to make that transition.Jim: There's one sound picture with him in it, isn't there, doesn't he? Doesn't he play a ventriloquist? John: I believe so.Daniel: Yes, it was a remake of The Unholy Three that he had made in 1925 as Echo the ventriloquist, and the gangster. And yes, by the time MGM had decided to pursue talkies -- also, funny enough, they were one of the last studios to transition to, just because they were the most, one, probably the most dominant studio in all of Hollywood, that they didn't feel the pressure to compete with the burgeoning talkie revolution.So they could afford to take their time, they could release a talkie, but then they could release several silent films and the revenue would still be amazing for the studio. Whereas other studios probably had to conform really quick just because they didn't have the star system, that MGM shamelessly flaunted. And several Chaney films had been transitioned to sound at this point with or without Chaney. But for Chaney himself, because he himself was the special effect, it was guaranteed to be a winner even if it had been an original story that isn't as remembered today strictly because people get to hear the thing that's been denied them for all this time, which is Chaney's voice. And he would've transitioned very easily to talkies is because he had a very rich, deep voice, which, coming from theater, he had to have had, in terms of doing dialogue. He wasn't someone like a lot of younger actors who had started out predominantly in feature films who could only pantomime lines. Chaney actually knew how to deliver dialogue, so it did feel natural and it didn't feel read off the page.And he does about five voices in The Unholy Three. So MGM was truly trying to market, his voice for everything that they could. As Mrs. O'Grady, his natural voice, he imitates a parrot and a girl. And yeah, he really would've flourished in the sound era. Jim: Yeah. John: Any surprises, as it sounds like you were researching this for virtually your whole life, but were there any surprises that you came across, as you really dug in about the film?Daniel: With regards to London after Midnight, the main surprise was undoubtedly the -- probably the star chapter of the whole thing -- which is the nitrate frames from an actual destroyed print of the film itself, which sounds crazy to even being able to say it. But, yeah the nitrate frames themselves presented a quandary of questions that just sent me into a whole nother research mode trying to find out where these impossible images came from, who they belonged to, why they even existed, why they specifically existed.Because, looking for something that, you know, you are told doesn't exist. And then to find it, you kind of think someone is watching over you, planting this stuff as though it's the ultimate tease. To find a foreign movie poster for London After Midnight would be one thing, but to find actual pieces of the lost film itself. It was certainly the most out of body experience I've ever had. Just to find something that I set out to find, but then you find it and you still can't believe that you've actually found it.John: How did you find it?Daniel: I had connections with a few foreign archives who would befriend me and took to my enthusiasm with the silent era, and specifically Chaney and all the stars connected to Chaney films.And, quite early on I was told that there were a few photo albums that had various snippets of silent films from Chaney. They didn't really go into what titles these were, 'cause they were just all a jumble. All I knew is that they came from (garbled) widow. And he had acquired prints of the whole films from various, I suppose, junk stores in Spain.But not being a projectionist, he just purely took them at the face value that he just taken the images and snipping them up and putting them in photo albums, like how you would just do with photographs. And then the rest of the material was sadly discarded by fire. So, all we were left with were these snipped relics, survivors almost to several Chaney lost films. Some of them not lost, but there were films like The Phantom of the Opera in there, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, Mockery, The Unknown. But then there were several lost films such as London After Midnight, the Big City, Thunder. And All the Brothers were Valiant, which are mainly other than Thunder are all totally complete lost films.So, to find this little treasure trove, it was just finding out what the images meant and connecting them up, trying to put them in some sort of chronological scholarly order. Grueling, but it was very fun at the same time. And because I had identified myself with all of these surviving production stills from the film -- a lot of them, which formed the basis of the 2002 reconstruction by Turner Classic Movies -- it didn't take me too long to identify what scenes these surviving nitrate frames were from. But there were several frames which had sets that I recognized and costumes that I recognized, but in the photographic stills, they don't occupy the same space at the same time. So, it's like the two separate elements had crossed over. So that left me with a scholarly, question of what I was looking at. I was able to go back and, sort of rectify certain wrongs that have been accepted throughout the sixties as being the original, say, opening to London after Midnight. So I've, been able to disprove a few things that have made the film, I suppose, a bit more puzzling to audiences. Some audiences didn't really get what the plot was to begin with. So, it was nice to actually put a bit more order to the madness finally.John: At what point did you come across the original treatment and the script?Daniel: The treatment and the script, they came from a private collector who had bought them at auction a number of years ago who I was able to thankfully contact, and they still had the two documents in question. I had learned through Philip J Riley's previous books on London after Midnight that he had the two latter drafts of the script, the second edition and the third draft edition.And, again, the question of why and where. I just always wondered where that first draft of the script was, hoping it would contain new scenes, and open new questions for me and to study. And once I've managed to find those two documents, they did present a lot of new, perspectives and material that added to the fuller plot of the original hypnotist scenario, as opposed to the shortened, time efficient London After Midnight film that was ultimately delivered to audiences. So again, it helped to put a little bit more order to the madness.Jim: You found an actual piece of the film that you were able to, somebody got images from it? And then you found the scripts? But the images are terrific and they're all in your book. They came from what exactly?Daniel: The just below 20 images of the film came from originally a distribution print, a Spanish distribution print, from about 1928. Originally, they were on 35 millimeter indicating that they were from the studio and as is with a lot of silent films that have been found in foreign archives.Normally when a film is done with its distribution, it would have to be returned to the original studio to be destroyed, except for the original negative and a studio print, because there is no reason why a studio would need to keep the thousands of prints when they have the pristine copy in their vault. But, in a lot of smaller theater cases, in order to save money on the postage of the shipping, they would just basically declare that they had destroyed the film on the studio's behalf. There was no record system with this stuff and that's how a lot of these films ended up in the basements of old theaters, which are eventually when they closed, the assets were sold off to collectors or traveling showmen. And eventually these films found their ways into archives or again, private collections. Some of which people know what they have.A lot of times they don't know what they have because they're more obsessed with, naturally, more dedicated to preserving the films of their own culture that was shown at the time, as opposed to a foreign American title, which they probably assume they already have a copy of. But it's how a lot of these films get found.And, with the London After Midnight, example, there were the images that I found spanned the entire seven reels, because they came from different points in the film. It wasn't a single strip of film, of a particular scene. Having thankfully the main source that we have for London After Midnight is the cutting continuity, which is the actual film edited down shot for shot, length for length.And it describes, briefly, although descriptive enough, what is actually in each and every single shot of the film. And comparing the single frame images from the film with this document, I was able to identify at what point these frames came from during the film, which again spanned the entire seven reels, indicating that a complete seven reel version of the film had gotten out under the studio system at one point.As is the case, I'm assuming, 'cause these came from the same collection, I'm assuming it was the same with the other lost Chaney films that again, sadly only survive in snippet form.John: It's like somebody was a collector and his wife said, "well, we don't have room for all this. Just take the frames you like and we'll get rid of the rest of it." So, you mentioned in passing the 2002 reconstruction that Turner Classic Movies did using the existing stills. I don't know if they were working from any of the scripts or not. That was the version I originally saw when I was working on writing, those portions of The Misers Dream that mentioned London After Midnight. Based on what you know now, how close is that reconstruction and where do you think they got it right and where'd they get it wrong?Daniel: The 2002, reconstruction, while a very commendable production, it does stray from the original edited film script. Again, the problem that they clearly faced on that production is that there were not enough photographed scenes to convey all the photographed scenes from the film. So what they eventually fell into the trap of doing was having to reuse the same photograph to sometimes convey two separate scenes, sometimes flipping the image to appear on the opposite side of the camera. And, because of the certain lack of stills in certain scenes cases, they had to rewrite them.And sometimes a visual scene had to have been replaced with an inter-title card, merely describing what had happened or describing a certain period in time, as opposed to showing a photograph of what we're meant to be seeing as opposed to just reading. So, they did the best with what they had.But since then, there have been several more images crop up in private collections or in the archives. So, unless a version of the film gets found, it's certainly an endeavor that could be revisited, I think, and either do a new visual reconstruction of sort, or attempt some sort remake of the film even.Jim: That's an idea. John: They certainly have the materials to do that. I've got an odd question. There's one famous image, a still image from the film, showing Chaney as Professor Burke, and he is reaching out to the man in the beaver hat whose back is to us. Is that a promo photo? Spoiler alert, Burke is playing the vampire in the movie. He admits that that's him. So, he never would've met the character. What is the story behind that photo?Daniel: There are actually three photographs depicting that, those characters that you described. There are the two photographs which show Chaney in the Balfor mansion seemingly directing a cloaked, top hatted figure with long hair, with its back towards us. And then there is another photograph of Chaney in the man in the beaver hat disguise with a seemingly twin right beside him outside of a door.Basically the scenes in the film in which Chaney appear to the Hamlin residents, the people who are being preyed upon by the alleged vampires, the scenes where Chaney and the vampire need to coexist in the same space or either appear to be in the same vicinity to affect other characters while at the same time interrogating others, Chaney's character of Burke employs a series of assistants to either dress up as vampires or at certain times dress up as his version of the vampire to parade around and pretend that they are the man in the beaver hat. Those particular shots, though, the vampire was always, photographed from behind rather than the front.The very famous scene, which was the scene that got first got me interested in London After Midnight, in which the maidm played by Polly Moran is in the chair shrieking at Chaney's winged self, hovering over her. It was unfortunate to me to realize that that was actually a flashback scene told from the maid's perspective.And by the end of the film, the maid is revealed to be an informant of Burke, a secret detective also. So, it's really a strong suspension of disbelief has to be employed because the whole scene of Chaney chasing the maid through the house and appearing under the door, that was clearly just the MGMs marketing at work just to show Chaney off in a bizarre makeup with a fantastic costume.Whereas he is predominantly the detective and the scenes where he's not needed to hypnotize a character in the full vampire makeup, he just employs an assistant who parades around in the house as him, all the times with his back turned so that the audience can't latch on as to who the character actually is, 'cause it must have posed quite a fun confusion that how can Chaney be a detective in this room where the maid has just ran from the Vampire, which is also Chaney?John: Yeah, and it doesn't help that the plot is fairly convoluted anyway, and then you add that layer. So, do you think we'll ever see a copy of it? Do you think it's in a basement somewhere?Daniel: I've always personally believed that the film does exist. Not personally out of just an unfounded fanboy wish, but just based on the evidence and examples of other films that have been found throughout time. Metropolis being probably the most prominent case. But, at one point there was nothing on London After Midnight and now there is just short of 20 frames for the film. So, if that can exist currently now in the year 2023, what makes us think that more footage can't be found by, say, 2030? I think with fans, there's such a high expectation that if it's not found in their own lifetime or in their own convenience space of time, it must not exist. There's still a lot of silent lost treasures that just have not been found at all that do exist though. So, with London After Midnight, from a purely realistic standpoint, I've always theorized myself that the film probably does exist in an archive somewhere, but it would probably be a very abridged, foreign condensed version, as opposed to a pristine 35-millimeter print that someone had ripped to safety stock because they knew in the future the film would become the most coveted of all lost films. So, I do believe it does exist. The whole theory of it existing in a private collection and someone's waiting to claim the newfound copyright on it, I think after December of last year, I think it's finally put that theory to rest. I don't think a collector consciously knows they have a copy of it. So, I think it's lost until found personally, but probably within an archive.Jim: Lost until found. That's a great title for a book. I like that a lot. What do you think of the remake, Mark of the Vampire and in your opinion, what does it tell us about, London After Midnight?Daniel: Well, Mark of the Vampire came about again, part of the Sound Revolution. It was one of those because it was Chaney and Todd Browning's most successful film for the studio. And Browning was currently, being held on a tight leash by MGM because of his shocking disaster film Freaks, I suppose they were a little bit nervous about giving him the reign to do what he wanted again. So, looking through their backlog of smash silent hits, London After Midnight seemed the most logical choice to remake, just simply because it was their most, successful collaboration. Had it have been The Unholy Three, I'm sure? Oh no, we already had The Unholy Three, but had it have been another Browning Chaney collaboration, it might have been The Unknown, otherwise. So, I suppose that's why London After Midnight was selected and eventually turned into Mark of the Vampire. The story does not stray too much from London After Midnight, although they seem to complicate it a little bit more by taking the Burke vampire character and turning it this time into three characters played by three different actors, all of which happened to be in cahoots with one another in trying to solve an old murder mystery.It's very atmospherical. You can definitely tell it's got Todd Browning signature on it. It's more pondering with this one why they just did not opt to make a legit, supernatural film, rather than go in the pseudo vampire arena that they pursued in 1927. Where audiences had by now become accustomed to the supernatural with Dracula and Frankenstein in 1931, which no longer relied on a detective trying to find out a certain mystery and has to disguise themselves as a monster.The monster was actually now a real thing in the movies. So I think if Bela Lugosi had been given the chance to have played a real Count Mora as a real vampire, I think it would've been slightly better received as opposed to a dated approach that was clearly now not the fashionable thing to do.I suppose again, because Browning was treading a very thin line with MGM, I suppose he couldn't really stray too far from the original source material. But I find it a very atmospherical film, although I think the story works better as a silent film than it does as a sound film, because there's a lot of silent scenes in that film, away from owls, hooting and armadillos scurrying about and winds. But I do think, based on things like The Cat and The Canary from 1927 and The Last Warning, I just think that detective sleuth with horror overtones serves better to the silent world than it does the sound world away from the legit, supernatural.John: So, if Chaney hadn't died, do you think he would have played Dracula? Do you think he would've been in Freaks? Would Freaks have been more normalized because it had a big name in it like that?Daniel: It would've been interesting if Chaney had played in Freaks. I think because Todd Browning used the kinds of individuals that he used for Freaks, maybe Chaney would've, for a change, had been the most outta place.John: Mm-hmm.Daniel: I do think he might have played Dracula. I think Universal would've had a hell of a time trying to get him over because he had just signed a new contract with MGM, whereas Todd Browning had transferred over to Universal by 1930 and really wanted to make Dracula for many years and probably discussed it with Chaney as far back as 1920.But certainly MGM would not have permitted Chaney to have gone over to Universal, even for a temporary period, without probably demanding a large piece of the action, in a financial sense, because Universal had acquired the rights to Dracula at this point. And, based on the stage play that had, come out on Broadway, it was probably assured that it was going to be a giant moneymaker, based on the success of the Dracula play.But because of Cheney's, status as a, I suppose retrospectively now, as a horror actor, he was probably the first person to be considered for that role by Carl Laemmle, senior and Junior for that matter. And Chaney gone by 1930, it did pose a puzzle as to who could take over these kinds of roles.Chaney was probably the only one to really successfully do it and make the monster an actual box office ingredient more than any other actor at that time, as he did with. Phantom, Blind Bargain and London After Midnight. So, I think to have pursued Chaney for a legit, supernatural film would've had enormous possibilities for Browning and Chaney himself.You can kind of see a trend, a trilogy forming, with Browning, from London After Midnight, in which he incorporates things he used in Dracula in London After Midnight. So, he kind of had this imagery quite early on. So, to go from – despite it's not in that order -- but to have London After Midnight, Mark of the Vampire, and he also did Dracula, he clearly was obsessed with the story. And I think Chaney was probably the, best actor for someone like Browning who complimented his way of thinking and approach to things like silence. As opposed to needing dialogue all the time, loud commotions. So, I think they dovetailed each other quite well, and that's why their ten year director actor relationship was as groundbreaking as it was.Jim: If the film does surface, if we find the film, what do you think people, how are they gonna react to the movie when they see it? What do you think? What's gonna be the reaction if it does surface?Daniel: Well, the lure of London After Midnight, the power in the film is its lost status rather than its widespread availability. I think it could never live up to the expectation that we've built up in our heads over the past 40 to 60 years. It was truly people, fans like Forrest J Ackerman that introduced and reignited the interest in Chaney's career by the late fifties and 1960s. That's when London After Midnight started to make the rounds in rumor, the rumors of a potential print existing, despite the film had not long been destroyed at that point. So, it was always a big mystery. There were always people who wanted to see the film, but with no access to home video, or et cetera, the only way you could probably see the film would've been at the studio who held everything. And, by the time the TV was coming out, a lot of silent films didn't make it to TV. So again, it has just germinated in people's heads probably in a better form than what they actually remembered. But, the true reality of London After Midnight is one more closer to the ground than it is in it's people are probably expecting to see something very supernatural on par with Dracula, whereas it's more so a Sherlock Holmes story with mild horrorish overtones to it that you can kind of see better examples of later on in Dracula in 1930 and in Mark of the Vampire.It's a film purely, I think for Lon Chaney fans. For myself, having read everything I can on the film, everything I've seen on the film, I personally love silent, detective stories, all with a touch of horror. So, I personally would know what I am going in to see. I'm not going in to see Chaney battling a Van Helsing like figure and turn to dust at the very end or turning to a bat. I'm going to see a detective melodrama that happens to have what looks like a vampire. So, it certainly couldn't live up to the expectations in people's minds and it's probably the only film to have had the greatest cheapest, marketing in history, I would think. It's one of those films, if it was discovered, you really would not have to do much marketing to promote it.It's one of those that in every fanzine, magazine, documentary referenced in pop. It has really marketed itself into becoming what I always call the mascot of the genre. There are other more important lost films that have been lost to us. The main one again, which has been found in its more complete form, was Metropolis, which is a better movie.But unlike Metropolis, London After Midnight has a lot more famous ingredients to it. It has a very famous director. It has a very famous actor whose process was legendary even during then. And it's actually the only film in which he actually has his make-up case make a cameo appearance by the very end. And it goes on the thing that everyone in every culture loves, which is the vampirism, the dark tales and folklore. So, when you say it, it just gets your imagination going. Whereas I think if you are watching it, it's probably you'll be looking over the projector to see if something even better is going to happen.The film had its mixed reactions when it originally came out. People liked it because it gave them that cheap thrill of being a very atmospherical, haunted house with the creepy figures of Chaney walking across those dusty hallways. But then the more important story is a murder mystery.It's not Dracula, but it has its own things going for it. I always kind of harken it back to the search for the Lochness Monster or Bigfoot. It has more power in your mind than it does in an aquarium or in a zoo. Hearing someone say that they think they saw something moving around in Lochness, but there's no photographic evidence, you just have the oral story, that is much more tangible in a way than actually seeing it in an aquarium where you can take it for granted. And it's the same with London After Midnight, and I think that's why a lot of hoaxster and pranksters tend to say that they have seen London After Midnight more than any other lost film.Jim: For a film that I would say the majority of the world does not have any frame of reference, and I'm using myself as the sort of blueprint for that, no frame of reference for this film. That image is iconic in a way that has been, I mean, it at first glance could be Jack the Ripper. I was talking to John before we started the podcast, once I locked in on that image, then I started to think, oh, the ghosts in Disney's Haunted Mansion, there's a couple of ghosts that have elements of that. I mean, it was so perfectly done, even though we don't, I bet you nine out ten people don't know the title London After Midnight, but I bet you seven outta ten people know this image.Daniel: Definitely, it has certainly made its mark on pop culture, again, I think because I think it's such a beautiful, simplistic design. Everything from the simplistically [garbled] to the bulging eyes and the very nice top hat as well, which is in itself today considered a very odd accessory for a grotesque, vampire character.But it's one of those things that has really carried over. It's influenced what the movies and artists. It was one of the influences for the Babadook creation for that particular monster. It was an influence on the Black Phone. It's just a perfect frame of reference for movie makers and sculptors and artists to keep taking from.John: Yep. It's, it'll live long beyond us. Daniel, one last question. I read somewhere or heard somewhere. You're next gonna tackle James Whale, is that correct? Daniel: James Whale is a subject, again, coming from, I happen to come from the exact same town that he was born and raised in, in Dudley, England. So, it's always been a subject close to home for me, which is quite convenient because I love his movies. So, I'm hoping to eventually, hopefully plan a documentary feature on him, based on a lot of family material in the surrounding areas that I was able to hunt down, and forgotten histories about him and just put it together in some form, hopefully in the future.John: That would be fantastic, and we'll have you back at that point.Jim: So, let's pretend for a minute that the audience is me, and they'd have absolutely no idea who James Whale is or what he's done. Just for a minute, let's pretend.John: Pretend that you don't know that?Jim: Yeah.Daniel: James Whale is the most known for his work for directing Frankenstein with Boris Karloff in 1931. But he also directed probably some of the most important horror films that have ever existed in the history of motion pictures. The Old Dark House, which can be cited with its very atmospherical, and black comedy tones, The Invisible Man with Claude Rains and Gloria Stewart in 1933. And, the most important one, which is probably the grand jewel in the whole of the Universal Monsters Empire, which is Bride of Frankenstein in 1935, which is the ultimate, example of everything that he had studied, everything that he'd learned with regards to cinema and comedy, life and death, and just making a very delicious cocktail of a movie in all of its black comedy, horrific, forms that we're still asking questions about today. One of his first films that he did was for Howard Hughes Hell's Angels, in which -- because he'd coming over from theater -- when again, films in America were taken off with the sound revolution. They all of a sudden needed British directors to translate English dialogue better than the actors could convey.So, James Whale was one of many to be taken over to America when he had a hit play called Journeys End, which became the most successful war play at that point. And he did his own film adaptation of Journeys End. He also did a really remarkable film called Showboat, which is another very iconic film.And again, someone with James Whale's horror credentials, you just think, how could someone who directed Frankenstein directed Showboat? But, clearly a very, very talented director who clearly could not be pigeonholed at the time as a strictly horror director, despite it is the horror films in which he is remembered for, understandably so, just because they contain his very individualistic wit and humor and his outlooks on life and politics. And being an openly gay director at the time, he really was a force unto himself. He was a very modern man even then.

america tv american english hollywood disney man lost england spoilers film british brothers spanish spain angels broadway curse vampires hearing universal cat thunder notre dame unknown dvd midnight ebay opera bigfoot frankenstein dracula echo phantom vhs historians tomb mummy sherlock holmes burke hyde freaks mgm ripper invisible man beaver bram stoker jekyll hamlin metropolis haunted mansions dudley loch ness loch ness monster browning cg big city canary cheney vincent price valiant babadook van helsing chaney universal monsters hunchback stoker bela lugosi boris karloff mockery marx brothers james whale turner classic movies showboat lon chaney claude rains lugosi grueling old dark house gaston leroux famous monsters filmland john you john it london after midnight titley john yeah quasimoto jimoh john how john well john so forrest j ackerman john oh john right todd browning as mrs john they daniel it henry hull daniel oh jim well daniel well gloria stewart jim you john yep jim there daniel there balfor daniel mm

Part 2 - The Dollar Game: How Currencies Drive Global Power with John S. Pennington Jr - 183

Play Episode Listen Later May 22, 2024 39:15

This is part 2 of my interview with John S Pennington Jr. Make sure to listen to Part 1 first. Allen It seems like I mean, because all the stuff you're mentioning, you know, Ray Dalio in his books, he talks about it too, you know, like, how does one Empire take over from another one? And it's because of the the currency, it's because of you know, and he's been talking about it for a while that there's a collision course coming. And everybody's afraid of it. You know, I mean, I'm even afraid of it. Because if we go to war in 10 years from now, you know, I have two boys that are 13 and 11, they're probably going to be drafted because everybody in the United States is overweight, and they can't fight it. So there's got to be some, right? There's gonna be some serious problem with the Army not having enough people. So my kids are gonna be fighting in a war. I don't want them fighting in and like, everybody's freaking out about it. And like you said, you know, China, they brokered the deal. They're making friends in the Middle East. They're making friends in Africa. They're giving loans like you said, US gave loans to everybody. They gave loans in trillions of dollars, not even billions, but I think it was trillions of worth of loans to build infrastructure in Africa that is then maintained owned and run by Chinese. It's not run by the Africans, the Chinese are in charge of it, the Silk Road Project that they built those highways all the way from China all the way to the, you know, the Mediterranean. I mean, yeah, they've been doing it crazy. And so it seems like everything that you're saying it lines up. And it's like, now that we see John last year in the last year and a half, while the last few months, India has stopped on some level, not all the way stopped buying Russian oil. They just read some reports this last month that they have, they have curbed their Russian oil purchases. Really. Okay. Now, I don't know exactly why. But I do know, there's tons of companies that have moved from China, to South Korea, Thailand, and India. And I believe India is now choosing Wait a minute, we want to be in good graces with the United States because that's where we're going to suck up all those jobs on China. They're going to come to India. Right. And I think India's Modi, President Modi over there is making a strategic move to go with you know, the US dollar and to do that he's got to appease the the United States by saying you know what, Russia, we even though your oil is cheaper, doesn't matter. We're gonna go with US dollar purchases for oil. That Allen could be because China is also having territorial disputes now with India over certain areas. It's funny because we have a an oil Options program where we train, we do coaching on oil options, and we you could see it in the news play out when Russia was putting all their tanks on the border of Ukraine, you know, everybody knew it, they're coming in, they're going to invade and everybody was like, when is it gonna happen? When is it gonna happen? I told her, I'll tell all my traders it's like, you know, just wait. It's not going to happen until the Olympics are open. Olympics are over because the Olympics are in China is like they have the closing ceremonies, like four hours later, boom, there's an invasion. It's like, okay, now we can play it now. It's, you know, it's, yeah, he was insane. So now you said, now I'm trying to figure out like, okay, alright, how can I make money off of this? Right. So it's like you said that Russia and China are still buying gold. So is that? Is that an investment that's going to continue to ramp up because I think gold is at all time highs right now? John Yeah, it's all time high. Silver is kind of trying to get up there. But Silver's having a tough time. So let's go to Okay, let's go to the summer of 2020. All right, summer 2020. The SEC, which is part of the team, you have the team, you know, US dollar, the SEC sues JP Morgan. What are they suing him for? They're suing him for manipulating the precious metals market for nine years. Silver gold, okay. And they lose, JPMorgan loses and they're fined almost a billion dollars a billion dollar fine for nine years and mutilation the SEC. Okay. The point is, JP Morgan figured out how to manipulate and control a market that's 30 times bigger than Bitcoin. Gold and silver and gold for nine years. And they finally SEC found out about it pseudonym wins, finds you billion dollars, but guess what, no one that I know of went to jail. Allen I mean, it wasn't that big in the news, they get headlines, John kind of kept quiet, right. So millions of people that buy and sell silver and gold were fleeced out of how know how many much money but no one goes to jail. But you just find they probably made 20 billion but they're only find a billion it was it was 930 million, but I rounded a billion because we talked about a billion seconds earlier. Right? Okay, so nine 30 million, but close to a billion dollars. All right. So my theory in my book that I explain is you have precious metals market that have been manipulated through using futures and all kinds of different manipulations. And a year from there, now you're in summer of 2021. Bitcoin is trading around $31,000. This is July. Okay. So August, September, October, November, four months later, Bitcoin hits all time high $69,000. My theory is that the Federal Reserve, US government viewed Bitcoin as a competitor possible to the US dollar. And so they took the playbook that they learned from JP Morgan, and I think they had JP Morgan personnel help them do it right. Clandestine to control try to control Bitcoin. And that's why it went from 31,000 to 16,000 in a four, three and a half month period of time. So November it hits $69,000. And so how are the way that you control Bitcoin? Well, one JP Morgan used a futures market. Okay, now what I'm about to tell you all these things that I'm gonna tell you happen in November 2021. Okay, one bitcoin hits all time high. Number two, the SEC approves a Bitcoin ETF not I first bought only four futures right and they denied grayscale the spot one Why would you approve one for futures and not one for spot doesn't make any sense. So that happened November also, also November and Allen hold that for people who are listening to spot means the current price futures means prices in advance. So the actual the actual Bitcoin John not a Hypothecation the actual non derivative, the actual Bitcoin, right? So the SEC says no you can't you can't operate, we're not gonna allow you to operate a ETF that actually buys Bitcoin, we're only going to allow this other company, an ETF that actually buys futures on contracts, right just contracts, which is the what the way JP Morgan was one of the ways they were able to manipulate the silver and gold market for nine years. Okay, that's the third thing that happened in November, the SEC extends their lawsuit against a ripple XRP coin. Why XRP from the nanosecond XRP was invented. Its one goal was what to do to circumvent the SWIFT system, which would decrease the demand for US dollars. So the SEC extends the EC the lawsuit for no apparent reason. And they just kind of lost it. They lost the SEC last last summer, and then they appealed. So they're this lawsuit still going on against XRP? Okay, a former thing that happened in this month, in November, Hillary Clinton came out and said, Bitcoin could damage the US dollars, reserve world currency. Now, again, back to probabilities and predictions, you can say she just went to a microphone and just talking. That's you can believe that, or what's the is that a probability high probability? Or is the probability that she had been privy to previous meetings months earlier, that the Federal Reserve was going to try to pinch Bitcoin control, they don't want to kill it, they just want to control it. And so she got in front of microphone, which she loves to do to tell all her memes. Hey, listen to me, I always know the truth. I always give you the truth. Guess what the Bitcoin could take over the US currency, which is our number one product and why so he's she's sending a coded message, maybe? Maybe not. But the probability, I think the probability is high that she had some information that the government was using a clandestine approach to try to control Bitcoin, Allen because she was a congresswoman and she was sitting on committees and all that, yes, yes. John One other way you can control a traded commodity or traded stock or whatever or bitcoin is if you can get 45 to 60 days of trading volume, meaning if if bitcoin trades 100 coins a day, you would need 4500 coins. If it trades 1000 coins a day, you would need 45,000 coins are 60,000 coins. This is what how you do it. So let's just say hypothetically, that from July 2021 to November 2021, the Federal Reserve had to obtain 45 days of trading bonds 66 days trading bond that means they have to buy bitcoin. They're buying Bitcoin buying Bitcoin buying Bitcoin buying Bitcoin buying Bitcoin, that means the price is going up, up, up, up up. Once they have 45 or six days of trading volume, they take their 45 Day Trading bond, and they stick it at six $9,000. And they put it there for sale, all this at a limit price 60,000 or so we start buying you buy I buy we're buying. And then we keep hitting 69 69,006 96 Night Out signal, there's a ceiling, there's a price ceiling, the ceiling, and we can see it and we go Wait, there's a big seller at 16,000 or so mean, you start selling. So we start selling everyone starts selling and it goes down to 68,000. Guess who's buying at 60,000 The Federal Reserve, they're replenishing their 60 day supply or 45 day supply of trading volume. So that mean you go Wait, there's a buyer at 68,000 and we start buying again. And it goes to 68,000. They don't let it go to 69 because that would be a bullish chart, right? They can have a they can have a higher high. They can have a lower high and they put their 45 day trading volume boom right there as 68,800 and they start selling and same thing happens. We sell and it goes down. That's one way you can control a market right now. So lately as we know, Bitcoin has hit a new all time high. Yeah. And so maybe maybe what happened was, this is there's another hypothesis. Maybe they realized they alone couldn't do it. Okay. So last summer, the SEC basically told 11 companies Listen, we're going to approve 11 companies all at the same time to try A Bitcoin spot and ETF spot so they approved 11 ETFs to trade Bitcoin spot. Now, what I think happened in October, Bitcoin was trading 31,000 27,000 31,000 31,000 27,000 27,000 If Gessner of the head of the SEC told them Hey, guess what we're going to do? In a few months we're going to let you guys start trading Bitcoin what you guys should do is buy a Bitcoin to control the market. So Bitcoin went from 27,000 to sweat 72,000 Something like that. Right? Yeah, today, but I'm saying I'm saying on January I think was January 11. Okay, all the Bitcoin went up 11 Bitcoin went alive, right? Okay. Now think about what just happened on January 11. There are record number of buying a Bitcoin record number. And in 11, or 12 days, it goes from, from where it's at down to $39,000. Why there's a record number of buyers, it should go up. But wait, if all the ETFs bought at 31,000, knee ETFs, bought at 32,000 35,000 42,000 If they were buying it, so that when the ETFs went live, they could sell it to you. That's why the price went down. There's no other there's no other explanation. Because if they had bought zero, when a record numbers came in to buy bitcoin, they would have to take your US dollars and go buy Bitcoin that would go up, the way it goes down. It went down like 18% in 11 days with record inflows, that means that I believe BlackRock and all the other 1011 ETFs are in on the game of manipulation of Bitcoin, right? And so this is back to my theory that no matter what it is, if it's the yuan, or if it's gold, if it's Bitcoin, and it and it has the potential of damaging the number one product of all time, the Federal Reserve, the US Navy, the president, the SEC, the IRS, even the CIA, that's their number one job. Now, a lot of times Congress forgets their number one job. Allen I was gonna ask you about that, too. I was like Congress get the memo. Because yeah, John they don't get it. But but but people criticize. Powell had the federal they criticized him all the time. I don't. I think he's doing a great job. Listen, if we went back in time, okay, we'll go back in time, Alan, we're going back to 30 years, okay. 30 years ago, I said, you're going to be the head of the Federal Reserve. Okay. And I'm going to be Congress, right? Your job is to protect and promote the US dollar. And all I do that Congress, I spend trillion, I spend a trillion, I spend a trillion, I spend a trillion, I spend a trillion. And I say to you, hey, figure out how to pay for it. Right? So you can criticize Powell all you want. But man, he's still we still are 58% of the world reserve currency. And the Congress doesn't stop spending. It's like a couple. You have a couple one spouse spends tons of money on credit cards, and they turn the other spouse pay for it. Right. And Powell must be just for it. If I was I'd be screwed top my lungs, would you guys stop spending? All you got to stop because I'm doing my best to keep this number one product afloat around the world. I'm doing my best. Right. And so I don't criticize Powell. I've actually under the circumstances, I think he's doing a fantastic job, even though people call him stupid. People don't like what he says. But I don't listen to what he says. I just listen when he does. And I and I realize he has a partner called the US Congress. Who is there just out of control spending? Yep. And he's done it. He's doing a great job by keeping our agreements accepted around the world. Yeah, Allen I agree with you. I mean, you know, after COVID, and all that money that was spent on everything, you know, to maintain it to not even go into recession to have Yeah, inflation was a it could have been a lot worse than who it was. Without all that spending all that money that's just unaccounted for. So John I think right now, the Congress is spending about $1 trillion every four or five months, six months. That's, that's, that's what's going on right now. That's just amazing. So back to your question. As you can tell, I have long answers. Gold, silver, Bitcoin real estate, okay. If you keep spending a trillion dollars every six months, additionally, items are going to go up in price. Gold, silver, Bitcoin, eventually, it's just going to bubble up you. It's kind of you almost can't stop it. Right. wheat, wheat soybeans, I mean, real estate farmland, if you just give a trillion dollars every six months, and how long can the us do this? I bet they can. You know, look, look the US Dollar might be the greatest Ponzi scheme ever invented a headline, it might it might be, but this is the thing. There is no mathematical way to taper a large Ponzi scheme, it can't be done. So therefore, the only way to play it all out is to play it all the way through. Okay, just to play it out, right? Let's don't get mad at me. I didn't create this. I was born into this system. Right? I am pro US dollar. Why? Because I'm in the Ponzi scheme, because all of our money is in US dollars. I don't want to wake up tomorrow morning and have the US dollar at zero because I will be broke. My parents will be living in my basement. My kids who live in my basement way my my house would be for sale because I'd be broke because everything I have almost is in US dollars. Right? Bait US dollar based, right? I have some bitcoin I have some gold. I have some real estate, right. But it's US dollar base. You too. We're we're in the Ponzi scheme. Okay. So therefore I think with the US think about the US Navy, think about the powers think about everything they could they could for what proliferate this for another 20 3050 years. They are very powerful. The Federal Reserve is the most powerful entity, along with the US Navy, along with the IRS along with the SEC along with the President. They are incredible team. And look, look, you know, China, only having 2.7% 2.7% of the world reserve currency, and we have 58% and the Euros 20%. And they got it they got a big mountain to climb, right, and they can climb it, but it's gonna take a long time. But the problem is this. Again, China is now printing more money than we're printing. Because they're in a they're in a 1929 depression right now. It's bad over there. Unemployment is youth unemployment, ages 18 to 30. is so bad China stopped reporting it. That's how bad it is. They don't report it anymore. Yeah, the estimates they have, if you are a college aged kid in China, college, graduated kid in China, and you're in a big city. This is 18 to 30 years old, okay? You graduate in college, and you have a job. Your average salary is $700 to $950 a month. Wow. That's the average salary right now in a big city. In China. They're in a 1929 depression. So they're not going to fix this in one to six months. It's going to be years to fix this in China. And the US is, I believe, putting pencils on them trying to even control them because they're sending a message to Saudi Arabia. Anyway, so this is people go man, John, you really got a lot of information, like you just said, you have all this information. And you put together like a puzzle, right? And it's conspiracy theory. And I go, it might be I might be totally wrong. But it just keeps fitting together. The more I put more puzzle pieces together, they keep fitting. Yeah. So Allen I have another question. And this is about a different commodity. Now, we talked a little bit of we talked about how the Fed control the prices of Bitcoin, how the Fed is controlled, trying to try and try to trying to or and how it's handling other issues. What do you think? Do you or do you think that they're doing something similar to oil prices? Because it's not oil? Yeah. It's not directly tied to the dollar, but it is tied to the economy. And yeah, John yeah. So I remember when President Biden took office is first thing he did was he turned off the Keystone pipeline to Canada. And I was like, why? Allen environmental reasons, right? Why John would you do that? And I put the US dollar in, wait a minute, we have to buy some oil from Saudi Arabia. So we, as a gesture to Saudi Arabia, to keep oil prices up, we turn off the Keystone pipeline to reduce oil here in North America, so that Saudi Arabia can have a better something like that. And they you know, there is some type of manipulation a little bit around the world, but oil is huge, right? Everyone's got a little bit oil and some kinds of we have a lot of oil for some reason. Saudi Arabia has a lot. Russia has a lot. And so but I would say to you that oil is a commodity base is every once in a while manipulated, but you know, turning off spigots reduces supply, which increases so but what's happened is for the oil trader, your old traders the next 510 years, maybe five years, everyone has gone green, and they're making solar panels and windmills in Germany, right. And they've been the last, you know, since that big huge problem that we had in that tidal wave in Japan. With that nuclear reactor over there, that nuclear power plant, everyone went away from nuclear. So we went through this last winter I believe there were power outages or power Our reductions in Germany, Canada, there are places that just had was worried about their power being right. And so what happens is, so many people have swung over to the green agenda, which is a good thing. They've left the agenda in buying Chevron and Exxon Mobil, and they've left they've left, and so at Chevron, Exxon Mobil have stopped or reduced their exploration because they don't have as much money. Right? Okay. And therefore, that's going to keep oil prices higher. So what the green initiative has done is encouraged oil prices to be higher, because they've reduced the amount of money that can explore and extract more oil. So they've reduced it, therefore there's less of it, therefore, oil will be higher in the future. And I know, Saudis have turned down their spigot lately, you know, for the oil. And so I know that's happening. But oil is a long term play, mostly for me. It's a long term play, but I just kind of try to find the trend. And it seems like, to me the trend is up in general, because of what I just explained. Makes Allen sense. Yeah. I mean, I tell people that you know, back in the day, the rich man used to have an engine, like a car with an engine and everybody else was on horses, right? Yeah. And then it became commonplace. And then it became the rich man had the electric vehicle, because he had to be rich to have a and then now it's gonna flip and it's gonna be like, Okay, now the rich guy has the combustible engine, and everybody else is driving the electric vehicles. And the really John rich man has a horse. He hasn't a stable. You guys once a month. You know what I mean? Exactly. Back to the horse. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Allen Cool. All right. So I do want to wrap it up with going into the future now, because we you know, you mentioned conspiracy theory. And now this one is, I see it coming. But the US digital dollar. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So let's do I want to hear on stage. John You've heard me on stage on stage, I show a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was a bodybuilder. And I show when he's an actor, and I show him as a governor. Arnold Schwarzenegger reinvented himself three times. The US dollar has to reinvent itself. It was gold in 1933. It was the Bretton Woods, you know, we will back the the French franc in 1944. In 1971, it turned into the Fiat dollar of the petro dollar. And now it's going to go into the digital age. And it's coming, I just don't know how long it's going to take for them to manufacture a crisis, that we will accept the US digital dollar, they have to have a crisis versus except for right now. No one wants to accept it. Because once you accept it, everyone knows what you spent your money on. Right? Because right Allen now, I mean, you have credit cards, and you have wire transfers. And so like, what's the point? Why do we need that right? Well, John but I can pay cash for something, and you don't know what I bought. Right? Right. And so but but once the digital dollar hits, and it's mandatory, everything, you know, there won't be there won't be I can imagine there won't be a tax return anymore. If you buy something at Walmart, the nanosecond, you buy it, a few pennies will go to Washington DC, every single day. And if you're buying Chinese goods, there's 17 pennies that go to Washington DC. If you're buying US goods, there's four pennies go into wash DC every time you buy something. So if you if you transfer money from your phone to your kids, so they can buy lunch at school today, every time you transfer money, there's two pennies going to go. So there's no tax returns. Everyone knows or not everyone, the federal government would know everything you spend your money on, where you spend your money. And they might say Well, that would reduce drug trafficking, that will reduce illegal activities that reduce a lot of things because everything is tracked, there is no gold, there is no silver, there is no Bitcoin, we have to outlaw it. And it might be and I hypothecate In my book, let's go to May 2033. That's the 100th anniversary of the gold confiscation that people said no, that can never happen America Well, in 1933. In May, they confiscated all our gold. And in May 19 In May 2033, it might come to the point where for the good of the country, the country is in so big of debt. If we could just collect all of our taxes from our citizens, we could pay our bills, but we can't because too many people are using gold. Too many people are using Bitcoin too many people are using cash and we can't track that and and that's how people cheat on their taxes. But if we switched to the US digital dollar, no one can cheat on their taxes. When they buy a boat we know it when they pay for lunch, we know it right and we collect our taxes, therefore as to be patriotic. Everyone must have if you own a business you no longer accept cash You know, alongside Bitcoin, you know, because we have to sugar up the US economy, and it's patriotic. And this is this hypothetical, but may 9, may 2033, just 100 year anniversary, it could happen if they can create, and I'm saying create a crisis in the American mind, where we're gonna go bankrupt United States unless we switch the US digital dollar. And that's the savior now. So something like that that's a hypothetical. You might it might be, it might be a cyber attack. You know, I don't know if you remember this, this, I think 2012 Maybe you remember a little country called Cyprus. Allen I know of a John little country called Cyprus, right. on a Monday morning, everyone woke up went to their bank. And the rich people who had I don't know the number, but it was over 100,000 are over 500,000 in their bank, half of their money was gone. The country confiscated half of the savings accounts of our all the rich people, because the country tried to go to the EU over the weekend, because they were bankrupt. and the EU turned them down. They said, Look, we'll give us a loan. They said no. So the EU turned them down. So the only thing that country could do was over the weekend, confiscate half of the money in all the bank and this is digital, this digital dollars, your digital, you can do this. They confiscated half of the money. And they said basically to the people, aren't you glad we did that? Because we wouldn't have done that. Your your your country, you'd have been worth zero. All your money would have been the zero we confiscated half of it, to pay for the government to keep us alive and open so that you could have half your money. This happened in Cyprus. Wow. So, you know, we when you say when you use the word, US government cannot. That's the wrong word. No, there's no Federal Reserve cannot that no, you should use shouldn't, wouldn't. But couldn't isn't a right word. Because in a digital age, everything is possible. They can change laws they can it's when people are desperate. And Money makes people desperate. Or lack of money makes people desperate. Things just happen that you thought could never happen. And I'm sure those people in Cyprus thought it could never happen. But on a Monday morning, it happened. Oh, yeah. She's, Allen I mean, like you mentioned in the book, you talked about the Commerce Clause, right? And yeah, and I remember after 911, the government passed the Patriot Act, you know, it's a great, great name for a bill or a Patriot Act. Yeah. What does it mean? It means basically, if you look at it, they can take anybody off the street, pick you up, throw you in a hole, you have no representation. No, you can't talk to anybody for as long as they want as long as you are under suspicion. And it doesn't matter if you're a citizen or not. And it's like, okay, what happened to our liberties? What happened to the Constitution? Oh, it's not there anymore. Sorry. You know, so yeah, you're right. They can do basically anything. John The word the word cannot, should not be in your sentence with the US government shouldn't wouldn't Yes, but cannot or couldn't. Don't don't say those words together with the US government. As Allen you remember, when Modi took over in India, they had supposedly they had problems with, you know, the mafia and illegal gambling and illegal monies and all that. So he made everybody turn in their higher dollar notes. Yes, exactly. It's like everybody to come into cash and other notes and the people that bring it in, we'll baskets and stuff. So it John he actually it was pretty thought out because he said the poor people need a $1 $5 bill or $10. Bill, the rich people, you don't need hundreds and $500 bills, you can all you do that electronically. You want to transfer large amounts of money, it's electronic. You want to transfer for tips, or you want to pay your guy to shine your shoes or mow your lawn. You still have small bills, because look, it's really hard to transfer $1,000,000,001 bills, because it would take up a whole truckload right? So, so that was Modi's compromise to keep the poor having money in their pocket, and to hinder the rich, or the drug dealers or whoever, for moving large amounts of money. It all has to be electronically because electronically, we can track it. Allen Yeah, so I mean, that could be something that they do here. You know, let's take away the $100. Bill. We used to have $1,000 bills, right, I think yeah, back in the day. Yeah. A John long time ago. Yeah. Yeah. Allen So okay, so you're saying that in nine years is 2023 or 33 2033. And you also say in your book that every 10 years, there is some kind of financial catastrophe or collapse or John if you think about it since 1971, okay, we won the fiat currency system. Okay. Okay, and this is roughly nine or 10 years, okay? The economy goes, boom, right? And there's opportunity. So 1971 Give me a few years for the fiat currency to get going. Okay, the petro dollar. In 1988, there was a stock market crash. And soon after that, the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union crushed. And I took advantage of that I started selling us Levi's, the Eastern Bloc country, okay. 1999 comes around the.com bubble, right. And I missed it. There was a huge opportunity in internet. I knew it was going on, I just couldn't figure out how to make money at it. And it went, boom, and I missed that opportunity. Okay, 99 2000. Then in 2008, nine ish, there was a great recession. And I took great advantage of I started a huge fund that eventually was managing a family of funds, the lost family funds, 2008, that eventually, in 2021, was managing $28 billion assets under management. And today manages like 47 billion. Okay. And then 2020, there was the pandemic, right. And then we launched other funds called, they were called opportunities on funds that had huge tax advantages that we launched funds in that. So about every 10 years or so, since the fiat currency of 1971, the petro dollar, every 10 years, you know, it goes, the economy just goes boom, and boom means there's opportunity. And so a lot of the funds that started in real estate funds that started 289, and 10 made a ton of money, you can still make a lot of money, real estate, but we made a ton of money, because the economy was just blanketed low and we could buy things so cheap in 2009 and 10. It was it was crazy. So Allen I don't know. I mean, we might be close to that timeline, you know, but 10 years and 33. It's somewhere in there. Well, John are 2029, you know, 29? Right in there, right in there. 20 930-228-2930. Right there. That's about 10 more years. That's the tenure since the last one ish, right? Yeah. Allen Do you have anything on your antenna that you're noticing now that would go boom? John Well, again, it might be the US digital dollar that goes into it might be an opportunity there. Because, you know, maybe this is this, this is way out there. But maybe Congress is spending and spending and spending and spending and spending for a lot of reasons. But one reason is to cause a crisis. Well, so that we could be forced to go to the digital dollar. Oh, my right. Yeah, that's just a crazy i That's i That's not my blood, because that's just a crazy theory. But because I can't think I cannot figure out why. What's the purpose of this? Like, I can't figure out why President Biden lets all these illegals coming off our southern border. Yeah, I don't I don't get I know there's a reason. But I don't really understand the reason I'm trying to figure it out. And I haven't figured that one out yet. And yet, I can't figure out why the US Congress can't just stop spending some money. It might just be there's no conspiracy, they just spin spin spin. But it might just there might be another underlying reason. They're trying to force it because they look to get us to go the US digital dollar, there has to be a cyber attack, there has to be some big crisis, something like in Cyprus, that would cause us to go, okay. I'm okay with that. Like right now, we have five and a quarter percentage rates, you know why we're okay with that, because we had 9% inflation. But if we had 1%, inflation, we would never accept a five and a quarter percentage rate. So there has to be some type of crisis to get people to do things they don't want to do. And we no one wants to go to the Digital's digital dollar. But you would in a situation, there's scenarios that you would you would switch Yeah. Allen And at this point, there's no alternative. And the Fed, like you said, is making it that way. And that's their job to make sure there's no alternative. Oh my Well, John, I really appreciate your time we've gone over thank you so much for it. And again really fun, everybody it's dollars gold and Bitcoin available at Amazon, get your copy. And we've touched everything in here. There's more in here that that is also John on audible.com If you'd like my voice, you can listen to me for six hours and because I recorded the whole thing and all the time so if you don't read books, you listen to books, you can continue to listen to Mike scratchy voice for six more hours. Allen Thank you so much. I appreciate you and everything that you've shared with us. John Thank you very much for having me.

covid-19 united states american amazon game canada president china japan olympic games french germany digital africa russia chinese gold joe biden ukraine washington dc russian european union dc drive army north america congress african middle east empire bitcoin walmart thailand options cia silver south korea sec saudi arabia constitution dollar irs fed hillary clinton arnold schwarzenegger powell swift soviet union mediterranean federal reserve euros unemployment us navy jp morgan blackrock etf cyprus etfs fiat chevron geopolitics ponzi modi us congress berlin wall ec keystone us dollar ray dalio exxonmobil saudis patriot act pennington currencies bitcoin etf day trading xrp clandestine night out bretton woods global power eastern bloc commerce clause john you john yeah john one john well john thank america well silk road project allen i

Episode 118: Magician and Filmmaker Lance Burton on his low-budget feature debut, “Billy Topit: Master Magician.”

#DoorGrowShow - Property Management Growth

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 17, 2024 25:41

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with magician Lance Burton about how he wrote (and directed and starred in) the delightfully comic “Billy Topit: Master Magician.”LINKSA Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Lance Burton Website: https://www.lanceburton.com/Billy Topit Website: http://www.billytopit.com/Eli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcastLance Burton TranscriptJohn: I loved Billy Topit, both Jim and I did. I've made a number of low budget movies in my life, about a half dozen of them and the driving force behind them has almost always been, let's get together with some friends and make a movie. I got the sense that that was kind of part of the DNA of Billy Topit. Is that right?Lance: Well, yes, I just have to correct you on one thing: Billy Topit was not a low budget movie. It was a nobudget movie. We literally just decided, you know what, I'm not going to spend any money. Everyone volunteered. So, if it ever makes any money, I'll go back and pay the actors.John: Well, okay. But as someone who has done the same thing, I've done that a half dozen times with the no money. The results you got, given the no money status, were great. Your sound is exceptional. One of the things that's normally a big sign that it's a low budget movie is the sound is not good. It's a hard thing to get right and when you do get it right, it makes it sound like a big budget movie. The cinematography is terrific, the editing is fantastic. I don't know if you bought the music, or if someone did the music, but whatever it was it fit perfectly, and it just sailed along. So, for a movie that had no budget, you did an exceptional job of making a real movie.Lance: Oh, thank you. You're right, the sound is the one thing you really don't want to skimp on, because that's something you really can't fix in post a lot of the times. So, we did try to pay attention to the sound recording. As far as the music goes, some of the music was from my show that I already own. Some of the performance pieces, some of the music we use just for the movie, was rights free music that that I got from a company called Digital juice. They have all different sorts of music and it's searchable. So, you can find you know, rock and roll hard driving music, you can find, you know, instrumentals, you really have everything.Then there was a couple of pieces that a friend of mine, who's a musician wrote and recorded for me. And one of the pieces in the film, my lead actress, Joelle Rigetti, she had actually recorded an album a couple of years ago and she gave me the album during the production. She said, “Hey, anything on here you want you're welcome to use.” And I listened to it and there was one track, I went, this is perfect for this one scene I have. It's that it's the scene where the whole cast is waking up on the second day, brushing their teeth and getting ready to go out. That's actually the lead actress singing.John: The stuff you picked all really meshed well together.Lance: Oh, thank you. It was during the post-production process when it really struck me—as we were editing and doing that—how much the music adds to a production, not just a live show. I already knew that for a live show. But as I was making the film, it really just struck me again, you know, wow, music really does add a whole new dimension to the movie or live show.John: Yeah. So, where did the idea for the movie come from?Lance: Well, I'll tell you exactly where it came from. When I was a kid, there was a television series on TV called The Magician starring Bill Bixby. It only lasted one season, because the network got a new president that came in and he just, you know, cancelled all his predecessors' shows. But it actually did good in the ratings. But it only lasted 22 episodes.The magic consultant on The Magician was Mark Wilson and so when I moved out west, I met Mark Wilson, and became friends with him. Then when I was shooting Knightrider, guess who they hired to provide all of the large illusions and props for the episode? Mark Wilson. He was sort of the magic advisor on that television show. So, Mark, and I got to hang out for seven days on the set as we were shooting. He's actually in the episode. You can see shots of him. He's sitting in the audience during one of the opening performances. In fact, I get him up on stage at one point as a volunteer. So, anyway, one day after filming, Mark and I are going out to dinner and we're in his car and we're driving along. And he says to me, “Lance, how do you like doing this work?” And I said, “What do you mean, Mark? You mean like this episode?” He says, “Yeah, how do you like, you know, acting on this, this TV show?” And I said, “I'm having the time of my life. I get to do magic. I get to act. I get to work with a stuntman, and this is great.” And he says, “Well, you're doing a good job and you ought to think about doing more of this.” And I said, “More of this, so what do you mean?” He says, “You ought to start a notebook, start keeping some ideas of how you could incorporate your magic into a TV series or movie, you know, like with the Bill Bixby series.” And I thought, Oh, that's a good idea. So, I did, I started writing, every time I had an idea about how to use magic within the context of the drama series, or, you know, a story, I would write it down. So, after a few years, I had all these sort of clever things that I came up with, to use magic and propelling the story forward, or to get out of this sticky situation or whatever. And every few years, I've pulled that out, and I'd go, “You know, I'm going to try and go pitch this,” and I would go to Los Angeles and set up some meetings. And I was trying to pitch to do a series every few years and we got close a couple of times, but we never were able to sell it. But the area I was working in was so similar to things that would pop up on my TV screen later. I kept thinking, “Man, I've got something here, I just need to, like any kind of magic trick, you know, I get it in my head and it's frustrating, I just I gotta get it out, I got to put it on the stage because it's like in my brain is like scratching the inside of my skull and it's really annoying.” By that time, the technology had progressed to the point where we had these high-definition cameras that weren't, you know, astronomically expensive. And we had editing software so that somebody on their laptop could put out a professional looking product. So, I finally just said, hey, you know what, I'm gonna do this. And I called my buddy, Michael Goudeau and he came over and we fleshed out the story. And then we wrote the screenplay within, like two or three months. And then we eventually just started casting it and shot it. So, it all goes back to Bill Bixby and The Magician from 1973. John: Well, most things do. Most things do go back that. Were you always planning on directing?Lance: You know, directing and acting at the same time is really difficult. But I had been doing it all my life, you know, with my live show. And we started in on this thing and then at some point, I heard an interview with Barbra Streisand, and someone asked her that question, and they said, “Is it difficult to act and direct in the same production?” And she had a great response. She said, “No, it's easier that way. That's one less person I have to argue with.”Jim: She's right. Absolutely right. So, talk a little bit about how the movie changed, you know, from your initial script and then through shooting and editing. Were there a lot of kind of, oh, let's do this. Oh, that didn't work. Lance: I'll tell you what: when I first had the idea, I didn't have a real clear idea of the tone I wanted to take, you know? As far as it could have been a drama, it could have been a comedy or whatever. But I started chatting with my buddy, Michael Goudeau. Now, Michael worked in my show, as my special guest star. We've been friends for, you know, since the mid-80s and Michael said, this was his idea. So, I gave him credit. He said, we should write this is a family film and I said, why is that? He says, because I have two small children and about two or three times a year, I have to take them to the movies and we have to pick a family film, and they're always horrible. That's why I'd like to see a good family film. Something good, we can take the kids to see. And I said okay, that's fine. You know, that fits. Magic's always been considered a good family entertainment. So, we chose to write it as a family friendly movie, and as a comedy, but I give credit to Michael for that, and it didn't alter that much. Once we had the script completed, the idea was, you know, to keep to the script as close as we can within reason. Now, there were some scenes that were improvised and there were some things that I added during the course of the movie. I'll tell you one thing that we added: the film starts with a dream sequence, with Billy floating a lady in the air. And then he wakes up in bed and you realize, oh, that was just a dream. He doesn't really have a big Las Vegas show. He's a birthday party magician and that was the first thing we shot. So, as we were shooting, I read a book by Robert Rodriguez about his experience shooting El Mariachi. That was recommended to me by Rory Johnston, who played the bad guy in my movie. When I explained to Rory what we were going to do, he said, oh, you're doing like a no budget movie, like Robert Rodriguez. And I said, Who's Robert Rodriguez? He said, he is just a director, he started out by making this movie called El Mariachi. He had $7,000. That was it and he made a whole film. And so, I bought the DVD to watch. I wanted to see what a $7,000 movie look like. And then I read his book and he had some really interesting advice and thoughts. He was talking about the power of three—which magicians will do also—where you have a callback, or something keeps popping back up, and it happens three times. In El Mariachi, there's like this sort of dream sequence. But it happens three times. And I started thinking, he's got a really good point there. So, I started thinking, where else could I insert, I need two more dream sequences? And I've got to find a place to insert them. So, we wrote two more dream sequences and found the right place to put them. And we shot that, but that kind of happened once we started once we started shooting.Jim: You know, John, as he's mentioned, has shot some low budget movies here and there, populated largely by friends of John. And I get the sense that, in watching your movie, that these people are all your buddies, that they're all your pals, these are all your friends. Lance: Oh, yeah, they're all my friends. The only time there were people in their movie, really, that I didn't know, like extras in the restaurant. We would just ask people, do you have any friends that you can come over and be background actors? And a lot of them are my friends. Like the birthday party scene: those kids are all kids of friends. Like, hey, if you got kids, bring them over to my stage manager's house.John: It really looks like you guys are having fun throughout the whole movie. I don't mean to denigrate it in any way, but it's a really goofy movie. It is surprisingly silly in a really fun way.Lance: It's a silly movie and a lot of that stuff is Michael Goudeau. Everybody loves Michael and loves his comedy and kids especially love him. So, that's we wanted to go for. For instance, when we were writing the date scene, you know, that was a silly scene and they were doing the game with the milk, the little milk containers. And Michael said, listen, when I take my kids to a movie, when it gets to the romantic the date scene, they are bored. They are like, oh, they're falling asleep going, oh, when is this over? So, let's beef this up with something silly. Hey, great. That sounds great. So, again, a lot of that stuff was just the purpose of the movie was to keep everybody's interest.John: And that's probably something you've learned from being on stage forever, is feeling when the audience might be getting bored and being ahead of them. Lance: Yeah, you don't want to get to that point. You want to keep it moving. Jim: Your friend Michael is in the movie?Lance: Yes, he is in the movie. He's one of the jugglers. Jim: Okay. But the taller one or the shorter one?Lance: The shorter one. He was my co-writer on the screenplay and also co-executive producer.Jim: At the very end, in the credits, there's some very clever, funny, little teases about the possibility and it was sort of like, gosh, I hope there is a sequel. Is there talk of that--?John: And I will say, I'm going to speak from my podcast partner here. We're standing by ready to help you if you want to do.Jim: Absolutely. I'll drop everything. Lance: Billy Topit Part Two, The Empire Strikes Back. Billy Topit Part Two, the Search for Spock. I tell you, that was just me getting at the end of the editing process and doing the credits and it's just going out. This will be funny. Just me just making up silly stuff.John: And the image of you doing that of sitting on a computer and editing, do you have the filmmaking bug now or you going to it doesn't have to be a sequel, Billy Topit, but...Lance: I've enjoyed. Here's the thing that I enjoyed the most on the whole process was learning to edit. My good buddy Bob Massey was our photographer and our editor. But in the process of editing, I would go over to his house, and we would work on it and then he'd have to go do something. I was like, do we have to stop? And one day he said, you know, I can give you the software. I bought this and I can put it on two computers legally. So, if you want to, I'll show you how. I went, yeah. So, I went out, I bought this and I put this stuff on, and I started to learn how to edit. Bob was there to help me, show me. I really loved it. I really, really loved the process. And a lot of it is very similar to magic. I'll give you a good example of that: There's a scene at the end of the movie where they've opened the big show and I do the sawing a couple into eight pieces. So, we got the two, the boy and the girl and they get sawed apart and they come out of the boxes at the end. And the boys were in the girl's clothes and they chase each other offstage. And then they run past the camera and then the second shot, you see them run into view in the wings. And then they have a scene in the wings. Well, we shot the first part, with the doing the trick, and then running past the camera. We shot that at the Monte Carlo hotel in 2010. And the scene in the wings, we shot in 2013, on the other side of town at Rory Johnson's church that he went to. They allowed us to shoot there. So, the two scenes that are supposed to be at the same time were shot three years apart in different locations.As we were shooting the first one, I knew in my mind what I wanted to do: I wanted him to run past the camera, and then I would pick it up. And the rest of the cast hadn't even been cast yet by the way. I didn't even know who the other actors were going to be. But I knew there was a scene over there. So, as they run past, I'll pick it up. Whenever we get to that three years later, we shoot the thing. Now I'm editing it together. So, now I take the music from the first part of the shot, playing during the trick and the audience reaction. You get the audience applauding and cheering, and they run past the camera and we go to the second shot. But you still hear the audio, you still hear the music playing, and you hear me out on stage going thank you and the audience applauding. And so now when you put it all together, it's like it's seamless. No one knows that that scene was shot three years apart. It's like a magic trick. It's an illusion. There's a good example of how the sound helps enhance the illusion. And there are a few magic tricks that we do on stage where sound is a very big part of the illusion.John: I don't know at what point in the process you read Robert Rodriguez's book, but he based El Mariachi on what he had available. He wrote the script based on the town, the bar, the tortoise, the dog, all of that. You seem to have done a very similar thing, in that I'm guessing you already had some footage you on stage or was it a relatively easy thing to get. For an average person, that's a really hard thing to get.Lance: Exactly. And I had to shoot all that before the show closed, because we were getting ready to close the show. So, we captured all of that all the stuff that had to be shot in the theatre, we captured that. John: But for the average person writing a script, to write that in a scene, you can't shoot that. The lights alone in the ceiling are more than your budget.Lance: And I was well aware that. I had this opportunity that we'd written it into the script and it's like, okay, I gotta shoot this now, because if I wait another two months, it's all going to be gone.John: Exactly. And I felt the same with the scenes in the casino, which would be I think, normally a difficult thing to do. But you obviously had a relationship to make those happen.Lance: The casino scenes, those were all shot afterwards. That was my buddy, John Woodrum, who owned this little casino called the Klondike. We wanted it to be a locals type Casino. I talked to a few of the casinos and some of them were like, yeah, we'd let you come in here and shoot, we have a coffee shop. How many days do you need it? And I'm going to myself, I don't know how long this is going to take to shoot. I never shot a movie before. And then finally I went over to see my buddy, John and I said, John, I've got this movie I'm shooting, and some of the action takes place in the casino. And there's a coffee shop and you've got a coffee shop. What would you think about a shooting here? And he looks at me says yeah, whatever you want. Come on in. I'm like, what? Come on, anytime. That's like, Okay, I found this. I found our location. John: You are a low-budget filmmaker at heart. You got all the tricks that are necessary to be good at this and you did it on your first movie. That's exceptional.Lance: It was a fun process and it's not dissimilar to shooting a television special or a TV show, but it is a little different. There is obviously magic in it. But you know, there's also the whole second element of the story and doing the scene and the acting and getting all the actors on the same page.John: And speaking of the actors, I was thrilled to see our friend Louie Anderson in there. He was a Twin Cities guy who I knew back when he was here and I had the good fortune of working with him a couple times in the corporate arena. And to see Johnny Thompson obviously having so much fun, it was just great. And then to see Mac kind of turn up. I don't want to spoil it. But he does turn upLance: Mac turns up there near the end of the film. It was great fun, being able to work with Johnny. To be able to direct your mentor is a really special thing and that was just so much fun working with Johnny, and he was just so good in this role.John: He was such a good actor, he really had that ability to turn it on. Lance: And Pam too. John: Oh, yeah, Pam was in there as well. It was just so much fun to see them just pop up like that.Jim: A delight, the whole thing was from start to finish was a delight. I watched it by myself after my wife went to bed and I just was giggling through the whole thing.Lance: Thank you. Here's my favorite story from the whole process. I had this idea to do the trick on the telephone, The Wizard, that that anybody that is amateur magician knows the trick. Well, when Michael and I were coming up with a storyline, I had this idea of using The Wizard as part of the kidnapping thing, to find out where the assistant was being held. In order to do that, of course, I had to show what The Wizard was. The reason I wanted to include that was I wanted kids especially to be able to watch the movie and then after the movie, I wanted them to be able to perform The Wizard for their friends. After we had our premiere, my wardrobe lady from the Monte Carlo—and she also did wardrobe on the movie—she called me like a week later. Her stepdaughter, who was in junior high school at that time, the little girl had gone to school the next day and had performed The Wizard for her friends. And when I heard that, I was like, yes, touchdown.John: Mission accomplished. Lance: Mission accomplished. It's exactly what I wanted. I wanted kids to go and actually perform a magic trick for their friends.Jim: But I really liked how you then turn it around and use it as a plot device. Lance: It's integral to the story. Yes, and those are those are especially the kind of things I like with magic in movies or TV shows: where you can take something and bring it back in later as a practical device.

第2014期: AI Robots

英语每日一听 | 每天少于5分钟

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 23, 2023 4:16

Patricia: Hi, John. 帕特里夏: 你好，约翰。John: Hey. 约翰：你好。Patricia: Today we're talking about artificial intelligence or AI. Maybe getting into a little bit of robotics. 帕特里夏：今天我们谈论人工智能或人工智能。也许会接触一点机器人技术。 John: I like it. Patricia: Just wanted to know your take on how you think this will change our society. The advancements that have been made so far in AI and robotics. 帕特里夏：只是想知道您认为这将如何改变我们的社会。迄今为止人工智能和机器人技术取得的进步。 John: Well, I mean, already we've seen there's a huge push towards whether it's AI in think tanks or things of that nature to people just exploring the idea of AI in terms of writing their own books, poetry, art. AI that is painting. I think the possibilities are endless. We will see development and exploration into ideas and areas we've never even thought of. Think about the idea of an AI painter or sculptor. They can probably pull the knowledge of all the painters and artists of the world and come together to form some entirely new form of expressionism or something of that nature. The idea of AI in medicine. It can look at exploring different ways of doing things, things that humans have never thought of and because of the sheer speed at which computers can process and, for lack of a better word think, the potential for growth in this area I think is endless. 约翰：嗯，我的意思是，我们已经看到，无论是智库中的人工智能还是类似性质的事物，人们都在通过写自己的书籍、诗歌和艺术来探索人工智能的想法。正在绘画的人工智能。我认为可能性是无限的。我们将看到我们从未想过的想法和领域的发展和探索。想想人工智能画家或雕塑家的想法。他们或许可以汲取世界上所有画家和艺术家的知识，并聚集在一起形成某种全新的表现主义形式或类似性质的东西。人工智能在医学中的想法。它可以着眼于探索不同的做事方式，人类从未想过的事情，并且由于计算机处理的速度非常快，而且由于缺乏更好的词“思考”，我认为这个领域的增长潜力是无穷无尽的。 Patricia: Overall do you think these things will improve or worsen our society? 帕特里夏：总的来说，你认为这些事情会改善还是恶化我们的社会？ John: Well, like anything, I think it has a potential to do both. If we're not careful, it could lead to the corruption of minds, the abuse of these advancements to either oppress people or subjugate them. With the proper minds at the helm, this could serve to benefit humanity. If we have AI taking care of things like surgeries, exploration into dangerous areas, humans no longer need to endanger themselves to engage in exploration. These AIs can do the exploration for us, and we can benefit from what they find. That's not to say that humans can't still be exploring and expose themselves to all these amazing new things, it just means that we can take out some of that crazy level of danger and reduce that down so that humans can spend their time exploring other past times, other leisure activities to improve their minds, their bodies, their souls, however you want to put it. 约翰：嗯，就像任何事情一样，我认为它有潜力做到这两点。如果我们不小心，可能会导致思想腐败，滥用这些进步来压迫或征服人们。如果有正确的思想来掌舵，这可以造福人类。如果我们有人工智能来处理诸如手术、危险区域探索之类的事情，人类就不再需要冒着危险去进行探索。这些人工智能可以为我们进行探索，我们可以从他们的发现中受益。这并不是说人类不能继续探索并将自己暴露在所有这些令人惊奇的新事物中，这只是意味着我们可以消除一些疯狂的危险水平并将其降低，以便人类可以花时间探索其他事物过去，其他休闲活动可以改善他们的思想，他们的身体，他们的灵魂，无论你怎么说。Patricia: Interesting, very interesting ideas. If you could have AI or a robot to help you with something in your everyday life, what do you think you would want help with? What would you use a robot for? 帕特里夏：有趣、非常有趣的想法。如果人工智能或机器人可以帮助您处理日常生活中的某些事情，您认为您会在哪些方面需要帮助？你会用机器人做什么？ John: What activities, tasks? Basically would be like a personal assistant. I would have somebody to help me organize my day, my activities. Help me stay on tasks, stay focused, take care of cleaning. I love cooking so I would probably still want to engage in some of that myself, but there may be days where I'm busy, so an AI whether it's in robot form or something like that, to take care of those tasks for me so that I can be more productive in the other areas of my life that need it would be fantastic. 约翰：什么活动、任务？基本上就像一个私人助理。我需要有人帮助我安排我的一天和我的活动。帮助我专注于任务、保持专注、做好清洁工作。我喜欢烹饪，所以我可能仍然想自己参与一些烹饪，但有时我可能会很忙，所以人工智能，无论是机器人形式还是类似的形式，都会为我处理这些任务，所以如果我能在生活中其他需要的领域变得更有生产力，那就太棒了。 Patricia: Yeah, I agree. I would love to have someone who could do chores around the house for me, like cleaning. Yeah, thanks for your ideas, John. It was awesome to talk to you. 帕特里夏：是的，我同意。我希望有人可以帮我做家务，比如打扫卫生。是的，谢谢你的想法，约翰。和你说话真是太棒了。 John: Not a problem. I look forward to it, the next, sorry. I look forward to the next time we talk. 约翰：没问题。期待下一个，抱歉。我期待我们下次谈话。

ai ai robots john well john not john hey

Solving the Case of the Infinite Cloud Spend with John Wynkoop

Screaming in the Cloud

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 24, 2023 29:56

John Wynkoop, Cloud Economist & Platypus Herder at The Duckbill Group, joins Corey on Screaming in the Cloud to discuss why he decided to make a career move and become an AWS billing consultant. Corey and John discuss how once you're deeply familiar with one cloud provider, those skills become transferable to other cloud providers as well. John also shares the trends he has seen post-pandemic in the world of cloud, including the increased adoption of a multi-cloud strategy and the need for costs control even for VC-funded start-ups. About JohnWith over 25 years in IT, John's done almost every job in the industry, from running cable and answering helpdesk calls to leading engineering teams and advising the C-suite. Before joining The Duckbill Group, he worked across multiple industries including private sector, higher education, and national defense. Most recently he helped IGNW, an industry leading systems integration partner, get acquired by industry powerhouse CDW. When he's not helping customers spend smarter on their cloud bill, you can find him enjoying time with his family in the beautiful Smoky Mountains near his home in Knoxville, TN.Links Referenced: The Duckbill Group: https://duckbillgroup.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jlwynkoop/ TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. And the times, they are changing. My guest today is John Wynkoop. John, how are you?John: Hey, Corey, I'm doing great. Thanks for having me.Corey: So, big changes are afoot for you. You've taken a new job recently. What are you doing now?John: Well [laugh], so I'm happy to say I have joined The Duckbill Group as a cloud economist. So, came out of the big company world, and have dived back in—or dove back into the startup world.Corey: It's interesting because when we talk to those big companies, they always identify us as oh, you're a startup, which is hilarious on some level because our AWS account hangs out in AWS's startup group, but if you look at the spend being remarkably level from month to month to month to year to year to year, they almost certainly view us as they're a startup, but they suck at it. They completely failed. And so, many of the email stuff that you get from them presupposes that you're venture-backed, that you're trying to conquer the entire world. We don't do that here. We have this old-timey business model that our forebears would have understood of, we make more money than we spend every month and we continue that trend for a long time. So first, thanks for joining us, both on the show and at the company. We like having you around.John: Well, thanks. And yeah, I guess that's—maybe a startup isn't the right word to describe what we do here at The Duckbill Group, but as you said, it seems to fit into the industry classification. But that was one of the things I actually really liked about the—that was appealing about joining the team was, we do spend less than we make and we're not after hyper-growth and we're not trying to consume everything.Corey: So, it's interesting when you put a job description out into the world and you see who applies—and let's be clear, for those who are unaware, job descriptions are inherently aspirational shopping lists. If you look at a job description and you check every box on the thing and you've done all the things they want, the odds are terrific you're going to be bored out of your mind when you wind up showing up to do these… whatever that job is. You should be learning stuff and growing. At least that's always been my philosophy to it. One of the interesting things about you is that you checked an awful lot of boxes, but there is one that I think would cause people to raise an eyebrow, which is, you're relatively new to the fun world of AWS.John: Yeah. So, obviously I, you know, have been around the block a few times when it comes to cloud. I've used AWS, built some things in AWS, but I wouldn't have classified myself as an AWS guru by any stretch of the imagination. I spent the last probably three years working in Google Cloud, helping customers build and deploy solutions there, but I do at least understand the fundamentals of cloud, and more importantly—at least for our customers—cloud costs because at the end of the day, they're not all that different.Corey: I do want to call out that you have a certain humility to you which I find endearing. But you're not allowed to do that here; I will sing your praises for you. Before they deprecated it like they do almost everything else, you were one of the relatively few Google Cloud Certified Fellows, which was sort of like their Heroes program only, you know, they killed it in favor of something else like there's a Champion program or whatnot. You are very deep in the world of both Kubernetes and Google Cloud.John: Yeah. So, there was a few of us that were invited to come out and help Google pilot that program in, I believe it was 2019, and give feedback to help them build the Cloud Fellows Program. And thankfully, I was selected based on some of our early experience with Anthos, and specifically, it was around Certified Fellow in what they call hybrid multi-cloud, so it was experience around Anthos. Or at the time, they hadn't called it Anthos; they were calling it CSP or Cloud Services Platform because that's not an overloaded acronym. So yeah, definitely, was very humbled to be part of that early on.I think the program, as you said, grew to about 70 or so maybe 100 certified individuals before they transitioned—not killed—transitioned to that program into the Cloud Champions program. So, those folks are all still around, myself included. They've just now changed the moniker. But we all get to use the old title still as well, so that's kind of cool.Corey: I have to ask, what would possess you to go from being one of the best in the world at using Google Cloud over here to our corner of the AWS universe? Because the inverse, if I were to somehow get ejected from here—which would be a neat trick, but I'm sure it's theoretically possible—like, “What am I going to do now?” I would almost certainly wind up doing something in the AWS ecosystem, just due to inertia, if nothing else. You clearly didn't see things quite that way. Why make the switch?John: Well, a couple of different reasons. So, being at a Google partner presents a lot of challenges and one of the things that was supremely interesting about coming to Duckbill is that we're independent. So, we're not an AWS partner. We are an independent company that is beholden only to our customers. And there isn't anything like that in the Google ecosystem today.There's, you know, there's Google partners and then there's Google customers and then there's Google. So, that was part of the appeal. And the other thing was, I enjoy learning new things, and honestly, learning, you know, into the depths of AWS cost hell is interesting. There's a lot to learn there and there's a lot of things that we can extract and use to help customers spend less. So, that to me was super interesting.And then also, I want to help build an organization. So, you know, I think what we're doing here at The Duckbill Group is cool and I think that there's an opportunity to grow our services portfolio, and so I'm excited to work with the leadership team to see what else we can bring to market that's going to help our customers, you know, not just with cost optimization, not just with contract negotiation, but you know, through the lifecycle of their AWS… journey, I guess we'll call it.Corey: It's one of those things where I always have believed, on some level, that once you're deep in a particular cloud provider, if there's reason for it, you can rescale relatively quickly to a different provider. There are nuances—deep nuances—that differ from provider to provider, but the underlying concepts generally all work the same way. There's only so many ways you can have data go from point A to point B. There's only so many ways to spin up a bunch of VMs and whatnot. And you're proof-positive that theory was correct.You'd been here less than a week before I started learning nuances about AWS billing from you. I think it was something to do with the way that late fees are assessed when companies don't pay Amazon as quickly as Amazon desires. So, we're all learning new things constantly and no one stuffs this stuff all into their head. But that, if nothing else, definitely cemented that yeah, we've got the right person in the seat.John: Yeah, well, thanks. And certainly, the deeper you go on a specific cloud provider, things become fresh in your memory, you know, other cached so to speak. So, coming up to speed on AWS has been a little bit more documentation reading than it would have been, if I were, say, jumping right into a GCP engagement. But as he said, at the end of the day, there's a lot of similarities. Obviously understanding the nuances of, for example, account organization versus, you know, GCP's Project and Folders. Well, that's a substantial difference and so there's a lot of learning that has to happen.Thankfully, you know, all these companies, maybe with the exception of Oracle, have done a really good job of documenting all of the concepts in their publicly available documentation. And then obviously, having a team of experts here at The Duckbill Group to ask stupid questions of doesn't hurt. But definitely, it's not as hard to come up to speed as one may think, once you've got it understood in one provider.Corey: I took a look recently and was kind of surprised to discover that I've been doing this—as an independent consultant prior to the formation of The Duckbill Group—for seven years now. And it's weird, but I've gone through multiple industry cycles and changes as a part of this. And it feels like I haven't been doing it all that long, but I guess I have. One thing that's definitely changed is that it used to be that companies would basically pick one provider and almost everything would live there. At any reasonable point of scale, everyone is using multiple things.I see Google in effectively every client that we have. It used to be that going to Google Cloud Next was a great place to hang out with AWS customers. But these days, it's just as true to say that a great reason to go to re:Invent is to hang out with Google Cloud customers. Everyone uses everything, and that has become much more clear over the last few years. What have you seen change over the… I guess, since the start of the pandemic, just in terms of broad cycles?John: Yeah. So, I think there's a couple of different trends that we're seeing. Obviously, one is that as you said, especially as large enterprises make moves to the cloud, you see independent teams or divisions within a given organization leveraging… maybe not the right tool for the job because I think that there's a case to be made for swapping out a specific set of tools and having your team learn it, but we do see what I like to refer to as tool fetishism where you get a team that's super, super deep into BigQuery and they're not interested in moving to Redshift, or Snowflake, or a competitor. So, you see, those start to crop up within large organizations where the distributed—the purchasing power, rather—is distributed. So, that's one of the trends is the multi-cloud adoption.And I think the big trend that I like to emphasize around multi-cloud is, just because you can run it anywhere doesn't mean you should run it everywhere. So Kubernetes, as you know, right, as it took off 2019 timeframe, 2020, we started to see a lot of people using that as an excuse to try to run their production application in two, three public cloud providers and on-prem. And unless you're a SaaS customer—or SaaS company with customers in every cloud, there's very little reason to do that. But having that flexibility—that's the other one, is we've seen that AWS has gotten a little difficult to negotiate with, or maybe Google and Microsoft have gotten a little bit more aggressive. So obviously, having that flexibility and being able to move your workloads, that was another big trend.Corey: I'm seeing a change in things that I had taken as givens, back when I started. And that's part of the reason, incidentally, I write the Last Week in AWS newsletter because once you learn a thing, it is very easy not to keep current with that thing, and things that are not possible today will be possible tomorrow. How do you keep abreast of all of those changes? And the answer is to write a deeply sarcastic newsletter that gathers in everything from the world of AWS. But I don't recommend that for most people. One thing that I've seen in more prosaic terms that you have a bit of background in is that HPC on cloud was, five, six years ago, met with, “Oh, that's a good one; now pull the other one, it has bells on it,” into something that, these days, is extremely viable. How'd that happen?John: So, [sigh] I think that's just a—again, back to trends—I think that's just a trend that we're seeing from cloud providers and listening to their customers and continuing to improve the service. So, one of the reasons that HPC was—especially we'll call it capacity-level HPC or large HPC, right—you've always been able to run high throughput; the cloud is a high throughput machine, right? You can run a thousand disconnected VMs no problem, auto-scaling, anybody who runs a massive web front-end can attest to that. But what we saw with HPC—and we used to call those [grid 00:12:45] jobs, right, the small, decoupled computing jobs—but what we've seen is a huge increase in the quality of the underlying fabric—things like RDMA being made available, things like improved network locality, where you now have predictive latency between your nodes or between your VMs—and I think those, combined with the huge investment that companies like AWS have made in their file systems, the huge investment companies like Google have made in their data storage systems have made HPC viable, especially at a small-scale—for cloud-based HPC specifically—viable for organizations.And for a small engineering team, who's looking to run say, computer-aided engineering simulation or who's looking to prototype some new way of testing or doing some kind of simulation, it's a huge, huge improvement in speed because now they don't have to order a dozen or two dozen or five dozen nodes, have them shipped, rack them, stack them, cool them, power them, right? They can just spin up the resource in the cloud, test it out, try their simulation, try out the new—the software that they want, and then spin it all down if it doesn't work. So, that elasticity has also been huge. And again, I think the big—to kind of summarize, I think the big driver there is the improvement in this the service itself, right? We're seeing cloud providers taking that discipline a little bit more seriously.Corey: I still see that there are cases where the raw math doesn't necessarily add up for sustained, long-term use cases. But I also see increasingly that with HPC, that's usually not what the workload looks like. With, you know, the exception of we're going to spend the next 18 months training some new LLM thing, but even then the pricing is ridiculous. What is it their new P6 or whatever it is—P5—the instances that have those giant half-rack Nvidia cards that are $800,000 and so a year each if you were to just rent them straight out, and then people running fleets of these things, it's… wow that's more commas in that training job than I would have expected. But I can see just now the availability for driving some of that, but the economics of that once you can get them in your data center doesn't strike me as being particularly favoring the cloud.John: Yeah, there's a couple of different reasons. So, it's almost like an inverse curve, right? There's a crossover point or a breakeven point at which—you know, and you can make this argument with almost any level of infrastructure—if you can keep it sufficiently full, whether it's AI training, AI inference, or even traditional HPC if you can keep the machine or the group of machines sufficiently full, it's probably cheaper to buy it and put it in your facility. But if you don't have a facility or if you don't need to use it a hundred percent of the time, the dividends aren't always there, right? It's not always worth, you know, buying a $250,000 compute system, you know, like say, an Nvidia, as you—you know, like, a DGX, right, is a good example.The DGX H100, I think those are a couple $100,000. If you can't keep that thing full and you just need it for training jobs or for development and you have a small team of developers that are only going to use it six hours a day, it may make sense to spin that up in the cloud and pay for a fractional use, right? It's no different than what HPC has been doing for probably the past 50 years with national supercomputing centers, which is where my background came from before cloud, right? It's just a different model, right? One is public economies of, you know, insert your credit card and spend as much as you want and the other is grant-funded and supporting academic research, but the economy of scales is kind of the same on both fronts.Corey: I'm also seeing a trend that this is something that is sort of disturbing when you realize what I've been doing and how I've been going about things, that for the last couple of years, people actually started to care about the AWS bill. And I have to say, I felt like I was severely out of sync with a lot of the world the first few years because there's giant savings lurking in your AWS bill, and the company answer in many cases was, “We don't care. We'd rather focus our energies on shipping faster, building something new, expanding, capturing market.” And that is logical. But suddenly those chickens are coming home to roost in a big way. Our phone is ringing off the hook, as I'm sure you've noticed and your time here, and suddenly money means something again. What do you think drove it?John: So, I think there's a couple of driving factors. The first is obviously the broader economic conditions, you know, with the economic growth in the US, especially slowing down post-pandemic, we're seeing organizations looking for opportunities to spend less to be able to deliver—you know, recoup that money and deliver additional value. But beyond that, right—because, okay, but startups are probably still lighting giant piles of VC money on fire, and that's okay, but what's happening, I think, is that the first wave of CIOs that said cloud-first, cloud-only basically got their comeuppance. And, you know, these enterprises saw their explosive cloud bills and they saw that, oh, you know, we moved 5000 servers to AWS or GCP or Azure and we got the bill, and that's not sustainable. And so, we see a lot of cloud repatriation, cloud optimization, right, a lot of second-gen… cloud, I'll call them second-gen cloud-native CIOs coming into these large organizations where their predecessor made some bad financial decisions and either left or got asked to leave, and now they're trying to stop from lighting their giant piles of cash on fire, they're trying to stop spending 3X what they were spending on-prem.Corey: I think an easy mistake for folks to make is to get lost in the raw infrastructure cost. I'm not saying it's not important. Obviously not, but you could save a giant pile of money on your RDS instances by running your own database software on top of EC2, but I don't generally recommend folks do it because you also need engineering time to be focusing on getting those things up, care and feeding, et cetera. And what people lose sight of is the fact that the payroll expense is almost universally more than the cloud bill at every company I've ever talked to.So, there's a consistent series of, “Well, we're just trying to get to be the absolute lowest dollar figure total.” It's the wrong thing to emphasize on, otherwise, “Cool, turn everything off and your bill drops to zero.” Or, “Migrate to another cloud provider. AWS bill becomes zero. Our job is done.” It doesn't actually solve the problem at all. It's about what's right for the business, not about getting the absolute lowest possible score like it's some kind of code golf tournament.John: Right. So, I think that there's a couple of different ways to look at that. One is obviously looking at making your workloads more cloud-native. I know that's a stupid buzzword to some people, but—Corey: The problem I have with the term is that it means so many different things to different people.John: Right. But I think the gist of that is taking advantage of what the cloud is good at. And so, what we saw was that excess capacity on-prem was effectively free once you bought it, right? There were there was no accountability for burning through extra V CPUs or extra RAM. And then you had—Corey: Right. You spin something up in your data center and the question is, “Is the physical capacity there?” And very few companies had a reaping process until they were suddenly seeing capacity issues and suddenly everyone starts asking you a whole bunch of questions about it. But that was a natural forcing function that existed. Now, S3 has infinite storage, or it might as well. They can add capacity faster than you can fill it—I know this; I've tried—and the problem that you have then is that it's always just a couple more cents per gigabyte and it keeps on going forever. There's no, we need to make an investment decision because the SAN is at 80% capacity. Do you need all those 16 copies of the production data that you haven't touched since 2012? No, I probably don't.John: Yeah, there's definitely a forcing function when you're doing your own capacity planning. And the cloud, for the most part, as you've alluded to, for most organizations is infinite capacity. So, when they're looking at AWS or they're looking at any of the public cloud providers, it's a potentially infinite bill. Now, that scares a lot of organizations, and so because they didn't have the forcing function of, hey, we're out of CPUs, or we're out of hard disk space, or we're out of network ports, I think that because the cloud was a buzzword that a lot of shareholders and boards wanted to see in IT status reports and IT strategic plans, I think we grew a little bit further than we should have, from an enterprise perspective. And I think a lot of that's now being clawed back as organizations are maturing and looking to manage cost. Obviously, the huge growth of just the term FinOps from a search perspective over the last three years has cemented that, right? We're seeing a much more cost-conscious consumer—cloud consumer—than we saw three years ago.Corey: I think that the baseline level of understanding has also risen. It used to be that I would go into a client environment, prepared to deploy all kinds of radical stuff that these days look like context-aware architecture and things that would automatically turn down developer environments when developers were done for the day or whatnot. And I would discover that, oh, you haven't bought Reserved Instances in three years. Maybe start there with the easy thing. And now you don't see those, the big misconfigurations or the big oversights the way that you once did.People are getting better at this, which is a good thing. I'm certainly not having a problem with this. It means that we get to focus on things that are more architecturally nuanced, which I love. And I think that it forces us to continue innovating rather than just doing something that basically any random software stack could provide.John: Yeah, I think to your point, the easy wins are being exhausted or have been exhausted already, right? Very rarely do we walk into a customer and see that they haven't bought a, you know, Reserved Instance, or a Savings Plan. That's just not a thing. And the proliferation of software tools to help with those things, of course, in some cases, dubious proposition of, “We'll fix your cloud bill automatically for a small percentage of the savings,” that some of those software tools have, I think those have kind of run their course. And now you've got a smarter populace or smarter consumer and it does come into the more nuanced stuff, right.All right, do you really need to replicate data across AZs? Well, not if your workloads aren't stateful. Well, so some of the old things—and Kubernetes is a great example of this, right—the age old adage of, if I'm going to spin up an EKS cluster, I need to put it in three AZs, okay, why? That's going to cost you money [laugh], the cross-AZ traffic. And I know cross-AZ traffic is a simple one, but we still see that. We still see, “Well, I don't know why I put it across all three AZs.”And so, the service-to-service communication inside that cluster, the control plane traffic inside that cluster, is costing you money. Now, it might be minimal, but as you grow and as you scale your product or the services that you're providing internally, that may grow to a non-trivial sum of money.Corey: I think that there's a tipping point where an unbounded growth problem is always going to emerge as something that needs attention and needs to be focused on. But I should ask you this because you have a skill set that is, as you know, extremely in demand. You also have that rare gift that I wish wasn't as rare as it is where you can be thrown into the deep end knowing next to nothing about a particular technology stack, and in a remarkably short period of time, develop what can only be called subject matter expertise around it. I've seen you do this years past with Kubernetes, which is something I'm still trying to wrap my head around. You have a natural gift for it which meant that, from many respects, the world was your oyster. Why this? Why now?John: So, I think there's a couple of things that are unique at this thing, at this time point, right? So obviously, helping customers has always been something that's fun and exciting for me, right? Going to an organization and solving the same problem I've solved 20 different times, for example, spinning up a Kubernetes cluster, I guess I have a little bit of a little bit of squirrel syndrome, so to speak, and that gets—it gets boring. I'd rather just automate that or build some tooling and disseminate that to the customers and let them do that. So, the thing with cost management is, it's always a different problem.Yeah, we're solving fundamentally the same problem, which is, I'm spending too much, but it's always a different root cause, you know? In one customer, it could be data transfer fees. In another customer, it could be errant development growth where they're not controlling the spend on their development environments. In yet another customer, it could be excessive object storage growth. So, being able to hunt and look for those and play detective is really fun, and I think that's one of the things that drew me to this particular area.The other is just from a timing perspective, this is a problem a lot of organizations have, and I think it's underserved. I think that there are not enough companies—service providers, whatever—focusing on the hard problem of cost optimization. There's too many people who think it's a finance problem and not enough people who think it's an engineering problem. And so, I wanted to do work on a place where we think it's an engineering problem.Corey: It's been a very… long road. And I think that engineering problems and people problems are both fascinating to me, and the AWS bill is both. It's often misunderstood as a finance problem, and finance needs to be consulted absolutely, but they can't drive an optimization project, and they don't know what the context is behind an awful lot of decisions that get made. It really is breaking down bridges. But also, there's a lot of engineering in here, too. It scratches my itch in that direction, anyway.John: Yeah, it's one of the few business problems that I think touches multiple areas. As you said, it's obviously a people problem because we want to make sure that we are supporting and educating our staff. It's a process problem. Are we making costs visible to the organization? Are we making sure that there's proper chargeback and showback methodologies, et cetera? But it's also a technology problem. Did we build this thing to take advantage of the architecture or did we shoehorn it in a way that's going to cost us a small fortune? And I think it touches all three, which I think is unique.Corey: John, I really want to thank you for taking the time to speak with me. If people want to learn more about what you're up to in a given day, where's the best place for them to find you?John: Well, thanks, Corey, and thanks for having me. And, of course obviously, our website duckbillgroup.com is a great place to find out what we're working on, what we have coming. I also, I'm pretty active on LinkedIn. I know that's [laugh]—I'm not a huge Twitter guy, but I am pretty active on LinkedIn, so you can always drop me a follow on LinkedIn. And I'll try to post interesting and useful content there for our listeners.Corey: And we will, of course, put links to that in the [show notes 00:28:37], which in my case, is of course extremely self-aggrandizing. But that's all right. We're here to do self-promotion. Thank you so much for taking the time to chat with me, John. I appreciate it. Now, get back to work.John: [laugh]. All right, thanks, Corey. Have a good one.Corey: John Wynkoop, cloud economist at The Duckbill Group. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice while also taking pains to note how you're using multiple podcast platforms these days because that just seems to be the way the world went.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.

amazon google ai project microsoft champion heroes cloud tn oracle saas ram infinite vc nvidia last week screaming knoxville cios aws snowflakes devops azure invent llm google cloud s3 csp kubernetes 3x rds smoky mountains cpus p5 gcp migrate vms hpc redshift folders eks ec2 finops cdw savings plan p6 bigquery google cloud next corey quinn anthos john yeah wynkoop john well john so azs dgx john right duckbill group reserved instances john hey chief cloud economist last week in aws reserved instance

DGS 209: Insight On Multifamily Market Oversupply With John Carlson

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 5, 2023 33:04

Have you heard about the multifamily market oversupply that's been increasing since the undersupply during the COVID-19 pandemic? In this episode, Jason chats with John Carlson, President of Mark-Taylor Residential about Insight on the multifamily market oversupply. Mark-Taylor Residential has currently an inventory of 22,000 units and over 34,000 residents, being a multifamily leader in Arizona. You'll Learn... [06:33] What is the Multifamily Market Oversupply? [14:44] The Fundamentals of Real Estate and Property Management [20:05] Why Property Managers Need Their Own Portfolio [25:11] What will Happen to the Market Next? Tweetables “If you're that light, people are going to be reaching out to the light when it gets dark.” “Property managers, they have no concern about being the bad guy. They're totally cool with making sure that things work and running it like a business.” “You have to make sense of the market.” “I think it's a smart move that every property manager should be also building up their own investments.” Resources DoorGrow and Scale Mastermind DoorGrow Academy DoorGrow on YouTube DoorGrowClub DoorGrowLive TalkRoute Referral Link Transcript [00:00:00] Jason: Property managers have a duty to be involved a little bit politically to prevent this firestorm from happening. And this is an opportunity to go and be the canary in the coal mine or be the Paul Revere shouting, from the horse, letting everybody know, Hey, there's a problem coming. [00:00:18] Welcome DoorGrow Hackers to the DoorGrowShow. If you are a property management entrepreneur that wants to add doors, make a difference, increase revenue, help others, impact lives, and you're interested in growing in business and life, and you're open to doing things a bit differently then you are a DoorGrow hacker. DoorGrow Hackers love the opportunities, daily variety, unique challenges, and freedom that property management brings. Many in real estate think you're crazy for doing it. You think they're crazy for not because you realize that property management is the ultimate, high trust gateway to real estate deals, relationships, and residual income. [00:00:55] At DoorGrow, we are on a mission to transform property management business owners and their businesses. We want to transform the industry, eliminate the bs, build awareness, change perception, expand the market, and help the best property management entrepreneurs win. I'm your host property management growth expert, Jason Hull, the founder and CEO of DoorGrow. Now let's get into the show. [00:01:19] My guest today, I'm hanging out here with John Carlson. From Mark Taylor residential, and I mean, it sounds like you guys are doing some big things. They're in Arizona, they have 22,000 units, 34,000 residents. This is not a small operation, so John, welcome to the show. [00:01:37] John: Jason, good morning everybody. Thanks for having me. Excited to be here. [00:01:41] Jason: Cool. So we're going to be chatting a bit about multifamily market over supply, which I'm guessing is pretty much what it sounds like. So, but John, maybe give us a little bit of background on you first and how you got into this and your relationship with Mark Taylor and all of this kind of stuff. Give us some backstory. [00:02:00] John: Sure, brevity matters. So, grew up in the Midwest Southern Minnesota. Farmer by trait with stepfather from age 10 until 18. Realized that was not for me. I'm not the micro dirty jobs kind of guy. You can see. I like the dressed up look. Yeah. So at age 16, I really thought about what I wanted to do in life, and of course didn't know. I was good at math, so I decided to be an electrical engineer. So I went to school for that. Worked for a great small company called vtech for about five years. Was able to finish school while working there and travel the world and discovered Phoenix and realized Minnesota was not long for me and what I wanted to be and do long term. So, chose Phoenix with my girlfriend Megan at the time. Traveled to Phoenix to look at apartments. I think we toured 15 or so apartments in one day. We had the big apartment guide book, if you remember those. Yeah, listeners. So we were feeding through those and there's a big eight fold and it had Mark Taylor communities. So we toured three or four of those and landed on San Cervantes. I always joke with my team, we actually broke into the amenity space because the office was closed, it was past six o'clock. So I just remember seeing this beautiful, resort style pool, sand, beach area, ramada water features. And I'm like, Megan, we have to live here. So, We flew back that night landed. I called the manager, Michelle Sinclair the next day and secured a two bedroom apartment class, a brand new for $940 and a month free concession. [00:03:28] So we moved a few weeks later and this was just prior to 9/11. Megan had a job. I was scheduled to fly back to Chicago to a final interview with a fuse company. They were opening a satellite office in Phoenix, and that was scheduled on 9/13 2001. Okay. So clearly there were no flights that day. The world was on edge, including me, and they put a hiring freeze on. So I was off to the races with my fax machine and sending out resumes if everyone knows what a fax machine is, right? So, that lasted a few months and lo and behold, Michelle, the manager, came to me and said, Hey, Would you consider part-time leasing while you wait for a position in engineering? And in my fixed mindset, I said, no. I'm an engineer pounding my chest. And a week later I realized I had to pay bills and electricity and all of those things, car payments, so I signed on and never looked back. I fell in love with the organization, real estate, and truly found my home as we like to say. And that's Mark Taylor. [00:04:27] Jason: Cool. That's quite a story. So it's pretty interesting. And so now what do you do at Mark Taylor? So everybody's clear. [00:04:34] John: So today I run Mark Taylor as president. As you mentioned, now 23,000 units Class A both Phoenix and Las Vegas. So in two states so, regional but have a pretty good grasp of the market across the country. So, And I think, a lot of us know us nationally from a brand recognition standpoint. We've been in business almost 40 years. So that's Mark Taylor in a nutshell. [00:04:56] Jason: So, That's awesome. Yeah, it's quite a story to go from starting to help with leasing to being president of the company. I think you skipped a lot of steps in between, but I enjoyed the beginning. So, what was the time gap there just for the audience to understand? [00:05:13] John: So I started leasing in 2002. My girlfriend Megan, moved back to Minnesota a year later. So I was here by myself. So I had a lot of time to figure out leasing real estate in the business. So I just moved my way through the organization. Like I said, I was good at math. I think I always had an appetite for real estate and I just really sunk my teeth into this business. And, as I always tell my new hires and the younger generation folks like lean in on mentors, find the best leaders. I found some great leadership mentors, people that were patient with me Yeah. And building up my skillset including Scott Taylor and Jeff Mark, our founders. And I just felt like that really helped my growth and my pathway and I worked my ass off. And I think, you can never look back and poo work ethic and sure. My mom and my father helped me with that years ago. [00:06:02] Jason: Yeah. Growing up on a farm, you're going to learn some work ethic. Yeah. Whenever we were bored, my dad would say, we'd learn never to say we were bored because he would put us to work. We'd be working in the yard. [00:06:13] John: I think I used that word for about 10 years. [00:06:15] Jason: So I'm never bored. I am creative and I'm never bored, so it doesn't happen. All right, so cool. Well, John it's awesome to connect. So what year did you become president? How long? 2016. Okay. Okay, cool. Yeah, I mean, that's a cool story right there. That's a cool story. So let's get into this topic: multifamily market oversupply. I mean, there's a lot of multifamily stuff going up here in Austin. I'm seeing it pop up everywhere. There's building and building. So, what are you seeing there in Arizona? What are you seeing, maybe you think is happening here in the US and the market? [00:06:51] John: Sure, let me start with, I'll start with, Phoenix Metro and all this broaden out. So, Phoenix, like most of the country was undersupplied from a multifamily perspective since really 2011. And I think if you just look back at the gfc the greater financial crisis in 2008 and nine and 10 that really I'll say put development in a paralysis type state. And Phoenix specifically was almost like the Black Plague. No one wanted to even think about investing here. And as most of the audience knows, I mean, it takes a long time to, to buy a piece of dirt, zone prep, design, get zoning approvals and get it through the city and actually build a unit that's two to three or four years depending on project type. So it took a long time to build up supply. So being undersupplied for a decade really resulted in a lot of things that we hadn't seen historically in Phoenix or across really the national landscape. So fast forward to the pandemic and we're starting to kind of get our, I'll say druthers in terms of supply. We're starting to get a better balance of that. An interesting data point we were delivering 18 to 22,000 units in the mid eighties in Phoenix, and had never delivered. 10,000 units in a year, past 1987 until last year. So if you think about the population adjustment, 19, just say 95 versus today, that's, almost 2 million people different. So, clearly there was an undersupply component. Fast forward to today and we're delivering and will deliver about 16 to 17,000 units in Phoenix Metro. Again, hadn't delivered past 10,000 units until last year when we delivered just over 13,000. So, yeah, I'll just say the equilibrium was in the landlord's favor, and unfortunately for renters that was costing them in terms of, monthly rent and you add to the field, the tailwind of Covid. Lots of folks came to Phoenix and I call it the Boomerang effect. Although the boomerang never came back, meaning. A lot of folks got to experience Phoenix for the first time, and I think this was a condition across the country. They found great spots where maybe there was a little bit less restriction in the Covid era, if you will. [00:09:04] And there were people coming here from California nonstop saying, God, I really enjoy Phoenix. I'm going to rent a place for six months. My employer's allowing me to be flexible at this point, and I'm going to test this out. And I think a lot of people decided to stay. So, as always, jobs create future apartment demand, but in this instant, if you worked in San Francisco, but you were living here in a six or 12 month lease, we weren't absorbing your job, but we were definitely taking your monthly payment. So, it was unique in that aspect and a lot of things changed from Covid. Obviously we can touch on that later, but expand. [00:09:34] Jason: Yeah. A lot more remote work. Everything flowed in the nation from places with less freedom to places with more freedom. [00:09:42] John: That's just what one would expect. Yeah. And that's what happened. So I think people got a taste for Phoenix. They realized July and August aren't that bad. Yes, it's an oven for a couple of months, but we're okay. HVAC and other things. So, I think that accelerated what I think people were already starting to figure out that Phoenix was great and I think that happened across the country. So, not only Phoenix, but broadened that out. So across the country, I think there was a similar pattern in terms of lack of development, both in single family, which has to be mentioned because that's a component of our housing shortage and multifamily. So fast forward to today. You had a couple things happen, so you had some momentum in real estate. [00:10:22] You had zero interest rates, essentially that environment for 10 to 15 years, and you started to have all of these developers starting to get their, I'll say, momentum and build units. And of course a lot of Class A units were delivered and are being delivered. And so, what's happening now is you're seeing a surge in that. And part of that has been fueled by delays in construction. So if you think about the covid related supply chain issues, some of that's kind of worked through itself over the last 12 to 18 months, which is good. So inventories are better. Pricing maybe has reprieved a bit, but if you say, supply chain issues, labor issues, which is the biggest component of that you have construction deliveries that are delayed, say three to 18 to 24 months. [00:11:08] So a lot of these deals, the 16,000 units specifically in Phoenix are result of that. Otherwise this would've been delivered prior. So I, I think that's a big component of the oversupply. Which at the end of the day if you go into, I can go down to a bunch of soapbox areas, but if you think about the renter, which is most important to me there should be a nice equilibrium in the market that's the best for all of us, right? [00:11:31] You get about a 3% rent growth, which has been the case since 1982, 3.2% rent growth average by year. That kind of fits with historical cpi. So when you're raising rents 20% or 10% that's not sustainable. I'll just say it that way. So this supply cresting is benefiting the renter for sure. Yeah. Q1 Phoenix was down 3% probably the lowest in the country. And, supply cures a lot of things. I'll say it that way. [00:11:59] Jason: Yeah. So I mean, everything's, the pendulum's swinging, right? And it's going to move back towards middle or back towards equilibrium. But how do we stop the swings? Because probably, you'll have a bunch of developers, they've been building stuff out because everybody's trying to capture all the opportunity that seems to be happening in all these markets like here in Austin. It's crazy. I'm sure it's crazy in Florida, like all the areas, there's lots of people moving from states that were more, more liberal and more control, and they're moving more towards areas where there's a little bit more freedom financially. And it'll be interesting to see if some of these places, the people that are moving, if they bring their policies with them and if those areas start to shift and change. But some of these areas what you see going on in San Francisco, what you can see going on in California, what you see going on in Seattle. I mean, some of these places do not look like great places to live anymore. Like it's getting chaotic. Sure. Because of some of the policies. So we're going to see a lot of money, I think shift, continually shifting towards these areas of freedom, and as that's happening, are these builders overbuilding? do you think that's going to be happening? That there's going to be too much like, it's like a gold rush? [00:13:14] John: Sure. Well, I think that ship has mostly sailed because of the interest rate environment. So yeah. I think most of us pick any sector have forgotten how to live in an interest rate environment. We were 0% essentially. So, if you look across the spectrum, I think you're going to see zombie companies, fade away. You're going to see the old adage from really 17 to 21. It's weird to say old, but you had startup companies that were negative cashflow that would not, be able to pay for a printer, but they would just get another round of funding, it's almost like a Ponzi scheme. So I think getting back to some fundamentals from a business more of an institutional business, historical methodology makes sense for the entire market. And I think this will force guys or groups or developers to be much more thoughtful as they go to market or try to build deals, right? It just it's not the wild west or, the top of the bubble. I think fundamentals matter. I think how you think about your business, how you look at, your construction, your development, your cost structures, what rent should be, all of those things are probably okay for guys that have done this the right way for a long time. I think it's the fringe guys that are greedy and are taking advantage of certain market conditions. And that's fine. Everyone has their angle. But I think this will shake out in a way where you get back to some real core guys or core groups that know what they're doing and fundamentally will help shape the future of multifamily the right way. [00:14:44] Jason: So you mentioned the fundamentals. So what do you feel like are the fundamentals that business owners in the property management space should be focused on? That's going to prove to be effective in the long term. I mean, obviously the company that you are president of has been focused on the fundamentals and has been doing well consistently. We've got a lot of listeners that are probably much smaller than your business and what do you think they should take away from and maybe could learn from what you guys are doing at Mark Taylor? [00:15:18] John: Yeah, I think you know Jeff Mark, Scott Taylor, our founders, taught me a lot of great things about real estate. And if you look at their track record they've never lost a deal or a unit or a dollar in real estate in 38 years of business, which is impressive considering all of the cycles and dynamics of what happens economically. So I think it comes down to when I look at Mark Taylor, we started as a developer, became a manager. Now we consult, we asset manage all of those things. And I think their fundamentals have always kept them in check, right? They've never gotten to a point where, oh, let's be greedy or let's stretch. If you have an investment model, here's your box. Never go outside of that, right? And so, I think back to, 2006, we sold everything we owned except for one deal. [00:16:03] In June of 06 at the peak it was a different environment then. And then we went pencils down post 2007. We built our last deal, San Porte and Tempe, and then hit pause on the other five pieces of dirt. We had a lot of guys just kept going nope, this thing's never going to end. And the first out of the ground in 2011 because we are also a data company, we've been collecting enormous amounts of data since 1985. Yeah. And everything said, tailwind, green light. So, we bought as many pieces of dirt as we could and built the most units from 11 through 15. And it really transformed our business and got us really on the front end of the last cycle. So, I think all of those things happened within our box. And today, we're moving through really the last two deals of our construction pipeline, and we'll probably be on pause or pencils down until the market makes sense again. And I think as simple as that sounds, you have to make sense of the market. So when you're seeing real cap rates below 3%, sometimes, below two and a half in 1920 and 21, you kind of got to scratch your head and say, okay, is that long? That in terms of going through a next 2, 3, 4, 5 years or next cycle. Does that make sense? And the problem with that is if you're not putting in fixed debt or fixed rates and you have guys saying, oh, the music's never going to stop, I'll just put floating rates on these or a three-year arm, that's a problem. [00:17:24] So you're seeing guys that made potentially bad decisions or got outside of their box. Seeing what happens when the market shifts and rates move like they did. No one can control the Fed. And seeing the acceleration of those rates has really created a dynamic where things will start to break. And I think we're seeing that now, or at least those things are percolating. [00:17:45] Jason: So for the listeners, help them understand at Mark Taylor the how the portfolio works. Are you doing third party or are you owner operators? because you're talking about selling off properties and you're doing management. [00:18:01] So, Give the listeners an idea. We talked about kind of the size of it, but what percentage is stuff that you developed that you've owned or that you own currently and then like that you're managing? [00:18:15] John: Yeah, great question. So we today, we get really all facets of the business. So our development ownership. So today we have about 5,200 units that are owned and self-managed. So we're about 80% third party. And I think the third party management aspect and also managing your own assets gives us a really nice balance. Yeah. So we're able to, in terms of properties that we own, turn my life back on properties that we own. We get to test new things like centralization and new software, new systems, new methodology. And on the third party side, we get to learn from ownership groups all over the world. We have owners from Japan, Tokyo all over the country large institutions, MetLife, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, et cetera, to Mom and Pops. And I think the deal flow that was occurring in 17, 18, 19 and certainly at the peak in 2021 showcased us in a, in terms of how we supported. Transaction capital markets. So every deal that comes on the market, we underwrite and it helps us get a true feel for what's happening in the market from an operational perspective. [00:19:20] A competitor's not going to send me their financial statement, but guess what? I get to get one when they go on the market. And then we see and track through great relationships, how those things happen. Meaning how many people are signing cas if there's 500 cas in one deal, there's obviously appetite for Phoenix. So, really understanding the transaction markets, the capital markets understanding, how guys are achieving debt, equity and all of those relationships has really kept us well-rounded. So, that's fed into Mark Taylor Consulting. So today we, we consult with a variety of developers groups with marketing programs and plans asset management nationally. So, it gives us a lens into a lot of different areas that really. Just allows us to take advantage of our expertise knowledge and data. [00:20:05] Jason: Yeah, and that's interesting. So one of our coaches that we have he said that it's really surprising that a lot of property managers don't have their own portfolio. They don't have their own properties that they have ownership in. There's quite a few. And he says, that's kind of like going to the restaurant, asking the waiter what's good there. And they said they've never had anything. And so I think there's an advantage, like, if you believe in real estate investing, I think it's a smart move that every property manager should be also building up their own investments. That's where some of the funds should be going towards to build up their own portfolio and their own investments, because, That's, that is smart for the future. That being said, building up a business is probably one of the most profitable things if you do it effectively to get an ROI on that exists. So you mentioned you mentioned focusing on the data. And you have all this data that a lot of people just don't have or don't have the opportunity to see at the level that you are doing it at. What is the data telling you right now that you think property management business owners that are doing third party should be focused on right now? [00:21:14] John: I think that, it's always predictable with each cycle, so I think back to. When we were coming out of the Great Recession, and I still have a, somewhere I have a sign. It was the old Clear Channel Billboard sign. It was just a little standup model. And we had three months free San Palacio, and there were other groups doing four months free. And these were prorated concessions. Wow. And when I think. To that timeframe. And most of my current generation of, leasing agents, service technicians, haven't been through a downturn. It's been a pretty good market since 2012. Yeah. And when I'm in company meetings, they'll say, raise your hand if you've worked in the gfc. And everyone's like this except for some execs. So. Trying to help them understand the cycles of this business is important. So, last year we did a lot of coaching and training on, okay, this is what owners are going to start to look for as the market shifts, right? When your rents are going up 10% NOIs here, you're above budget. There's not a lot of detailed conversations from most owners, meaning you're hitting all of those targets, things feel pretty good. But when it's doing this, And the market's softening, and now rents are going back and retracting. Now what do they do? They start to look at marketing costs. [00:22:26] They dig in like, what's going on exactly? Is my phone number on my website go directly to, someone that will answer it? Are my phones being answered? What's this expense over here? They become expense conscious, marketing conscious and personnel conscious. That's predictable. So my marketing team said, wow, you were right. We're getting a lot of calls now from owners. Of course you are. Yeah, the dynamics shifted and it's not even bad. It's just softened. So wait till maybe you're not covering debt, right? So I'd say that most of our groups are well capitalized. That's not an issue, but that's going to be for certain third party management groups. That's going to be an issue, right? Because they're going to pay debt before they pay your payroll depending on your property management agreement. So how does that work out? You're going to have to start to scale back on expenses. They're going to say, Hey, We need to save $20,000 this month, how are you going to do it? [00:23:13] So it just changes the dynamic of how you function as an operator. And I think back to your original point, us as ownership, that really helps us because we know in terms of our focus of maximizing the bottom line or financial potential of each asset. Man, it's a lot harder in this type of environment and it's going to get a bit harder for the next 12 to 24 months. [00:23:34] Jason: Yeah, I'm a little bit of a conspiracy theorist, but I think leading into the next election, every election year, things get really crazy. So, and it seems like nothing makes sense right now, like everything is just getting worse and crazy and, It doesn't seem to make sense, but I think it's it'll be crazy leading into 2024. So it'll be interesting. And I think, yeah, there will likely, it sounds like, be a wave of owners reaching out, owners wanting more support, investors wanting more help with what they're dealing with and trying to figure stuff out. There's probably quite a few that just I think ever since the pandemic, it woke people up because lot of the investors that were DIY and doing it themselves, they realized that they don't like being the bad guy. And if things do get crazy and things financially get tight, maybe for renters or for owners, right? Then property managers, they have no concern about being the bad guy. They're totally cool with making sure that things work and running it like a business because they've heard it all. Sure. They've been they're numb to all the BS and the stories and the, drama. Whereas, a lot of the homeowners and the property owners like, that's hard. It's hard, it's uncomfortable to deal with those situations. But when things are good, They're like I don't know that I need a property manager. But I think the need will increase. So this is interesting. So, well, is there anything else you'd like anyone to know about this idea of multifamily market oversupply or maybe about Mark Taylor or how should we wrap this up? [00:25:11] John: Well, I would start with just, from a. Current to long term perspective. So I think the over supply is happening. You're seeing it in Austin and Phoenix and other markets, and that will eventually fill up, right? So you have no choice but to stabilize. So your rents might not be what you performed, but are underwrote in your performer. But the reality is, at some point those will stabilize. And I think if you look past the next 24 months, 36 months and beyond, and really look at the last part of this decade, which is weird to say, but the late twenties. I think, we have to look at the country or this environment as there is going to be a housing supply shortage and I'm including single family for sale, single family for rent. And if you just go back to something we touched on earlier the attack on our industry and landlords and developers in general. Rent control is just. Commonly brought up by legislatures every year, including Arizona. And, the things that have, I'll say mostly ruined certain markets. I won't name St. Paul Portland and I could keep going. Uh, But those policies and how they've thought about creating housing. For their constituents and their population has clearly give them a great f And I think if you look across the spectrum of groups or cities or states that have done this well we have to fight for those policies. [00:26:36] And if we don't fight the wrong policies will occur and this housing shortage will just get, I think, substantially worse quickly. So, we have to think about policies. We have to think about doing things the right way, making sure that we have an ability to develop and create supply so that we can house folks that want to move to Austin, Phoenix and everywhere else where people believe in liberty, freedom and all the things that we believe are, founded in the constitution and belief in the US makes sense. So here we are today, Phoenix and Austin being two of them. [00:27:12] Jason: Yeah, it'll be interesting. If there's a shortage supply shortage coming in, housing, and then people think the solution is rent control it. That's like pouring gasoline on the fire. They're like, Hey, let's just make this worse. It's, I mean, it's wrong politicians that are doing the stupidest thing ever. It was the wrong thing and destroying things. And so, yeah. I think that's everybody listening, property managers have a duty to be involved a little bit politically to prevent this firestorm from happening. And this is an opportunity to go and be the canary in the coal mine or be the Paul Revere shouting, from the horse, letting everybody know, Hey, there's a problem coming. People are going to start trying to push this rent control idea and it's a bad idea if for no other reason than helping the industry. Use it as a vehicle or platform for some self-promotion for your business in your market, and get on some news channels. But I think that would be a great idea because then you're going to look like a profit when this stuff starts to come down and they're implementing rent control and there was a problem and you're like, Hey, I was the one that told you so people are going to start to listen to you. [00:28:16] This was like Winston Churchill, right? Yeah. Hitler started taking over and he was like, Hey, I've been telling everybody, and they're like, okay, you help us out. And if you're that light, people are going to be reaching out to the light when it gets dark. And because they know you, you have been talking about this. So maybe it's time for property managers to get a little bit noisy about this rent control stuff that's coming and not just hope and pray that it doesn't happen. You don't have to deal with it so. [00:28:43] John: No question. No question. [00:28:45] Jason: Cool. Well, John, really great having you on the show. Any call to action you want to leave anybody with or? How can people check out your company or whatever you'd like. [00:28:54] John: Yeah, check us out mark-taylor.com. That's mark hyphen taylor.com. Like I said, third party manager development consulting. If you're thinking about, developing a project in Arizona or you want to learn more about, data and terms of multifamily market conditions, Arizona, Nevada will soon be launching a subscription model, so you'll get access to a lot of our great reports. [00:29:17] And data, which will be incredibly helpful for those that are just trying to understand the market and what's next. So, reach out to myself directly. You can find me on the website and I appreciate you having me, Jason. It's always good to talk to great guys. [00:29:31] Jason: Like really great to have you. Thanks for coming on the show. [00:29:34] John: Thank you. Talk soon. All right. [00:29:37] Jason: So, really exciting to have John come on the show today. I think this brought up some ideas of what everybody needs to be paying attention to in the future, and property managers, your job for your investors is to see a little bit of the future and protect your investors and your clients, right? And hopefully we had mentioned also becoming an investor yourself if you're not already doing that. So for those of you that are struggling with your property management business right now, you're like, I don't have time right now to even think about getting a little bit politically active about rent control, or, I don't have time right now to even worry about the data or the future. I'm struggling to figure out how to like make money in my business, or I'm struggling with all the questions my team are throwing at me all the time. Why can't they just think for themselves? Reach out to DoorGrow, we can help you make your business scalable. We can help make it easier and we can help remove that secret pain that a lot of you have that are over 200 doors that deep down, if you add more doors, your life's not going to get better, personally, it's going to get harder. And so we psychologically get reversed towards growth and adding more doors. We can help solve that problem. We just need to make your business scalable and get you out of all the things that you really don't enjoy doing. [00:30:54] And we're really good at helping people do that. So if you'd like to start stacking and adding a hundred, 200 plus stores a year in your property management business and grow it and scale it, we have clients that are doing that and we have proven it and our model works and we can help you do that as well. [00:31:11] So reach out to DoorGrow. And if you're one of the startups or smaller companies and you're under a hundred doors, we can help you get very quickly, get those doors stacked up and start and get the growth going. So reach out to DoorGrow. Check us out to DoorGrow.com. Click the big pink button. We have a free training that's 95 minutes long of me just dropping value, and that's going to change your mindset about what it takes to grow your property management business and to make it scalable. [00:31:38] Check that out and it's free. It's right there. There's a YouTube video on that page that we set up. So, and book a call with us. We'd love to talk with you and see if we can help you grow and scale your business. We're always looking for really awesome growth-minded property managers to be part of our Mastermind community. We have some amazing people in there that are getting awesome results. [00:32:00] Jason Hull: You just listened to the #DoorGrowShow. We are building a community of the savviest property management entrepreneurs on the planet in the DoorGrowClub. Join your fellow DoorGrow Hackers at doorgrowclub.com. Listen, everyone is doing the same stuff. SEO, PPC, pay-per-lead content, social, direct mail, and they still struggle to grow! [00:32:26] At DoorGrow, we solve your biggest challenge: getting deals and growing your business. Find out more at doorgrow.com. Find any show notes or links from today's episode on our blog doorgrow.com, and to get notified of future events and news subscribe to our newsletter at doorgrow.com/subscribe. Until next time, take what you learn and start DoorGrow Hacking your business and your life.

The Book of John: Well Well Well

Town Hall

Play Episode Listen Later May 2, 2023 18:30

John Chapter 4 is an all time great - so great we had to break it up into two episodes. The first starts with the reality that Jesus got tired too when He started on something unexpected. However, He did not let that stop Him from doing great things. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/townhall/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/townhall/support

jesus christ john chapter book of john well well well john well

CloudDev for Retail Companies with John Mille

Screaming in the Cloud

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 27, 2023 31:15

John Mille, Principal Cloud Engineer at Sainsbury's UK joins Corey on Screaming in the Cloud to discuss how retail companies are using cloud services. John describes the lessons he's learned since joining the Sainsbury's UK team, including why it's important to share knowledge across your team if you don't want to be on call 24/7, as well as why he doesn't subscribe to the idea that every developer needs access to production. Corey and John also discuss an open-source project John created called ECS Compose-X.About JohnJohn is an AWS Community Builder (devtools), Open Source enthusiast, SysAdmin born in the cloud, and has worked with AWS since his very first job. He enjoys writing code and creating projects. John likes to focus on automation & architecture that delivers business value, and has been dabbling with data & the wonderful world of Kafka for the past 3 years.Links Referenced: AWS Open-Source Roundup newsletter blog post about ECS Compose-X: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/automating-your-ecs-container-architecture-deployments-with-ecs-composex/ ECS Compose-X: https://docs.compose-x.io/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-mille/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/JohnPre32286850 TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: It's easy to **BEEP** up on AWS. Especially when you're managing your cloud environment on your own!Mission Cloud un **BEEP**s your apps and servers. Whatever you need in AWS, we can do it. Head to missioncloud.com for the AWS expertise you need. Corey: Do you wish your developers had less permanent access to AWS? Has the complexity of Amazon's reference architecture for temporary elevated access caused you to sob uncontrollably? With Sym, you can protect your cloud infrastructure with customizable, just-in-time access workflows that can be setup in minutes. By automating the access request lifecycle, Sym helps you reduce the scope of default access while keeping your developers moving quickly. Say goodbye to your cloud access woes with Sym. Go to symops.com/corey to learn more. That's S-Y-M-O-P-S.com/coreyCorey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. Today my guest is a long-time listener, first-time caller. John Mille is a Principal Cloud Engineer at Sainsbury's, which is UK-speak for ‘grocery store.' John, thank you for joining me.John: Hi, Corey. Thanks for having me.Corey: So, I have to begin with, I guess, the big question that I used to run into people in San Francisco with all the time. They would work at Walmart Labs and they would mention in conversation that they work at Walmart, and people who weren't aware that there was a labs out here figured they were a greeter at the grocery store. Do you ever wind up with people making that sort of fundamental assumption around the fact, oh, you work at Sainsbury's as a checker or whatnot?John: No. But it actually is one of the—if you look at one of the job descriptions from Sainsbury's, the first thing is, why would you join a retail company to do tech? And as it turns out, tech—I mean, I think retail companies, as any other companies in the world, rely on Cloud more and more and more. And I think that one of the things that is interesting today is, if you look at the landscape of retailers, I've heard many times people saying, “We don't want to go for AWS because we're giving money to the competition.” And actually, I think AWS does a fantastic job overall giving you all the tools to actually beat them as your competition. And as it turns out, we've had really, really great success running a lot of our workloads on AWS for many, many years now.Corey: On some level, if you can't come to terms with the idea of Amazon as competition, you shouldn't be using AWS, regardless of what industry you're in, because their entire company strategy is yes. It's very hard to start to even come up with industries that they don't have some form of presence within. On some level, that's a problem. In fact a lot of levels, that's something of a problem.Everyone tends to wind up viewing the world in a bunch of different ways. I like to divide companies into two groups. More or less it's, is the AWS bill one of the top three line items at the company? And if the answer's no, on some level, you know, that usually is an indicator that there's a sustainable business there that, you know, both our grandparents and our grandchildren will be able to recognize, in the fullness of time. You absolutely have a business that winds up falling into that category, whereas, “Oh yeah, I fix the AWS bill,” yeah, my parents would have no idea what I do and my kids don't have much of a better one. It feels like it's very point-in-time type of problem. At least I hope.Technology is not the core of what grocery stores tend to do, but I also don't get the sense that what you're doing is sitting there doing the back office corporate IT style of work, either. How do you use technology in the overall context of the business?John: Well, so we use it in a very wide variety of sense. So, you obviously have everything that has to do with online shopping, orders and all of those sort of things, which obviously, especially with the drive of Covid and being everybody from home, has been a huge driver to improve our ability to deliver to customers. But certainly, I think that Sainsbury's sees AWS as a key partner to be able to go and say we want to deliver more value. And so, there's been a number of transformation over the years to—and one of the reasons I was hired is actually to be part of one of those transformation, where we're going to take existing infrastructure servers that literally—I usually say to people, “Oh, are we doing an upgrade this month? Has somebody gotten their little brush to go and brush onto the hard drives to make sure that nothing is going to die?” And actually do that transformation and move over to the cloud in order to never have to really worry about whether or not they have to manage hardware and infrastructure.Corey: It's strange in that I never got very deep into containers until I was no longer hands-on hardware, managing things. I was more or less doing advisory work and then messing around with them. And you'd think given my proclivities historically, of being very unlucky when it comes to data, you would think that this would be great because, oh yeah, you blow away an ephemeral container? Well, that's kind of the point. We'll all laugh and it'll re-instantiate itself and life goes on.But no. Making fun of them was more or less how I tended to do approach them for the longest time until I started to see them a little bit… well I guess less as a culture, less as a religion, and more as an incredibly versatile packaging format, which is probably going to annoy the people I know who are the packaging [unintelligible 00:04:58] for Linux distributions. How do you tend to view them? And how did you start using them?John: Right. So, that's a great question. So historically, I was a student at, I think the school were one of the original creators of Docker were. And one of the things that you learn when you do development at the school is that, you know, containers [unintelligible 00:05:18] new invention. Docker, I think, came on the platform as the way to, you know, give everybody a great framework, a great API, to drive the deployment of containers in the world and bundle them and ship them around the world, on your laptop and somebody else's, and help a little bit with, you know, solving the problem of it works on my laptop, but not just on the laptop properly. Maybe.It's obviously gone viral over the years and I really enjoy containers; I quite like containers. What I find interesting is what people are going to do with. And I think that over the last few years, we've seen a number of technologies such as Kubernetes and others come into the scene and say—and trying to solve people's problem, but everybody seems to be doing, sort of, things on their own way. And historically, I started off using ECS, when it was terrible and you didn't have security groups per containers and all of this. But over the years, you know, you learn, and AWS has improved the service quite significantly with more and more features.And I think we are today in the place where there's this landscape, I think, where a lot of workloads are going to be extremely ephemeral and you can go [unintelligible 00:06:28], you know, wherever you want and you have a bit—if you have a platform or workflow that you need to have working in different places, maybe Kubernetes could be an easy way to have a different sort of sets of features that allows you to move around in maybe an easier way. But that also comes with a set of drawbacks. Again, I look at using EKS, for example, and I see okay, I have to manage IAM in our back now, whereas if I used something like ECS, for the whatever the [unintelligible 00:06:56] cloud vendor of choice, I don't have to deal with any of this. So, I think it's finding the fine balance between how you do orchestration of containers now and what works for you and is any sustainable over the time, more than about are you going to use containers? Because the chances are, somebody is using containers.Corey: My experiences and workflows and constraints are radically different than that of other folks because for a lot of the things I'm building, these are accounts that are I'm the only person that has access to them. It is me. So, the idea of fine-grained permissions for users from an ARBAC perspective doesn't really factor into it. Yes, yes, in theory, I should have a lot of the systems themselves with incidents roles being managed in safe and secure ways, but in many cases, the AWS account boundary is sufficient for that, depending on what it is we're talking about. But that changes when you start having a small team of people working with you and having to collaborate on these things.And we do a little bit of that with some of our consulting stuff that isn't just the shitpost stuff I build for fun. But there's multiple levels beyond that. You are clearly in a full-blown enterprise at this point where there are a bunch of different teams working on different things, all ideally going in the same direction. And it's easy to get stuck in the weeds of having to either go through central IT for these things, which gives rise to shadow IT every time you find a corporate credit card in the wild, or it winds up being everyone can do what they want, but then there's no consensus, there's no control, there's no architectural similarity. And I'm not sure which path is worse in some respects. How do you land on it?John: Right. So, what I've seen done in companies that works very well—and again, to the credit of my current company—is one of the things they've done really well is build a hub of people who are going to manage solely everything that has to do with accounts access, right? So, the control, IAM, Security Hub, all of those sorts of things, for you. There's things that are mandatory that you can't deal without, you have permissions boundary, that's it, you have to use those things, end of story. But beyond that point, once you have access to your accounts, you've been given all of the access that is necessary for you to deliver application and deploy them all the way up to production without asking permission for anybody else apart from your delivery managers, potentially.And I think from there, because there is the room to do all of this, one of the things that we've done within my business unit is that we've put in place a framework that enables developers—and when I say that it really is a question of allowing them to do everything they have to do, focus on the code, and I know it's a little catchy [unintelligible 00:09:33] a phrase that you hear these days, but the developers really are the customers that we have. And all that we do is to try to make sure that they have a framework in place that allows them to do what they need and deploy the applications in a secure fashion. And the only way to do that for us was to build the tools for them that allows them to do all of that. And I honestly haven't checked a single service IAM policies in a very are longtime because I know that by providing the tools to developers, they don't have this [will 00:10:05] to go and mess with the permissions because their application suddenly doesn't have the permissions. They just know that with the automation we've providing them, the application gets the access it needs and no more.Corey: On some level, it feels like there's a story around graduated development approach where in a dev environment you can do basically whatever you want with a big asterisk next to it. That's the same asterisk, by the way, next to the AWS free tier. But as you start elevating things into higher environments, you start to see gating around things like who has access to what, security reviews, et cetera, et cetera, and ideally, by the time you wind up getting into production, almost no one should have access and that access that people do have winds up being heavily gated. That is, of course, the vision that folks have. In practice, reality is what happens instead of what we plan on. The idea of it works in theory, but not in production is of course, why I call my staging environment ‘theory.' Does that tend to resonate as far as what you've seen in the wild?John: Yeah. Very much so. And when I joined the company, and we put together our [standard 00:11:11] pipelines for developers to be able to do everything, the rule that I would give to my team—so I manage a small team of cloud engineers—the one rule I would say is, “We have access to prod because we need to provision resources, but when we're going to build the pipelines for the developers, you have to build everything in such a way that the developers will only have read-only access to the production environment, and that is only to go and see their logs.” And at least try to foster this notion that developers do not need access to production, as much as possible because that avoids people going and do something they shouldn't be doing in those production environments.Now, as the pipeline progresses and applications get deployed to production, there are some operational capabilities that people need to have, and so in that case, what we do is we try to fine-tune what do people need to do and grant those people access to the accounts so that they can perform the jobs and I don't have to be woken up at two in the morning. The developers are.Corey: One thing that I think is going to be a cause of some consternation for folks—because I didn't really think about this in any meaningful sense until I started acting as a consultant, which means you're getting three years of experience for every year that you're in the wild, just by virtue of the variety of environments you encounter—on some level, there's a reasonable expectation you can have when you're at a small, scrappy startup, that everyone involved knows where all the moving parts live. That tends to break down with scale. So, the idea of a Cloud Center of Excellence has been bandied around a lot. And personally, I hate the term because it implies the ‘Data Center of Mediocrity,' which is a little on the nose for some people at times. So, the idea of having a sort of as a centralized tiger team that has the expertise and has the ability to go on deep dives and sort of loan themselves out to different teams seems to be a compromise between nobody knows what they're doing and, every person involved should have an in-depth knowledge of the following list of disciplines.For example, most folks do not need an in-depth primer on AWS billing constructs. They need about as much information fits on an index card. Do you find that having the centralized concentration of cloud knowledge on a particular team works out or do you find that effectively doing a rotating embedding story is the better answer?John: It varies a lot, I think, because it depends on the level of curiosity of the developers quite a lot. So, I have a huge developer background. People in my team are probably more coming from ex-IT environments or this sort of operation and then it just naturally went into the cloud. And in my opinion, is fairly rare to find somebody that is actually good at doing both AWS and coding. I am by no means really, really great at coding. I code pretty much every day but I wouldn't call myself a professional developer.However, it does bring to my knowledge the fact that there are some good patterns and good practices that you can bring into building your applications in the cloud and some really bad ones. However, I think it's really down to making sure that the knowledge is here within the team. If there's a specialized team, those really need to be specialists. And I think the important thing then is to make sure that the developers and the people around you that are curious and want to ask questions know that you're available to them to share that knowledge. Because at the end of the day, if I'm the only one with the knowledge, I'm going to be the one who is always going to be on call for this or doing that and this is no responsibility that I want. I am happy with a number of responsibilities, but not to be the only person to ever do this. I want to go on holidays from time to time.So, at the end of the day, I suppose it really is up to what people want or expect out of their careers. I do a job that it was a passion for me since I was about 14 years old. And I've always been extremely curious to understand how things work, but I do draw the line that I don't write anything else than Python these days. And if you ask me to write Java, I'll probably change job in the flip of a second. But that's the end of it. But I enjoy understanding how Java things work so that I can help my developers make better choices with what services in AWS to use.Corey: On some level, it feels like there's a, I guess, lack of the same kind of socialization that startups have sort of been somewhat guided by as far as core ethos goes, where, oh whatever I'm working on, I want to reach out to other people, and, “Hey, I'm trying to solve this problem. What is it that you have been working on that's germane to this and how can we collaborate together?” It has nothing to do, incidentally, with the idea that, oh, big company people aren't friendly or are dedicated or aren't good or aren't well-connected; none of that. But there are so many people internally that you're spending your time focusing on and there's so much more internal context that doesn't necessarily map to anything outside of the company that the idea of someone off the street who just solved a particular problem in a weird way could apply to what a larger company with, you know, regulatory burdens, starts to have in mind, it becomes a little bit further afield. Do you think that that's accurate? Do you think that there's still a strong sense of enterprise community that I'm just potentially not seeing in various ways because I don't work at big companies?John: It's a very fine line to walk. So, when I joined the company, I was made aware that there's a lot of Terraform and Kubernetes, which I went [unintelligible 00:16:28] all the way with CloudFormation is yes. So, that was one of the changes I knew I would have. But I can move an open mind and when I looked around at, okay, what are the Terraform modules—because I used Terraform with anger for an entire year of suffering—and I thought, “Okay, well, maybe people have actually got to a point where they've built great modules that I can just pick up off the shelf and reuse or customize only a tiny little bit, add maybe a couple of features and that's, it move on; it's good enough for me.” But as it turns out, there is I think, a lot of the time a case where the need for standardization goes against the need for business to move on.So, I think this is where you start to see silos start to being built within the company and people do their own thing and the other ones do their own. And I think it's always a really big challenge for a large company with extremely opinionated individuals to say, “All right, we're going to standardize on this way.” And it definitely was one of the biggest challenge that I had when I joined the company because again, big communities and Terraform place, we're going to need to do something else. So, then it was the case of saying, “Hey, I don't think we need Kubernetes and I definitely don't think we need Terraform for any the things—for any of those reasons, so how about we do something a little different?”Corey: Speaking of doing things a little bit different, you were recently featured in an AWS Open-Source Roundup newsletter that was just where you, I think, came across my desk one of the first times, has specifically around an open-source project that you built: ECS Compose-X.So, I assume it's like, oh, it's like Docker Compose for ECS and also the ‘X' implies that it is extreme, just, like, you know, snack foods at the convenience store. What does it do and where'd it come from?John: Right. So, you said most of it, right? It literally is a question where you take a Docker Compose file and you want to deploy your services that you worked on and all of that together, and you want to deploy it to AWS. So, ECS Compose-X is a CLI tool very much like the Copilot. I think it was released about four months just before Copilots came out—so, sorry, I beat you to the ball there—but with the Docker Compose specification supported.And again, it was really out of I needed to find a neat way to take my services and deploy them in AWS. So, Compose-X is just a CLI tool that is going to parse your Docker Compose file and create CloudFormation templates out of it. Now, the X is not very extreme or anything like that, but it's actually coming from the [finite 00:18:59] extension fields, which is something supported in Docker Compose. And so, you can do things like x-RDS, or x-DynamoDB, which Docker Compose on your laptop will totally ignore, but ECS Compose-X however will take that into account.And what it will do is if you need a database or a DynamoDB table, for example, in your Docker Compose file, you do [x-RDS, my database, some properties, 00:19:22]—exactly the same properties as CloudFormation, actually—and then you say, “I want this service to have access to it in read-only fashion.” And what ECS Compose-X is going to do is just understand what it has to do when—meaning creating IAM policies, opening security groups, all of that stuff, and make all of that available to the containers in one way or another.Corey: It feels like it's a bit of a miss for Copilot not to do this. It feels like they wanted to go off in their own direction with the way that they viewed the world—which I get; I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with that. There's a reason that I point kubernetestheeasyway.com to the ECS marketing site—but there's so much stuff out there that is shipped or made available in other ways with a Docker Compose file, and the question of okay, how do I take this and run it in Fargate or something because I don't want to run it locally for whatever reason, and the answer is, “That's the neat part. You don't.”And it just becomes such a clear miss. There have been questions about this Since Copilot launched. There's a GitHub issue tracking getting support for this that was last updated in September—we are currently recording this at the end of March—it just doesn't seem to be something that's a priority. I mean, I will say the couple of times that I've used Copilot myself, it was always for greenfield experiments, never for adopting something else that already existed. And that was… it just felt like a bit of a heavy lift to me of oh, you need to know from the beginning that this is the tool you're going to use for the thing. Docker Compose is what the ecosystem has settled on a long time ago and I really am disheartened by the fact that there's no direct ECS support for it today.John: Yeah, and it was definitely a motivation for me because I knew that ECS CLI version 1 was going into the sunset, and there wasn't going to be anything supporting it. And so, I just wanted to have Docker Compose because it's familiar to developers and again, if you want to have adoption and have people use your thing, it has to be easy. And when I looked at Copilot the first time around, I was extremely excited because I thought, “Yes, thank you, Amazon for making my life easy. I don't have to maintain this project anymore and I'm going to be able to just lift and shift, move over, and be happy about it.” But when the specification for Copilot was out and I could go for the documentation, I was equally disheartened because I was like, “Okay, not for me.”And something very similar happened when they announced Proton. I was extremely excited by Proton. I opened a GitHub issue on the roadmap immediately to say, “Hey, are you going to support to have some of those things together or not?” And the fact that the Proton templates—I mean, again, it was, what, two, three years ago now—and I haven't looked at Proton since, so it was a very long time now.Corey: The beta splasher was announced in 2020 and I really haven't seen much from it since.John: Well, and I haven't done anything [unintelligible 00:22:07] with it. And literally, one of the first thing did when the project came out. Because obviously, this is an open-source project that we use in Sainsbury's, right because we deploy everything in [ECS 00:22:17] so why would I reinvent the wheel the third time? It's been done, I might as well leverage it. But every time something on it came out, I was seeing it as the way out of nobody's going to need me anymore—which is great—and that doesn't create a huge potential dependency on the company for me, oh, well, we need this to, you know, keep working.Now, it's open-source, it's on the license you can fork it and do whatever you want with it, so from that point of view, nobody's going to ask me anything in the future, but from the point of view where I need to, as much as possible, use AWS native tools, or AWS-built tools, I differently wanted every time to move over to something different. But every time I tried and tiptoed with those alternative offerings, I just went back and said, “No, this [laugh] either is too new and not mature enough yet, or my tool is just better.” Right? And one of the things I've been doing for the past three years is look at the Docker ECS plugin, all of the issues, and I see all of the feature requests that people are asking for and just do that in my project. And some with Copilots. The only thing that Copilot does that I don't do is tell people how to do CI/CD pipelines.Corey: One thing you said a second ago just sort of, I guess, sent me spiraling for a second because I distinctly remember this particular painful part. You're right, there was an ECS CLI for a long time that has since been deprecated. But we had internal tooling built around that. When there was an issue with a particular task that failed, getting logs out of it was non-trivial, so great. Here's the magic incantation that does it.I still haven't found a great way to do that with the AWS v2 CLI and that feels like it's a gap where yes, I understand, old tools go away and new ones show up, but, “Hey, I [unintelligible 00:24:05] task. Can you tell me what the logs are?” “No. Well, Copilot's the new answer.” “Okay. Can I use this to get logs from something that isn't Copilot?” “Oh, absolutely not.” And the future is inherently terrible as a direct result.John: Yeah. Well, I mean, again, the [unintelligible 00:24:20]—the only thing that ECS Compose-X does is create all the templates for you so you can, you know, then just query it and know where everything has been created. And one of the things it definitely does create is all of the log groups. Because again, least-privileged permissions being something that is very dear to me, I create the log groups and just allow the services to only write in those log groups and that's it.Now, typically this is not a thing that I've thought Compose-X was going to do because that's not its purpose. It's not going to be an operational tool to troubleshoot all the things and this is where I think that other projects are much better suited and I would rather use them as an extension or library of the project as opposed to reinvent them. So, if you're trying to find a tool for yourself to look at logs, I highly recommend something called ‘AWS logs,' which is fantastic. You just say, “Hey, can you list the groups?” “Okay.” “Can you get me the groups and can I tell them on a terminal?”And that's it. Job done. So, as much as I enjoy building new features into the project, for example, I think that there's a clear definition between what the project is for and what it's not. And what it's for is giving people CloudFormation templates they can reuse in any region and deploy their services and not necessarily deal with their operations; that's up to them. At the end of the day, it's really up to the user to know what they want to do with it. I'm not trying to force anybody into doing something specific.Corey: I would agree. I think that there's value to there's more than one way to do it. The problem is, at some point, there's a tipping point where you have this proliferation of different options to the point where you end up in this analysis paralysis model where you're too busy trying to figure out what is the next clear step. And yes, that flexibility is incredibly valuable, especially when you get into, you know, large, sophisticated enterprises—ahem, ahem—but when you're just trying to kick the tires on something new, I feel like there's a certain lack of golden path where in the event of not having an opinion on any of these things, this is what you should do just to keep things moving forward, as opposed to here are two equal options that you can check with radio boxes and it's not at all clear what you which does what or what the longer-term implications are. We've all gotten caught with the one-way doors we didn't realize we were passing through at the time and then had to do significant technical debt repayment efforts to wind up making it right again.I just wish that those questions would be called out, but everything else just, it doesn't matter. If you don't like the name of the service that you're creating, you can change it later. Or if you can't, maybe you should know now, so you don't have—in my case—a DynamoDB table that is named ‘test' running in production forever.John: Yeah. You're absolutely right. And again, I think it goes back to one of the biggest challenges that I had when I joined the company, which was when I said, “I think we should be using CloudFormation, I think we should be using ECS and Terraforming Kubernetes for those reasons.” And one of the reasons was, the people. Meaning we were a very small team, only five cloud engineers at the time.And as I joined the company, they were already was three different teams using four different CI/CD tools. And they all wanted to use Kubernetes, for example, and they were all using different CI/CD—like I said, just now—different CI/CD tools. And so, the real big challenge for me was how do I pitch that simplicity is what's going to allow us to deliver value for the business? Because at the end of the day, like you said many, many times before, the AWS bill is a question of architecture, right? And there's a link and intricacy between the two things.So, the only thing that really mattered for me and the team was to find a way, find the service that was going to allow to do a number of things, A, delivering value quickly, being supported over time. Because one of the things that I think people forget these days—well, one of the things I'm allergic to and one of the things that makes me spiral is what I call CV-driven tech choices where people say, “Hey, I love this great thing I read about and I think that we should use that in production. How great idea.” But really, I don't know anything about it and is then up to somebody else to maintain it long-term.And that goes to the other point, which is, turnover-proof is what I call it. So, making tech choices that are going to be something that people will be able to use for many, many years, there is going to be a company behind the scenes that he's going to be able to support you as well as you go and use the service for the many, many years to go.Corey: I really want to thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. If people want to learn more, where's the best place for them to find you?John: So, people can find me on LinkedIn. I'm also around on Twitter these days, although I probably about have nine followers. Well, probably shouldn't say that [laugh] and that doesn't matter.Corey: It's fine. We'll put a link into it—we'll put a link to that in the [show notes 00:29:02] and maybe we'll come up with number ten. You never know. Thanks again for your time. I really appreciate it.John: Thanks so much, Corey, for having me.Corey: John Mille, Principal Cloud Engineer at Sainsbury's. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice along with an angry comment that you go to great pains to type out but then fails to post because the version of the tool you use to submit it has been deprecated without a viable replacement.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.

covid-19 amazon head uk technology san francisco meaning walmart companies excellence cloud retail i am cv api open source screaming python aws linux java github devops mediocrity kafka copilot mille data centers beeps docker kubernetes sainsbury proton rds ci cd terraform cli ecs eks sysadmin johnno sym dynamodb corey quinn john it fargate cloudformation john yeah walmart labs john well john so john right duckbill group aws community builder john thanks chief cloud economist last week in aws

Episode #94: A Review Of "Don't Call Me A Christian" With Ex-Catholic Patrice & John M. Verner, Author & Host Of The Cult Of Christianity Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 10, 2023 65:56

INTRODUCTION: In today's episode John M. Verner and Ms. Patrice help me navigate a discussion on my new book, Don't Call Me A Christian: What Does That Word Even Mean? This is a completely free book and can be found at SexDrugsAndJesus.com. JOHN VERNER'S BIO: I hold a Bachelor of Arts in Biblical Exposition, with an interdisciplinary in Literature, from Moody Bible Institute. I was one of two recipients of the MBI Homiletical Jury Award for outstanding preaching in 2016. I have experience as a youth pastor, pastoral intern, academic journal editor, and guest speaker. I used to be a part of the largest cult in the United States. In 2019, I published my first book, The Cult of Christianity, as a first step in addressing the subtle issues of this complex system. In 2021, I continued my work with this podcast! INCLUDED IN THIS EPISODE (But not limited to): · A Review Of My New (FREE) Book· Raising Children With Inconsistent Religious Information· The Effects Of Religious Trauma · Truth Is Found Outside The Church· The Birth Of The Bible· Is The Word “Christian” Really Worth It CONNECT WITH JOHN: Website, Social Media & Books: https://linktr.ee/thecultofchristianity CONNECT WITH DE'VANNON: Website: https://www.SexDrugsAndJesus.comWebsite: https://www.DownUnderApparel.comTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@sexdrugsandjesusYouTube: https://bit.ly/3daTqCMFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/SexDrugsAndJesus/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sexdrugsandjesuspodcast/Twitter: https://twitter.com/TabooTopixLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/devannonPinterest: https://www.pinterest.es/SexDrugsAndJesus/_saved/Email: DeVannon@SDJPodcast.com DE'VANNON'S RECOMMENDATIONS: · Pray Away Documentary (NETFLIX)o https://www.netflix.com/title/81040370o TRAILER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk_CqGVfxEs · OverviewBible (Jeffrey Kranz)o https://overviewbible.como https://www.youtube.com/c/OverviewBible · Hillsong: A Megachurch Exposed (Documentary)o https://press.discoveryplus.com/lifestyle/discovery-announces-key-participants-featured-in-upcoming-expose-of-the-hillsong-church-controversy-hillsong-a-megachurch-exposed/ · Leaving Hillsong Podcast With Tanya Levino https://leavinghillsong.podbean.com · Upwork: https://www.upwork.com· FreeUp: https://freeup.net VETERAN'S SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS · Disabled American Veterans (DAV): https://www.dav.org· American Legion: https://www.legion.org · What The World Needs Now (Dionne Warwick): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHAs9cdTqg INTERESTED IN PODCASTING OR BEING A GUEST?: · PodMatch is awesome! This application streamlines the process of finding guests for your show and also helps you find shows to be a guest on. The PodMatch Community is a part of this and that is where you can ask questions and get help from an entire network of people so that you save both money and time on your podcasting journey.https://podmatch.com/signup/devannon TRANSCRIPT:[00:00:00]You're listening to the sex drugs and Jesus podcast, where we discuss whatever the fuck we want to! And yes, we can put sex and drugs and Jesus all in the same bed and still be all right at the end of the day. My name is De'Vannon and I'll be interviewing guests from every corner of this world as we dig into topics that are too risqué for the morning show, as we strive to help you understand what's really going on in your life.There is nothing off the table and we've got a lot to talk about. So let's dive right into this episode.De'Vannon: Hello all my children and welcome back to the Sex Drugs in Jesus podcast. In today's episode, John m Vanier from the Cult of Christianity podcast is Back with us, along with Ms. Patrice, and they're here to help me navigate a deep discussion into my new book, which is called Don't Call Me a Christian.What does That word even mean? This book is completely free and it can be found at my website, sex Drugs, and jesus.com. [00:01:00] In this episode, we're gonna talk a lot about the effects of religious trauma, whether or not the word Christian is really worth it, the birth of the Bible, and just so many things. . Hello everyone and welcome back to the Sex Drugs in Jesus podcast. I'm your host with the most Savannah that I have with me, the wonderful and great, incredible, beautiful, Patrice. And then we also have the powerful and very well learned in edge Ed John m Vane. How are y'all doing today?Pat: We are doing well. What about you? Good to hear you.De'Vannon: I am marvelous darling, and living my best life. Everything's just gonna get better from here on out.Pat: Yes.De'Vannon: Now y'all are both in the greater Atlanta area and I think that it's really, really cool. How's the weather over there today?[00:02:00]John: Rainy.Pat: Yeah, it's overcast. Just kind.John: it's been, it's been rather warm, which is great, but the past two days, it's been very, very rain.Pat: Just about. Yeah.De'Vannon: that's how springbegan. Pat: you?De'Vannon: It's like partly cloudy, no rain in the forecast. So I've been out there, you know, personally watering my garden and everything. But, so what was I gonna say about Atlanta? Hmm.Pat: And it's the.De'Vannon: we'll circle back to Tyler Perry Studios in just a moment. I was about to dare to do like a tie-in before we explained everything, because I really, really, really like talking about Tyler Perry.But but we'll, we'll circle back in just a second. So, so on today's show, everybody you wanna be talking about, this new book that I wrote, it's called Don't Call Me a Christian. What does that word, any, what does that word even mean? And John has read. Patrice has read it and they're gonna let me have it one way or the other and tell 'em if they really, [00:03:00] really hated it.I really, really couldn't get enough of it, and hopefully they got the point. And so is there anything that y'all would like to tell people about your own personal background, history or anything like that before we get into the book?Pat: For me, I'm actually born Catholic, Roman Catholic. I've deviated from it over the years. I am way past 50 and, you know, have lots of questions that have not been answered by the church. John, you have anything to jump in and say?John: Yeah. Yeah, so if, if y'all have heard me before basically I, I studied to be a pastor and then various stories, left the faith myself and now you know, do a lot of work to investigate colts and religions. And yeah, I'm always happy to talk about this stuff. So I'm excited to get.Pat: Great,De'Vannon: Okay, so let's hop right into it. Let's, let's take a [00:04:00] look at the book. I pride myself on designing very enigmatic book covers or polarizing. I wanna know what each of you thought of it and if, if you picked up on the points I was trying to make, or did it all just kind of look like it was thrown together.John: Nothing ever looks thrown together. It looks like you put a lot of thought into it. I, I, I honestly get a lot of like, almost like frustration and angst from the cover. Like, but, but the weird sense of reverence too, because there's a lot of you know, classically Christian imagery in it. You know, I didn't, I don't read too much into the book covers.They say you shouldn't judge a book by it. So I didn't read too much into it, but but I like it.De'Vannon: Thank you very much. What about you, Patrice?Pat: I actually, you know, now looking at it strange enough, I am not a book cover person. I [00:05:00]look at it just to see the name and then I go right into its contents. Now looking at it, I'm seeing that there's, you know, a lot of things you've put in it. So it's a, a visual manifestation of what you're thinking about the church of old, of, you know, some freedom on the bottom.There's just so much going on when you look at it. So I really did not see the effort, but now I do. As you draw attention to it, there's a lot of, there's a lot going on that I can actually accept, if that makes sense to you. I'm accepting everything that's there. It's not like it's just thrown together.It's purposely put,De'Vannon: Okay. When you say there's freedom on the bottom, what do you mean?Pat: I'm looking at the bird in the cage and he has freedom. So it, it's, it's so many different moving [00:06:00] pods that I'm actually looking at right now, that I'm seeing the body, you know, it's like there's blood, there is the chalice, there is, you know, light, there is the, the dove. Well, well the bird, there's the freedom of the bird.I'm, that's my interpretation.De'Vannon: Right. SoPat: mine.De'Vannon: you know what? You're spot on. That's exactly what I was going for with that bird. I view that cage as. Entrapment. You know, you can call it the church, you can call it the dogma. You can call it the mindset behind it. And the, you see the cage is open, but the bird hasn't necessarily left yet.Pat: Right? Correct.De'Vannon: You know, nobody puts a gun to our head and makes us go to said church or 10 said religion or be a part of said denomination.And even though, like when I was there, there was so much that I hated, I didn't like, I felt uncomfortable and I compromised and I said, well, I'm just gonna stay here anyway, you know? But the church was not like the military, you know, I couldn't leave the military when I [00:07:00] wanted to, but I could have walked away from a church at any moment.And rather, but rather than do that, I stayed.Pat: Correct.De'Vannon: Let me see, what else can I talk about? I'm not gonna talk about everything. Go ahead, miss Patrice, you wannaPat: No, no, no. I said that is exactly what, you know, you're seeing in this, when you look at it, you do have that freedom to leave, you know, but then you also put in the spider web that is just showing that, you know, it's, it's something that's old, it's something that's, I wouldn't say crusty, but it's just we have just fell into such a funk that we are not gonna leave.We're gonna leave everything as it is. Even if it just, it just be, it decays. . So me looking at it now, I'm thinking, okay, it looks like there is a decay in the religion, but we still stay where we are. We're comfortable, we're safe, we're not gonna move.[00:08:00]De'Vannon: Mm-hmm. . And yet none of this was meant to be disrespectful to the church or Christianity or anything like that. But like the, the, the whole, and this is technically like a kind of an altar, so to speak, in. The whole premise of this, like you said, is looks a little outdated. Like it is kind of like it's been setting there.The blood is very vibrant because it still works,Pat: Mm-hmm.De'Vannon: but the webs and the whole, like the fog and everything represent the confusion that has entered into Christianity and kind of taken over it. And so that, that was the point of the book, was to talk about what a Christian really is and isn't, and the impacts that the, that dichotomy has had on the world.John: Did you put the word Christian in blood font? Because of all the blood that's been that under the banner of Christian has been.De'Vannon: I was thinking more of what a horror show it's become, but you know, the crusades or, or [00:09:00] the actual, literal, literal blood that has been shed, and then the mental and emotional blood that has been shed fit there too. This is a bloody business. This is a bloody business., okay, so I'm gonna get getting more from you Patrice, on like, when you left the church, you said that you grew up Catholic and then at some point, I know you took your kids out of the Catholic church because of how the priests were and everything like that. Can you talk to us about that?Pat: Yeah, sure. Okay. Growing up, we were staunch Catholics. You know, you go Thursday evening, Sunday morning, you had to go to church. It was the standup, sit down, knee, down, the same thing, just, you know, over and over and over. There was not very much in the standing, it was just whatever was, you know, spoken to you or told to you.You believe there was no, you know, you did not ever question anything. Mask for me was in, it was in [00:10:00] Latin, so you barely understood it. You just went through the motion. I ended up having, you know, you had to stay married to somebody in your religion as well. That's not part of the Roman Catholic Church, but it's part of being like a staunch Catholic.De'Vannon: Mm-hmm.Pat: along years after, you know, we had kids. and we couldn't explain to our children what was the process of this going to church and religion and we had no understanding to impart to our kids. We went on basically, let's say a quest. So my husband and I, we went on this quest trying to understand the meaning of God through the church.We were in college. You stumble upon the block of history. You start going to history classes and they start teaching you a lot more [00:11:00] about questioning God. We had no answers. So everywhere we turned to, we didn't get an answer. We didn't get an appropriate answer. What we got was versus was the interpretation from the church of what we were trying to get.We didn't get like a full stop answer. It was just, Like a quest onto the next question. So we lost faith and in turn we couldn't put our kids on the same path that we were on. We were like the, you know, like a little hamster. We were just on that little treadmill just going around and around and around.How could we impart this docket? We did not know what to impart. We did not know the true meaning of Christianity to start. How could we become [00:12:00] Catholics to end? We had no beginning and we had no end. We had no answers to questions. We were just confused, frustrated, and at that point could not really in good faith, continue.This trend, it's, we went nowhere basically. I hope that answers it. It's, you know, fundamentally what we had going on in our minds was we had no an, we never had an answer. And the answer you would get constantly would be somebody else's interpretation. It's not science. We understood. It's not science.There's never a tr a true, you know, one plus one is two. It, it was somebody's interpretation of it. and it just didn't swing. And then along came the [00:13:00] corruption being unraveled in the Catholic church with, you know, the priests with all these things. It also cast another fair in our minds in that, you know, you have sons and you don't know what could happen to them in the church.That we felt compelled at the time that this is not the place for us, we could just worship at home. And that's where, you know, that's where we've been and that's where we still are. We have moved our needle ahead at all. We are still in the same predicament, literally maybe 20 years in. So I hope that helps.De'Vannon: John, anything you have to say about what she said?John: Yeah, I'm just, I'm, you know, sorry for the experience of, of what I would call religious trauma, of being told that something is definitely true, that doesn't make sense. [00:14:00] And then being left with that confusion and being left with that feelings of like betrayal of trust, not just, you know, interpersonally with people you might have met, but with like the whole system with the, you were told that a story about how the world is, about how how Christianity or Catholicism came about.And then meanwhile there was severe coverups going on. And that that's something you can't just shake off and move on from. That's, that can be very earth shattering. So, I'm sorry you went through.Pat: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much. It's, it's like if you dig a little deeper into it, you start realizing that, you know, it's at the same time they're trying to teach you. Catholicism, but then they're also put in Santa Claus, they put in the Easter Bunny. They put in all these things. So you have, as a [00:15:00] child, a belief, you believe in these things you really believe until that's shattered.And then you realize, okay, the only thing you had to support you at the time was religion. And then that becomes shattered. So what actually is true? Is there anything true? There's no truth to, basically, I feel like there's no truth to life because everywhere along your way of, you know, when you're an adolescent, when you're a child, you're an adolescent, you've been fed all these different things that you unraveled to be untrue.So now where is the truth? It has been dashed away from you. and you can't recover it. So you now have to find a good support system in that, you know, your spouse, who can actually have the same mindset as yourself, who can just say, look, just [00:16:00] even if you turn away from the religion, still believe in God.And as I said, that's where we are. We just believe in God, but we don't believe in the religion. You know, that's trying to put it together. It's like, it's like a, it's super gluing faults, so you just super glue all the faults in the world and you, you know, bring it to us as religion. Instead, we need to figure out what is actually true to ourselves and believe it.And just, you know, I, I don't know the correct word,De'Vannon: Why, why?Pat: you know,De'Vannon: why? Why do you, why do you believe truth can't be recovered? Who do you, who do you believe owns truth?Pat: We own our own truth. We have to own our own truth.De'Vannon: Well, for, to me there's a difference between owning [00:17:00] truth and discovering it. Discovery is more like a journey to discover knowledge. It almost sounds like you're saying because you no longer have a relationship with the church, truth is out of reach.Is that what you're saying?Pat: No, actually I'm saying I, I don't know how to put. , I don't know how to put it. I'm sorry.John: I can, I can offer a perspective on this that, that might be different than both of y'all's. For, for one, I don't definitely believe in a God. I don't necessarily, I'm, I'm, if you want to call it agnostic, you can, but I just, I don't, I don't think I need to believe in God personally. So for me, what truth boils down to is an unknowable thing, right?Like if, if, if we're talking in a, with absolute certainty, no human being can know the truth behind all things, [00:18:00] we will die believing some lies. But what is definitely possible is to discover certain things. are more likely to be true than others in, in that sense, if you're using the word truth more as like a spiritual reality, a purpose or something like that, that I agree is very individualistic.But if we're talking about more truth in, in regards to like what really happened, what really happens, there are best guesses when we look back at history, there are best guesses when we look at what's going on right now, there are ways to verify things and, and there is some science to it and there's some art to it. But it is possible what the church has done that's really damaging to many, many people is warped their v warps, their confidence in their abilities to actually know what is true. . People can learn a lot of things but churches need [00:19:00] people to not learn a lot of things in order for their messaging to work. The more ignorant their congregation is, the easier they are to control for their own purposes. So, so that's the comment I wanted to put forth is I think not only does truth exist outside of the church, I think that's the only way you can get to truth, is if you get outside of a church.Pat: Correct,De'Vannon: Because the church, cause the church has an agenda. So so Patrice, what I'd like to know is, do you think it's possible that your kids were molested before you got them out of the church?Pat: No, not at. Only, the only reason I would say that they were baptized into the church and they were what, maybe a week or two weeks old at the time we got outta the church, literally when they were about, EH, [00:20:00] four, and four. And they were always with us. So, you know, I didn't, I had that fair. So I don't think we even went past three or four years old when we couldn't answer questions for them because the, my truth started to be muddled when I started to have to tell them about, try to teach them, you know, some of the prayers and I was just doing.In rotation with my husband. We were just saying the same prayers over and over. We didn't understand we, what we were saying. We had no clue. We had nothing to back up what we are saying, some we were even seeing in Latin. So we, we, we did not know what to do. So I do not believe at the time that they would've been molested because of the fact that they were not in that church left alone without [00:21:00] us.De'Vannon: Okay. Well that's, that's very refreshing to hear. Sometimes it happens, you know, and you know, we don't find out till like, later, later, later. I didn't realize they were that young when you had taken them out. For some reason I was thinking they were close, closer to their teens.Pat: No, no, no, no, no, no. That's why, sorry, go ahead.De'Vannon: so, so, so you said you had some questions that you still have for the church now John's a bible scholar.He used to, you know, be very high up in churches and stuff like that. Do you have a question you'd like to pose that maybe he can help you?Pat: Well, you know what? Let me start from the beginning. I have always questioned literally the, you know, how do they, how do we get about to this Bible? Where did we start? That's my first question. Who wrote it? Is there any concrete evidence that what we have written is exactly what was said? You know, that's my first thing because [00:22:00] we are reading a Bible that is said that is, you know, said to be God's, you know, from God.But then we have interpretations of it. We have versions of it. We have different things. Things may have been lost in the, you know, Conversion from language to language, all the predecessors of the languages. So things could have been changed, things could have been lost, things could have been inputted that weren't really there at the beginning.John: I'll, I'll go ahead and just dive into that and say everything you're saying could have happened, did happen. So, so there is no short way to answer how we got the Bible. That's like, that's, that's three hour lecture type stuff. . Cause it's a, it's not one book, it's, it's, you know, spans thousands of years of history. It wasn't assembled till, you know, somewhere between 100 ad and 300 ad. So there, [00:23:00]there's a lot of question marks and I, I, you know, I'm not the biggest Bible expert. I, I know a lot you know, I read the original language and such. But.If it could happen, it did happen. There were things taken out. There are things that were chosen, there were things that were not. There are things that have gone through at least one to one to three languages before we're even talking about English translations, when we're just talking about getting the original stuff together. Because you've got Hebrew agree Latin all and Aramaic and all these things working together. So yeah, you're right to be skeptical of that. There are , there are there. It is a, it is a mind-boggling thing. So for it to ever be presented as this was just written by God is, in my opinion, very reductive and very unfair, I think that's a bad way to look at the.Pat: Yeah, it truly is. You know, so you know, so then you, you, okay, [00:24:00] so if I start with that as being my platform, you realize I have nowhere to go because I don't have a solid base. So I have interpretations of something. I don't have the science behind it, which I'm sad to say. You know, you feel that you need something solid to cast your own thoughts, your own beliefs on, and I don't have that solid base.De'Vannon: so what you're saying, like this isn't like really just like a one pointed question. This is kind of like the overarching theme of like your whole grievance is that you just don't trust what you have to pull from. It's too corrupted.Pat: Yeah, it, it's corrupted. It's corrupted over years. Not corrupt in being, you know, bad corruption. It's just interpretations have been corrupted or been changed to what's going on in our life right now, what's [00:25:00] going on in the world right now. So you've changed everything to be, you know, more in a subtle way.You changed it so that it could conform with our new identity. So something back in 1940 is not applicable in 2023. So you just changed the religious aspect of. To conform to modernization, if that makes sense. We're just changing along the way. We're just going along. So we're on a, like a conveyor belt and religion is along with us.As long as we keep going down the path, religion is going down with it. It's changing, it's evolving. It should have, it should be able to stand the test the time which it's not able to do. So you know, they have another, you know, problem in that [00:26:00] what we have had in the past is no longer applic applicable to the present.So my belief Dean is not gonna be the belief of somebody 50 years from now because it's going to evolve again. It's gonna change, you know, as you said, you know, we want to. Behave as if we are still learning from not just God, cuz I know John, you don't believe that there is a God, but you believe that there is.There is something like a being. There's something that's the same thing I was learning in colleges, that there is something may not be a God. I just tend to hold onto it because my religion is still weighing me down and saying that there is the God, but there's something, you know, just something out there and I, I got to hold onto [00:27:00] something or else I feel empty.De'Vannon: right. So thank you for explaining all that. Now, the last question I have for you, then, John, if you care to talk about the way you parted from the church, then that's fine. If not, you don't have to. But both of y'all have completely different like ways that it happened. You were very studied and then you left Patrice, you were under the Catholic education, and then you left.So my question is, once you left the church, how did you continue your education? John already had plenty of education before he left the church. So since you took the church, you know, outta the picture, how did you compensate for that?Pat: For me, I just engaged in other activities, I guess, engaged my kids, I engaged my, my other past science, my other hobbies, other things to fill the void because there was nothing I could put back, a pour back into myself to make me. [00:28:00] Really get back where I was. You know, when you're young, you are, just believe everything that people say until you have to pass that knowledge on to somebody else, to your kids, and then you realize you've, you've come up short.I came up short, did not know what to pass on, did not know what to do, so I walked away. I had nothing to fill the void with. I did not have a sense of purpose to go and find out for myself.De'Vannon: Okay.Pat: I didn't, didn't have that, didn't have the resolve to want to do it, didn't want to do it.De'Vannon: Okay, so I'm bringing this up to, to drive a point home. Many of us leave the church to get kicked out. Whatever happens, and then like the mistake I made when I got kicked out of Lakewood was I let that drive a wedge in between me and God for years, and I should not have done that. So when we were pull our kids out of the church, if we're not gonna let the church teach them, then we've gotta take up that [00:29:00] mantle for ourselves and.John: Well, I'll ch I'll challenge that really quickly. Why is that bad for you to have a wedge there? Because, you know, you, you, you seem to, I I'm, I'm hearing a lot of like, shame in this, in this narrative of like, when you, when you leave church, you should feel ashamed for it, or, or not, not church per se, but because the church hurt you, you should feel ashamed because you're less engaged with God.Well, who told you you should feel that shame for being less engaged with God. I can't find that anywhere in the scripture I've read. So, so I, I would just wanna challenge that, that that's actually okay for you to not feel like you have to be engaged with.De'Vannon: Well, the thing is, she, she, she still was yearning for it though. She just didn't know where to go and get it, and, and I don't.John: sure. But, and Patrice, I don't mean to speak into your story, but a lot of church leaders have been telling you that you should be yearning for something. [00:30:00] The what? What if, what if We don't need to be yearning for anything. I'm all for holding onto hope. I'm all for personal spirituality. I'm, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but what, what worries me is when people are traumatized by what I call cult leaders who have, who have created neuro paths in their brain to make them feel like, oh, because I don't have the same thing I had as this child, this like expectation that there's something greater than me looking out for me.If I'm not engaging with that mysterious, ambiguous thing that I'm somehow failing in some sort of way. I don't, I don't see that as failure at all person.De'Vannon: Well, I, I'm so sorry if it came out like I was trying to judge her. I'm not. It's more like, it's morelike John: I was hearing you judge yourself davanon. That's what I was.De'Vannon: Oh, well, that I did really, really, really, for a long time I blamed myself for what happened at church, and that's no joke. I really, really did. But you know, it wasn't meant to be like a [00:31:00] badgering at all. It's, it's more like a conscious thing. You know, most people believe we have a soul or a spirit or something like that.And so if the church was feeding you and you take that away, then what? You know, like you said, it was a void. You know, what do we like? What? What do we fill with? It has to be some sort of other religious education. Now you can Google a lot of things. There's videos everywhere. There's all kinds of ways that you can go and learn, and so,Pat: I, I, I agree with you in that you feel the void, but, and John, you're correct. . I shouldn't have to feel this way, but you still have to live in a world where, you know, you have brothers and sisters that are still in the religion that seem to want to question you. People love to question, why did you leave?Or why, why aren't you going to church? You know everything that that happens to you in, in your book, dev Divine, and you're seeing [00:32:00] people reap what they sow. Now, because I've left every bad thing that has happened to me, the first thing people go to, they're handle is, oh, it's because you left the church.Now that's not the same thing you say, when I have something great in my. . So something good in my life, you don't tell me, oh, it's because I left the church. So you feel that, you know, yearning to be a part of something because everybody else is a part of something and you are left alone. So you're like on the outside always looking in that you don't have that religion or that crux.I wanna put it as it is the crux or the crutch to hold onto that everybody else has. I feel like the one-legged person in the two-legged race because I don't have something to stand upon. I just don't have that solid base. And they do make you feel guilty that you are not [00:33:00] in a religion. Cuz if you look at everywhere you go, sorry John, but if you look at everywhere you go, the first thing you do, if you go to the hospital, what religion are you?So are you judging me because I'm a religion? No, they're judging you because they need to know what your practices are. Okay? So if I have none, they tend to look at you to ask you, well, what were you, they're still seeking out something from you. So you are not a whole person until you have a religion to stand behind.And I know you said, you know, there's like cults and stuff, which I, I do read upon, but everything basically stands upon religion. And if you don't have it, you are near ostracized from the rest of the world. in politics, you have, you know, in your book you've [00:34:00] seen like the re Republicans, they want to stand with the with, oh God, I forgot what you, you call them.What did you call in your book? The Christians, the, the, the, some, some type of Christian, you know, so if you're not Republican with like those, that type of Christian mentality, you're kind of democratic with a different mentality. So everywhere it comes into play, so when you don't have it, you feel like a castaway.De'Vannon: Mm-hmm.Pat: that is where I have that constant feeling, that void that you always feel is your lost connection with the rest of the world who've basically put themselves into different religions to garner respect, wealth or power or whatever. So I'm, I'm feeling the [00:35:00] void because I can't identify, that's my best word.I can't identify.De'Vannon: Okay.Pat: am to everybody else. And you know, like the minute somebody says they're agnostic, people basically will be, oh, in our religion, in Catholic religion, they're not going to want to accept you or even speak to you. And, and there's so much wealth of knowledge. You can come to us and change our, or instruct us or teach us or help us understand, you know, it, it, it's, it's a big, it's, it's, it's bigger than, it's, it is really big.It's really, really big.John: Really quickly Patrice, I'm, I'm glad you brought up the word identity because. When I was reading your book, I really kind of, that that was what I really thought it was about more than anything was about identity. Because frankly, when I read it, you know, it's, the title is Don't Call Me a Christian.And then I felt like I was [00:36:00] reading a summation of what Christianity is. And so I'm, I'm, I'm very interested as to, to your identity when it comes to was that like front of mind when you were writing the.De'Vannon: Thank you for that question. And after I answer this, if you wanna say anything about your parting from the church then go ahead and then, okay. So my point is to get people to break away from terminology, because what happens is we can get too caught up on what a word is supposed to mean and let the definition of the word. Carry far too much weight than what it actually does. So that mean, if Karen is a Christian, she'll go around saying she's a Christian.She won't make gay people wedding cakes, and she'll kick certain people out, but she'll be like, Hey, I'm a Christian. See, Christian is an action word is a word of love. It's not just like a word. So whether you were ever called a Christian or not, if you live like Christ, then you are one of his children.It's not about the [00:37:00] word, it is about identity, like you were saying, but we can identify what the whole trinity without being called a Christian.John: I don't know if that's true. Only because this is how, this is what? I would say in general because first off, I very much empathized, like my last days as a Christian, I would've eaten this book up for sure. Cuz this was literally my position was I believe these core things about Christianity. I'm sick of the church, I'm sick of all the garbage, right?And so I was like, I don't, like I had that feeling that a lot of good people who are Christians have, when someone, when the, when the conversation one way or another ends up in a place where you have to identify as a Christian and you don't want to that is a, that is a thing that happens. And so I kind of did it begrudgingly.I was like, maybe I can go back to saying I follow the way, maybe I can do, I, I, I think you like the term Christ [00:38:00] follower, right? So like I had a lot of those same thoughts and feelings. Here's the problem, I'll, I'll, I'll do it by way of example. If a, let's let you know, let's say a cop says the guy who murdered George Floyd isn't a real cop.Well then that just dodges accountability, right? Because now he is just saying, oh, he is not a real cop. I don't particularly enjoy men cis men specifically. I don't enjoy cis men culture in general. But I am a cis man by every functional definition, right? I could certainly identify somewhere else and, and there would be definitions and things that would go along with that.But in general, just because I might not like that culture or whatever, it doesn't necessarily change who I am. So sometimes when I'm reading what you're writing, I'm like, well, you're describing the Christian faith. Is is something you [00:39:00] believe. So, How can I not call you a Christian if, if you're describing essentially Christianity,De'Vannon: Mm, because I don't go to churches. You know, when you think of Christians, you automatically think of like a physical building. You know, I prefer to be called like a believer than a Christian, but I get what you're saying. If I've checked all the boxes, check, check, check, check, check. Then how can you do this and say you're not a Christian.I get that, but I don't wanna be called one because of how much pain that word calls as people. You know? There was one time I was talking to this lady I just met and I think this was the last time I told somebody that I'm a Christian. She paused, got like super uncomfortable. I wasn't sure if the, the conversation's gonna even be able to continue.And she was like, are you the good kind or like the mean kind? You know, and right and right. Then I realized people have, like, this is a triggering word if, if people haven't personally been [00:40:00] hurt by the church like us, then they probably know someone who has. And so I don't want that word to drive a wedge in between my witness to somebody else or the work that I'm doing because I'm insistent upon being called it.And that's really why I divorced the word.John: Sure. But like a lot of cops hate the word cop. They say, I'm a law enforcement officer, so, It's, that's great. They want to, they, they understand there's a problem or whatever, and they wanna distance themselves from it, but that doesn't really change anything systematic. Right? Like, it, it, it, it doesn't, it doesn't actually deal with the issue, at least my perception is it's not dealing with the issues of Christianity. Because, and this is a personal thing that we're obviously free to disagree on, but for me, I'm like, no, the actual mechanics, the actual theology, like ideas of the Trinity, ideas of you know, sin are like part of the cult structure. Like the, that's part of what does the damage, not just some Christians who were mean [00:41:00] sometimes. So, so that's just kind of the, the, the crux of what I was feeling when I read the book is I know you, I know you're a loving person. I know you're a good person personally, I think you'd be a good person whether you were a Christian or not. So for say, go ahead. I'm sorry.De'Vannon: I was just waving. Thank you.John: Yeah. And so since I, since I know that about you, like I, I see this as like an identity issue where you're like, I just don't want the identity of Christian because I don't identify with these Christians. And that's fine. It just, it that makes labeling, labeling in general, I'm also not a fan of, but at the end of the day, we have to have some labels for legal reasons, for , like conversational reasons and, and those kind of things. So I, I didn't know if that, if I was spotting that correctly or if there was something else you were trying to do with the book.De'Vannon: Mm-hmm. . I wanted to use that title to get people's defenses down so that they would be open to a conversation about the Trinity. Now, I left the church, but I didn't go [00:42:00] as far as you. To, to stop believing in God and everything like that. As we discussed when I had you in my show the last time, I've had too much miraculous stuff happen to me, which I believe.And so for me, you know, it's important that I just never, ever, ever have a barrier. Cuz I had a dream years ago and it's like, it's like God was teaching me like how to soul in, in this dream. And he was telling me that in order to win someone's soul, to get, to get a, a convert, if you will, is that you have to get on the same page with him.You have to have a common ground, not show up, you know, knock on their door and say, I'm right, you're wrong. Change. You have to get on the same level. And so that word was coming in between my ability to do it. I've seen so many people be just devastated by that word and so I thought maybe I can package this differently.What you're saying, the institutions hurt people, not necessarily the word. You know, my call to action is for people to leave the church. If you've been hurt, then to sit [00:43:00] there thinking you have to, you can still have a perfectly good relationship with God. I still choose Christ. And so, so since we're, since we've probably got like, maybe like 10 minutes left I'm not gonna go through each chapter title or we're, we're not gonna go through each chapter and discuss it.What I'm curious is what part stood out to Y.Pat: For me, you know, you went pretty deep into Christianity and. At some point I actually did not see Catholicism in it, which is just weird. I'm reading stuff that I never touched upon, never saw, did not engage while I was in the Catholic religion. So yours was deep and very profound in that Christianity to me sounds like it's supposed to be.The whole mantle was supposed to be, [00:44:00] you know, trying to, or maybe the umbrella was supposed to go up underneath, but Catholicism fell along the wayside. It, it didn't get covered up in Christianity cause we are not as engaged as a Christian is. I don't know if that makes sense. Learn from being from young, we were told a Catholic is a solely of Christ, the believers in Christ.But we do not delve into the depth that you delve, delve in the book. So it, it was like eye-opening for me. You know, all the different verses and chapters that you relate you relating to when you are engaging in the book that I didn't even know about. So, you know, it's like maybe I should change religions, you know, go to a different team.[00:45:00]Maybe if I had done, if I had that opportunity younger, who knows where I might have been now, you know, who knows? If I had taken a different path, would I have actually engaged more? Would I have been, you know, more interested in it? I was, I, I'm just at the path where I'm not. So, you know, the, the part of the book that I liked is when you say we needed, I needed for God to, I needed to invite God. I needed to embrace them. I needed to engage, I needed to emulate, and I needed to behave in a certain way. I never got that from my cathar teachings. I got nothing. I got emptiness. Just whatever was said passed down was whatever that person, you know, what their limitation on the religion was, is [00:46:00] what I was instructed.So if they have 4%, then now I might have one. Then I now have to pass on what little I have to a child and tell them, you've gotta believe whatever I just said, no, I couldn't even bring anything else to the table to say, well, this is the, the meaning of it, So that's what I kind of really liked about the book.Is that you really allowed me to, to delve into Christianity, which is not what the Catholic church allows. We call it something different. We used to call it we used to call people who call themselves Christians. We used to call them born again Christians. So it's like saying you won't really, it's like all money and new money.That's my best interpretation of what Catholics look at with Christians. We believe Christians who quote versus [00:47:00] as new money type of people who just came along to religion. And we think we are the whole star world of religion that we hold the vault of religion. So when you say you're Christian, we tend to want to look at you differently, if that makes sense.That's the identity you were talking about.De'Vannon: Right. It, it makes, it makes perfect sense identity and is everything. John, what? What, what was your favorite?John: I'm, I'm still so hung up on this idea of, of that I was already harping on. So I'm trying to get my brain into a different gear but You know, frankly, like, it was kind of hard for me to read because it just, it it's Christianity. I didn't see any, anything particularly new for me because, you know, the, the, I mean, and I'm not, and I'm glad the information's out there.What I, I will say this. I like how succinct you were [00:48:00] able to cover a lot of ground very quickly, which is hard to do with this stuff. The only problem is I feel like there's information that I don't agree with that I think is, is just Christian rhetoric and Christian versions of things. The biggest one in that department was just when you were talking about sin. I, that I, I don't, I don't think, I don't think we agree on how sin works at all. Or even its existence in, in, in the same way. But but yeah, I mean, again, I I thought you did a good summation of Christianity. The, the thing that I want to just circle back to very quickly is I actually have kind of a problem with sneaking Christianity into the conversation under other guys's repackaging it.This has been done for years. The way when the, the first and second great awakening in the us, the way the gospel was presented was very different than how the gospel was presented. Now, it was very different than how the gospel was presented [00:49:00] in the first 500 years of Christianity. Catholics have a very different version of presenting the gospel than Protestants do.Presenting the the shtick in different ways, even if the way sounds really nice, does not give me comfort. It makes me scared that you're, that there's, there's an ulterior motive. Now, I know you and I know your motives are pure . I know it's because you have a heart for people who are hurting, and especially people who have been hurt by the church.And so to me, I I, I see that in the writing as well. Like this is communicating to them. I just still see that fundamental problem of this still serves a system that is bigger than Davanon's love for people. This is still the same rhetoric that's in church. It's just packaged slightly differently. And so that, that's, that's kind of my final critique is, is I, I can read this as a man identifying.[00:50:00] His faith in very clear less Christianese type terms. But it is still the Christian faith through and through.De'Vannon: Well, I mean, that was pretty much the point. I wasn't trying to rewrite the Bible. I wasn't trying to rewrite Christianity. The point was to say it succinctly in a different way because you know, sometimes you know, two different people can tell the one individual the same thing. That one individual might understand the first person, but they might get it from the second person just because it was explained differently.Right. And so then that's, that's all it was. That's why it's a free book. You can just download it for free. , you know, you know.Pat: No, but can I say something? Just back to John. I completely see what you're saying, but for me, reading the book, this was, as they say, the introduction to Christianity For a Catholic being, I always keep saying I identify as being Roman Catholic. Cause I'm born there, grew up in it, we'll [00:51:00]die in it, but never had this level of interpretation into Christianity.I don't read much, I don't engage much because I was never really interested. So Duran's book was actually a glimmer into Christianity. , as he said, his interpretation, it could reach different people. So as you said, you could repackage it, but for me this is like nearly like the first packaging of Christianity.So for me there's an absolute divide between Christianity and Cath and being Catholic. We are so different. We are a completely different beast, as they would say. As you know, you would say Muslim is as Buddhists, Catholics, we believe we are the end all and the we are the be all in the end all. [00:52:00] So to now realize there is Christianity, it is nearly for somebody my age, it's nearly like mind blowing.Would I continue along the path of trying to find out more about Christianity? I don't know. but you know, I, I, I love what you said and I also like the book The violin is opening up so you it for you, it's repackaging, but for me it's like the first, it's like the first step is the first step into real religion is to hear how everything evolves and interpretation is all about it.So as I said at the beginning, it has evolved and changed and changed and changed. And we don't know who has the real, real holy grail of the Bible. We don't know what was originally there. We have gotten [00:53:00] versions and descendants of this same book, but we could choose which one we want to go to, and that's what we've done over time.De'Vannon: thank you very much for that, Patrice. At the end of the day, I'm not trying to like take the place of God. I don't think any church should. My website doesn't with the lessons and the education we have on there. one of my greatest prayers is for God to reveal himself to people on an individual basis in a way that that individual person is going to know that it is God speaking to them.Like with the angels that come and talk to me with the dreams that I have and things like that. You know, it is, it is impossible for me to deny the existence of God. So I ask God to give people irrefutable proof of his existence apart from the Bibleand. John: Okay. I, I got one last thing I have to say to stay on brand So so my, so my whole thing, right? Like, I, I'm, I'm a host of a podcast called The Cults of Christianity. My whole life's work is to dissect well, it's started as a [00:54:00] dissecting Christianity. It's moved on to dissecting cults. It is, I, Patrice, I totally understand.Catholics do not encourage education. That's not their, their, their shtick. There are many. Christianity is a huge umbrella with many, there's very progressive Christians. There's very fundamentalist conservative Christians. There are there's Catholics, there's Eastern Orthodox, there's, there's offshoots left and right.Here's, here's the only warning I'll give. It is so easy to go from one cult to another. This is something that happens with a lot of people is because they've been given a, a cult mindset. A cult follower mindset. They realize that what they were in is a cult. For you, it might have been Catholicism. For someone else, it could be something completely different, and then they.Find another cult. Now, this doesn't always mean like a religious institution sometimes. This can be, you [00:55:00] know, a, a very toxic group that goes to a bar. This can be a, you know get caught up just in a different world. This can, this can look you know, in my opinion, a lot of people who leave Christianity join Colts online that just talk crap about Christianity all the time.And that's like where they find their community and then people take advantage of them by selling them books about how bad Christianity is. I've put in a lot of work to not be that kind of ex Christian and gone to therapy and talked about these things to make sure that I'm never a cult leader again. So the only warning I'll give. That yearning you were talking about earlier. It's totally human. It's a normal emotion. It is so amplified when you grow up in a cult that you have needs, that you have these needs. That's that to be saved. That that's the, that's the indoctrination. You have this need to be saved.So whatever you believe is your personal choice and you need freedom in that. And I appreciate Davanon's approach that he wants people to have that very [00:56:00] individualistic thing. The only thing I'll say is just no one's got all the answers. Don't believe anyone who says they do, especially Christians, because they've been lying longer than about anybody about a lot of things. And, and so that, that's just my cautionary tale of it's okay for personal discovery. I'm all for people figuring out their identity. Don't join colts. They, they will only do damage to you and the ones you.De'Vannon: Here, here we can, we can agree on that. So before, before we get in the wrap up, I'm just gonna read a couple of chapter titles just so people can get a feel for it. Again, like I said, this is a free book. It doesn't cost you anything at all. It's just at my website, sex Drugs and jesus.com. You can download it and just take it and do with it what you will. Let's see, like what is Christ? What is Christ like Living is one spiritual Christians versus the church. Can we get along? Things like that. And so basically this book takes you from like the history of Christianity through politics, through interpretations and [00:57:00] transliterations to, to where we are today.It's super short, it's super succinct, and also had to keep it short so that I could keep people's attentions span. So the last, the last thing that I wanted to bring up was this quote by Mahama Gandhi that I included in the book. And he says, I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.That kind of with a huge inspiration behind this. What do y'all think he.Pat: John, you go ahead.John: Well, Gandhi Was not a perfect person. To be very clear. There's, there's some really problematic things about Gandhi. But what I will say is this is, Frederick Douglass also said a quote very similar where he said I, I forget the exact words, but paraphrased, it was something to the effect of you know, I, I don't believe in American Christianity.That was, that was his thing. So I, I think what he meant was pretty self explanatory in the sense that Christ, the legend as I [00:58:00] interpret him, you know, I don't, I don't, I don't view what the gospel say about Jesus as historical fact necessarily, but as far as the, the mythology of who we understand the character of Jesus to be in the world what he represents is this idea of loving everyone.What he represents is this idea of, no matter how broken you are, you can be made whole again. and that aligned with Gandhi in the sense that he cared about broken people and people who were ca outcast, right? That is very different than how Christianity has ever been from 380 to now. And so I think, I think Gandhi spotted it, and I don't think it's very hard to spot that. When you're, when your figurehead of your religion is someone who is willing to die bec even when wrongfully convicted. When you have a character who [00:59:00] would talk to people that no one else was willing to talk to, according to Legend that is different than anyone who's identified as Christian, which I assume is why Devon wants to get away from that identity.somewhat, because you also ca you probably like the Christ. You like that narrative. , but it's not what you see. And so I think, I think that's what Gandhi was saying, and I, I don't think you have to look far to agree with.De'Vannon: Well said, sir.Pat: Yeah. . Yeah. I have nothingI have nothing. That was really well said. You know, as you see, he's just saying, I think what Gandhi's just trying to see is I like your figurehead. I just don't like your followers.De'Vannon: It's, it's all, it's all very interesting to me because, you know, Christ was not called a Christian, you know, this word came about, you know, after he was gone. And it came about because people needed to wait to divide the new followers from the old [01:00:00] followers essentially. And so, you know, I just, I just don't want people to get hung up on the word.I want people to have a meaningful relationship with God that. , you know, outside of the Bible, outside of a building, that is my call to act because when the pastor inevitably makes a mistake, a religion could fall. Then what are you gonna do? Like, identity has to be a relationship with Jesus, just with Jesus, with no one else around.I'll say this and I'll shut up. Like your most, your most, your most powerful and, and meaningful time with God is supposed to be when you're by yourself, not when you're in the middle of a room full of people.Pat: Yes. De'Vannon: And so Pat: And I think that's, yeah, that's perfect.De'Vannon: and so with that. So with that, any last words y'all have for the world? Y'all can just say so and then I'll intro y'all out.Pat: Well, I just like what, what John said at the end about community in [01:01:00] that instead of moving from the Catholic church into something, it's like you're moving and just having different bed partners. So you just go from one to the next to the next. So that's why I actually have not sought out any other religion.I just kind of stopped seeking and started enjoying life. And wherever it takes me, it's where I go, you know, love, laughter, life, that's all it's supposed to be. I can't get hung up about, you know, religion, race, age, you know, medical conditions. I just, I'm just not there. I'm just not there. So if I need to sit in the middle of a room by myself and just thank God for something, I don't have to feel ashamed.I don't have to go into a church and, you know, say, say everything to the mountain tops. No. [01:02:00] It's now just about me and my thoughts. That's where my religions is stored. It's in my thoughts and what I do. So if I do something good, I feel good. If I've done something bad, I feel human. That's just where it is.So my community is just me.De'Vannon: You are where you are and that's okay.Pat: Yep. Yep.De'Vannon: What about you, Johnny?John: you can go to the to christianity.com and spend five. No, no. I, I wanna, I wanna tell people that that there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to hold on to what you have believed. There's nothing wrong with wanting to search for a new belief, and we all have beliefs. The only thing that will always be my caution is are your beliefs truly your own? And investigate the hell out of that because there are so [01:03:00] many things that you might think are your own, that are not, that were given to you and probably forced into you. And so just be very wary of that as you're seeking whatever you're seek.Pat: Yeah, that's true. As as he said, be just cognizant of what you are introducing into you, into you, and don't let it be a part of what was taught to you. So it shouldn't be learned behavior, it should just be something that you really believe in. Most of religion is learned behavior.De'Vannon: Well, not anymore becausePat: IDe'Vannon: we, not anymore. Cause we kids are gonna be mindful about our religion, our approach to spirituality, and everything else that we do. We're gonna know why we believe, what we believe. That is what it comes down to.Pat: Mm-hmm.De'Vannon: All right. Like, so, like, like John was saying, y'all, his, his podcast is the Cult of Christianity and the website is the cult of christianity.com.That's gonna [01:04:00] go in the show notes along with John's Link Tree. So and what can I say? Thank y'all for spending a whole hour of your life with me that I know that you can't get back. Too bad we didn't get to talk about Tyler Perry, but we might just have to do this again.Pat: yes. I would love that.De'Vannon: Thinking Bye everyone.Pat: Okay. Bye. Nice meeting you, John. Bye gra. Talk to you soon. Okay, bye.De'Vannon: Class dismissed.Thank you all so much for taking time to listen to the Sex Drugs in Jesus podcast. It really means everything to me. Look, if you love the show, you can find more information and resources at Sex Drugs in jesus.com or wherever you listen to your podcast. Feel free to reach out to me directly at Davanon Sex Drugs and jesus.com and on Twitter and Facebook as well.My name is Davanon, and it's been wonderful being your host today. And just remember that everything is [01:05:00] gonna be all right.

united states god jesus christ social media church english google bible talk books change living religion christians ms christianity worship arts bachelor george floyd divine drugs republicans discovery catholic muslims cult mask latin trailer literature santa claus conversion hebrew new books buddhist colts correct presenting linktree cults catholics catholicism gandhi tyler perry roman catholic easter bunny behave frederick douglass upwork protestants roman catholic church cath brokenhearted cuz lakewood aramaic sex drugs falsehood american christianity american legion freeup john m entrapment vane moody bible institute eastern orthodox podmatch christianese verner tyler perry studios vanier john yeah john well biblical exposition de'vannon de'vannon hubert

John: I Collect Fake Celebrity Nudes — Over 15,000 of Them

Secret Life

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 30, 2023 16:48

John shares his journey with grief and how celebrity photoshop nude fakes have given him solace. He'll discuss how he's been able to cope with writer's block since his mother's death, and how he's hoping to take his hobby to the next level. Tune in for an intimate look into his healing process, and come out with a newfound perspective on grief.Host Brianne Davis provides helpful advice, poignant stories, and plenty of laughter. Join John on this emotional, heartfelt journey to find healing and hope on Secret Life._____If you or anyone you know is struggling with addiction, depression, trauma, sexual abuse or feeling overwhelmed, we've compiled a list of resources at secretlifepodcast.com.______To share your secret and be a guest on the show email secretlifepodcast@icloud.com_____SECRET LIFE'S TOPICS INCLUDE:addiction recovery, mental health, alcoholism, drug addiction, sex addiction, love addiction, OCD, ADHD, dyslexia, eating disorders, debt & money issues, anorexia, depression, shoplifting, molestation, sexual assault, trauma, relationships, self-love, friendships, community, secrets, self-care, courage, freedom, and happiness._____Create and Host Your Podcast with the same host we use - RedCircle_____Get your copy of SECRET LIFE OF A HOLLYWOOD SEX & LOVE ADDICT -- Secret Life Novel or on Amazon______HOW CAN I SUPPORT THE SHOW?Tell Your Friends & Share Online!Follow, Rate & Review: Apple Podcasts | SpotifyFollow & Listen iHeart | Stitcher | Google Podcasts | Amazon | PandoraSpread the word via social mediaInstagramTwitterFacebook#SecretLifePodcastDonate - You can also support the show with a one-time or monthly donation via PayPal (make payment to secretlifepodcast@icloud.com) or at our WEBSITE.Connect with Brianne Davis-Gantt (@thebriannedavis)Official WebsiteInstagramFacebookTwitterConnect with Mark Gantt (@markgantt)Main WebsiteDirecting WebsiteInstagramFacebookTwitterTranscript[0:00:00] John: My favorite actress, for example, she'll never, like, do like, nude scenes or anything like that, so I kind of look at the fakes. This is kind of fantasy. [0:00:19] Brianne Davis: Welcome to the Secret Life Podcast.[0:00:22] Brianne Davis: Tell me your secret, I'll tell you mine.[0:00:30] Brianne Davis: Sometimes you have to go through the darkness to reach the light. That's what I did. After twelve years of recovery in sex and love addiction, I finally found my soulmate myself. Please join me in my novel, secret Life of a Hollywood sex and love Addict. A four time bestseller on Amazon. It's a brutal, honest, raw, gnarly ride, but hilarious at the same time. Check it out now on Amazon.[0:01:01] Brianne Davis: Welcome to Secret Live Podcast. I'm Brianne. Davis-Gantt. Today, I'm pulling back the curtains of all kinds of human secrets. We'll hear about what people are hiding from themselves or others. You know, those deep, dark secrets you probably want to take to your grave. Or those lighter, funnier secrets that are just plain embarrassing. Really the how, what, one way, or live at all. Today. My guest is John. Now, John, I have a question for you. What is your secret?[0:01:27] John: So my secret is I collect celebrity photoshop, nude, fakes.[0:01:32] Brianne Davis: How long have you been doing that?[0:01:34] John: Since 2000.[0:01:36] Brianne Davis: 2000, okay, so dive in. What made you start doing that? Did you create them yourself? Like, take me back when that all started. Was something going on?[0:01:48] John: No, I didn't create any at that time. Basically what had happened is I was watching a new TV show that had just come out, I think, andromeda andromeda yeah, it's like a side fiction TV show.[0:02:03] John: Yeah.[0:02:04] John: I liked one of the actresses and so I pretty much went to Google, looked for her nude, and stumbled across the fake. And that was the first fake I ever found of her.[0:02:16] Brianne Davis: Okay.[0:02:17] Brianne Davis: Did you buy it or do you.[0:02:18] Brianne Davis: Just take it from is it free? How does that work?[0:02:22] John: Free? I just found it on Google image search.[0:02:26] Brianne Davis: Okay.[0:02:27] John: And pretty much like, just copied the image to my computer at the time was really old.[0:02:36] Brianne Davis: What do you think it is about the fake? Because there are a lot of celebrity nudes that are real, but you only like the fake ones.[0:02:44] John: No, it's more back then, she had never done that. Okay, so it's more of a fantasy thing.[0:02:57] Brianne Davis: Yes. So you've been doing that for almost 23 years.[0:03:02] John: Yeah, it's slowed down quite a bit. I don't collect as much anymore. Basically, if I see one I like, I just download it and stick it with the rest of them.[0:03:15] Brianne Davis: So how many do you think you have that's embarrassing? Well, that's why we are here. This is a show where we get to say all those embarrassing things. I have been there. I have said very many embarrassing things.[0:03:29] John: So I have about last count, over 15,000.[0:03:34] Brianne Davis: 15,000?[0:03:36] John: Yeah. Over.[0:03:37] John: Wow.[0:03:38] Brianne Davis: Over. Oh, my God. What do you do with them? They just sit there. Do you go through them? Do you, like, celebrate that? Like, what do you do with them?[0:03:47] John: Sometimes I just look at them and admire the work that went into them. Because some of them you can really tell because some people who make them just do a crappy don't put an effort into it.[0:04:04] John: Yeah.[0:04:05] Brianne Davis: So you almost see them as artwork.[0:04:07] John: Yeah.[0:04:08] Brianne Davis: And then do you find someone you like or you don't know, and then you go watch all their movies or their TV shows?[0:04:14] John: Sometimes. And there are some that I found and liked and then later just hated them. Because see, I think I have an OCD thing, and I see one minor detail that's off, and it bugs me.[0:04:36] Brianne Davis: That's all you focus on.[0:04:37] John: Yeah.[0:04:38] Brianne Davis: Got it. So if it's a bad art, if it's bad, do you keep that or do you throw that away or you still keep it?[0:04:46] John: I keep it. I guess there's some that are just not great that I keep. I think keeping them is nostalgia's sake.[0:04:54] John: Got it.[0:04:55] Brianne Davis: So it's almost like somebody collecting baseball cards or something. It sounds like there's this compulsion to it a bit.[0:05:04] John: Yeah. In the last couple of years, I've kind of started semi getting out of it.[0:05:11] Brianne Davis: Okay. What does that mean?[0:05:15] John: I used to look for new ones pretty much every day. Nowadays I look maybe every couple of weeks.[0:05:26] Brianne Davis: Oh. So what's been going on where you've decreased the searching for them in your life?[0:05:33] John: Maybe as I get older, I just don't enjoy them as much.[0:05:36] Brianne Davis: Does anybody in your life know about them?[0:05:40] John: Three people.[0:05:41] Brianne Davis: Three people? Who are those three people?[0:05:43] John: Two were by choice, and one was not by choice.[0:05:46] Brianne Davis: Oh, so you got caught?[0:05:48] John: Yeah. So basically the one who caught me was one of my female cousins.[0:05:55] Brianne Davis: Oh, no. So you went on your computer and and saw them?[0:05:58] John: I had collected some early this was back in high school, and I had collected some mended day at school. And I brought them home, loaded them on the computer, and forgot to close the images out. She came up to visit, came up to my room and walked in, and I turned around to something else, and all I heard was, what's this?[0:06:24] Brianne Davis: Oh, my God. Did your stomach drop?[0:06:27] John: That's one way of putting it in.[0:06:30] Brianne Davis: Okay. What happened?[0:06:31] John: We're like sheer panic.[0:06:33] John: Yeah.[0:06:34] John: And it's like, adjoked by folks.[0:06:37] Brianne Davis: How old were you at the time?[0:06:39] John: Between 16 and 18. And she never did she pretty much.[0:06:46] Brianne Davis: Just kept that secret?[0:06:48] John: Yeah. She pretty much said, this is normal. Looking at this kind of stuff is normal, and sat down and just looked through them. And she, like, recognized some of the celebrities. The other two were by choice. This is what I've been doing.[0:07:08] Brianne Davis: Who were they?[0:07:09] John: Just good friends.[0:07:10] Brianne Davis: Okay. And what they say?[0:07:12] John: Pretty much same thing. Like that kind of stuff is normal.[0:07:15] John: Yeah.[0:07:15] Brianne Davis: Looking at porno images and all that is completely normal. But the difference between yours is that they're fake and you know they're fake. So what about it? Do you like that aspect of it that I'm curious about, that you know they're not real, but you still like them.[0:07:31] John: Well, I guess the closest fantasy, because some celebrities will never do, like, nude scenes or pose nude for magazines. Like, my favorite actress, for example. One of my favorite actresses is named Danielle Panabaker. She'll never do, like, nude scenes or anything like that, so I kind of look at the fakes. This is kind of fantasy.[0:08:02] Brianne Davis: Yeah, it's complete fantasy. And do you think with looking at those, that it keeps you distant from having a relationship in real life or no.[0:08:14] John: You mean like a girlfriend or yeah, not really. I kind of don't have much interest in a girlfriend at this point.[0:08:25] Brianne Davis: Oh, really? Have you ever had a girlfriend?[0:08:27] John: No, I've just never had the interest.[0:08:31] Brianne Davis: Okay, here's my question for you. When did you start looking at pornographic images? At what age do you think?[0:08:39] John: REM high school days.[0:08:41] Brianne Davis: High school?[0:08:44] John: I think the first one was Playboy.[0:08:46] Brianne Davis: So when we look at those images a lot and I've done a lot of work around this, it desensitizes our own sexuality, because then the fantasy is more it becomes everything instead of the reality. The reality of a person being with another person or a woman doesn't match the fantasy. Do you think that's true?[0:09:10] John: I guess it depends. Now, with fakes, usually people get aroused by this stuff. I don't.[0:09:21] Brianne Davis: You don't? No, not at all.[0:09:24] John: Well, I mean, back when I first started collecting, maybe. No.[0:09:29] Brianne Davis: So interesting. Not at all. So when you look at it and it's just like, oh, that's a great fake, they did a good job with taking her face and putting it on. That's what you look at mostly than the nude.[0:09:43] John: Yeah, pretty much. Like, a few years ago, I used to use fakes as wallpapers on, like, my tablet.[0:09:50] Brianne Davis: Yeah.[0:09:51] John: But now I don't do that much anymore.[0:09:54] Brianne Davis: Okay.[0:09:55] John: Mostly because I go out in public a lot now.[0:09:58] Brianne Davis: So you're getting out of the house?[0:10:00] John: Yeah.[0:10:01] Brianne Davis: That's probably why you've been doing less, do you believe? Because you said it's been, like, less used to do it every day and now you're doing it weekly.[0:10:10] John: Yeah, it's actually possible. I have a few friends I hang out with, and so that kind of helps.[0:10:18] Brianne Davis: It does help. It does help. I believe when we are stuck with these images, especially when they are fantasy, when we deny ourselves that authentic connection with other human beings, we miss out. And the moment you open yourself up to that and you're getting out of the computer screen with these images and with actual friends, that's what is a real connection.[0:10:41] John: And I think I started heavily collecting quite a few years ago because of grief?[0:10:48] John: Yeah.[0:10:49] Brianne Davis: What were you going through?[0:10:50] John: My mom died from cancer about 1011 years ago, and that's about when I started heavily collecting.[0:10:59] John: Yeah.[0:10:59] Brianne Davis: That's where you found comfort, right?[0:11:01] John: Yeah.[0:11:02] Brianne Davis: Not feeling alone. A huge loss.[0:11:05] John: Yeah. And I read this article online about how one guy got into fakes and it completely destroyed his life.[0:11:15] John: Yeah.[0:11:16] Brianne Davis: What did he say in the article? Why it destroyed his life.[0:11:19] John: He decided to start looking at fakes at his place of employment. I can safely say I've never done.[0:11:31] Brianne Davis: You haven't done that?[0:11:32] John: No. But the article also did the flip side where it actually saved somebody's life because I guess, like me, they lost their mother.[0:11:42] John: Yeah.[0:11:43] John: And they were thinking about ending stuff, so I guess that saved them.[0:11:49] Brianne Davis: Well, it did, because we reach for those outside things that we feel connected to, and it doesn't feel safe with another human being, especially if you lost somebody so important to you so they can give you that outlet of connection.[0:12:02] John: Yeah, I can agree with that.[0:12:04] Brianne Davis: Have you been doing work on the loss and the trauma of it with your mom?[0:12:09] John: Yeah, I had a therapist for a while. I think I'm kind of there now. Not easy. Never really all that easy.[0:12:19] Brianne Davis: No, grief is never easy. We run from grief. But are you finally feeling like you've felt it and moving through it?[0:12:27] John: Yeah, I think so. I've also got friends I talked to about it, too.[0:12:32] Brianne Davis: Oh, good.[0:12:34] John: One of my friends went through the same thing, actually.[0:12:38] Brianne Davis: Well, that always helps when I'm going through a hard time to find a group of people that have been through similar situations and they have them online. All over online as well. Grief and loss groups.[0:12:50] John: Yeah. I found this app, actually, called Seven Cups. Kind of like a sort of therapy app where you can go and talk to people.[0:12:59] John: Yeah.[0:13:00] John: And it's kind of helped me a bit.[0:13:02] Brianne Davis: Good.[0:13:03] John: Now, I have to admit, back when this all happened, I did used to make them.[0:13:09] Brianne Davis: You did used to make them for a short period. And what did that feel like when you were actually making the fake nude photos of celebrities?[0:13:18] John: That's hard to describe. Proud that I made one that looked decent, actually, because I still have one I made that is still my favorite.[0:13:29] Brianne Davis: What is it? Who is it?[0:13:31] John: Her name is Cody Depblo from the TV show NCIS. And it was like a lingerie style fake, not even nude. And that's still my favorite one I've made.[0:13:44] Brianne Davis: I know her. She's very nice. But here's the thing. I did want to ask you this, and I know probably our listeners are wondering, do you ever think of the actual person you're doing the nude of? Like, when you're cutting out their face or you're seeing their face and you know that's not them? Do you ever actually think of that.[0:14:06] John: Person in what way?[0:14:08] Brianne Davis: I don't know. If they choose not to be nude and then someone puts their face on a new body, have you ever thought about how that could make them feel?[0:14:16] John: Yeah, that's kind of why I stopped.[0:14:19] Brianne Davis: Oh, tell me about it. So you had that thought. What was the feelings that came up?[0:14:23] John: Pretty much just yeah, maybe they don't want this. Yeah, let's not do this.[0:14:28] John: Yeah.[0:14:29] Brianne Davis: That they're a human being as well.[0:14:31] John: Yeah, pretty much that.[0:14:32] John: Yeah.[0:14:33] Brianne Davis: And do you think that was one of the reasons about hanging out with friends more, getting out into the world and then that realization that they're humans as well?[0:14:41] John: Yeah, quite a bit, actually. And I haven't made one in seven, nine years.[0:14:49] Brianne Davis: Well, it seems like you're kind of an artist, too. Have you ever thought of trying to do something even different with your art because you enjoy art?[0:14:57] John: It seems like I kind of have. I've started not officially, not like paid stuff, just editing images into wallpapers and just like posting it to a deviant arc page.[0:15:14] Brianne Davis: I think you'd be great at it. There's something in it that inspires you, and I think it takes dedication and you have that. I don't know.[0:15:23] John: Yeah, I used to have something that was like that, but I used to write quite a bit.[0:15:28] Brianne Davis: Maybe it's time to pick it back up.[0:15:30] John: The issue is, ever since my mother died, I've had writer's block.[0:15:35] Brianne Davis: I know. And believe me, I know, writer's block and all that and trauma and all that, but it's like maybe you reaching out to me and wanting to come on and share the secret isn't a way for you to step through it now.[0:15:49] John: Yeah, that could be a good way of looking at it. And I've started dabbling with writing a bit more.[0:15:56] John: Good.[0:16:00] Brianne Davis: Well, I'm so grateful you came on. I'm so grateful to have this conversation. I never expected to have this conversation. It's been beautiful and I understanding so much. And thank you for reaching out to me.[0:16:14] John: Yeah, no problem.[0:16:15] Brianne Davis: And if you want to be on the show, please email me at secretlifepodcast@icloud.com. Until next time.[0:16:27] Brianne Davis: Thanks again for listening to the show. Please subscribe rate share or send me a note at secretlifepodcast.com. And if you like to check out my book, head over to secretlifenovel.com or Amazon to pick up a copy for yourself or someone you love. Thanks again.[0:16:44] Brianne Davis: See you soon.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

god tv amazon google hollywood grief fake celebrities adhd proud obsessive compulsive disorder playboy addicts collect secret life nudes ncis tell your friends johnno danielle panabaker john you john it john good john yeah john one john well john so share online seven cups john free john sometimes john just john now

Episode #88: How Christianity Is A Cult, Religious Mind Bending & The "Karen-ness" Of Christians, With John Verner, Author Of The Cult Of Christianity & Podcast Host

new york times photography iconic comig wwe superstars miss north carolina john well marlana beyond the lens

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 26, 2023 79:59

INTRODUCTION: I hold a Bachelor of Arts in Biblical Exposition, with an interdisciplinary in Literature, from Moody Bible Institute. I was one of two recipients of the MBI Homiletical Jury Award for outstanding preaching in 2016. I have experience as a youth pastor, pastoral intern, academic journal editor, and guest speaker. I used to be a part of the largest cult in the United States. In 2019, I published my first book, The Cult of Christianity, as a first step in addressing the subtle issues of this complex system. In 2021, I continued my work with this podcast! INCLUDED IN THIS EPISODE (But not limited to): · How Christianity Is A Cult· A Look Into TCOC Book's Cover Art· How The Church Exploits Vulnerabilities · Civil Rights Movement Implications· Explained: Control – Contain – Convert· Refusing Cake To The Gays! – But Why Though?· The “Karen-ness” Of Christians · Fake Oppression· Getting Over Self-Condemnation For Falling For The Church· The Honor In Self-Deprecation CONNECT WITH JOHN: Website, Social Media & Books: https://linktr.ee/thecultofchristianity CONNECT WITH DE'VANNON: Website: https://www.SexDrugsAndJesus.comWebsite: https://www.DownUnderApparel.comTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@sexdrugsandjesusYouTube: https://bit.ly/3daTqCMFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/SexDrugsAndJesus/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sexdrugsandjesuspodcast/Twitter: https://twitter.com/TabooTopixLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/devannonPinterest: https://www.pinterest.es/SexDrugsAndJesus/_saved/Email: DeVannon@SDJPodcast.com DE'VANNON'S RECOMMENDATIONS: · Pray Away Documentary (NETFLIX)o https://www.netflix.com/title/81040370o TRAILER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk_CqGVfxEs · OverviewBible (Jeffrey Kranz)o https://overviewbible.como https://www.youtube.com/c/OverviewBible · Hillsong: A Megachurch Exposed (Documentary)o https://press.discoveryplus.com/lifestyle/discovery-announces-key-participants-featured-in-upcoming-expose-of-the-hillsong-church-controversy-hillsong-a-megachurch-exposed/ · Leaving Hillsong Podcast With Tanya Levino https://leavinghillsong.podbean.com · Upwork: https://www.upwork.com· FreeUp: https://freeup.net VETERAN'S SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS · Disabled American Veterans (DAV): https://www.dav.org· American Legion: https://www.legion.org · What The World Needs Now (Dionne Warwick): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHAs9cdTqg INTERESTED IN PODCASTING OR BEING A GUEST?: · PodMatch is awesome! This application streamlines the process of finding guests for your show and also helps you find shows to be a guest on. The PodMatch Community is a part of this and that is where you can ask questions and get help from an entire network of people so that you save both money and time on your podcasting journey.https://podmatch.com/signup/devannon TRANSCRIPT: John Verner [00:00:00]You're listening to the sex drugs and Jesus podcast, where we discuss whatever the fuck we want to! And yes, we can put sex and drugs and Jesus all in the same bed and still be all right at the end of the day. My name is De'Vannon and I'll be interviewing guests from every corner of this world as we dig into topics that are too risqué for the morning show, as we strive to help you understand what's really going on in your life.There is nothing off the table and we've got a lot to talk about. So let's dive right into this episode.De'Vannon: John m is back with us again to go harder into his very provocative book, the Cult of Christianity. Join us today as we discuss the ways in which the church mind fucks us, violates us, and exploits people's vulnerabilities. Also, I hope that through this episode you begin to find a sense of healing in knowing that if you or your loved one has been devastated by the.[00:01:00]You are not alone, honey. We are in this together. John and I are with you,and we will walk with you every step of the way.Hello everyone and welcome back to the Sex Drugs in Jesus podcast. I'm your hostess with the mostest, Devon Huber. And I have with me the lovely, the handsome, the talented, the smart, intelligent, brave, bold, and in touch with his emotions. John er, he is the John: host, John De'Vannon: er mm-hmm. , John er. He is the host of The Cult of Christianity podcast.And the author of the book titled the same. He was on my show before to talk about, well, the book, but then we got so deep into his history in the podcast. We didn't get a chance to talk about the [00:02:00] book, so I had to have the motherfucker back on so we can dive into this shit. How the fuck is you? John: I is fine.20, 20, 23 feels like a little bit of a reset. And so I'm, I'm kind of living in that head space of like, all right, what's next? Since we last spoke, I went, I can't, I don't think I had started back working on my master's in journalism. And so that's been taking up a lot of time. I'm, I'm, it's all online, but I'm studying at N Y U mm-hmm.And that's been awesome. I've been, been doing some religious reporting stuff, which is, is fun. I'm excited to kinda move towards that, doing religious reporting. It's pretty fun. De'Vannon: Well, congratulations. Congratulations. And all of it was a good thing. . So you're religious reporting like say for, for like, for like the university's press John: or like where Yeah.For right [00:03:00] now. Yeah. And then yeah, I'm already, I'm hopefully gonna sell my first, I'm actually right after we record this, I'm gonna have a meeting to hopefully sell my first story of a church investigation I did. Cuz that's what I wanna do. I want to, not just Christian churches, but I want to go into churches and colts and investigate them and figure out what's really going on De'Vannon: as someone should.Have you heard of the Trinity Foundation in Texas? John: Yeah. You mentioned that last time we talked. I didn't, I didn't look too far into them, but I know there's, there's several. This is a relatively new thing that's popping up that's actually really, really important work. De'Vannon: So what you're telling me is there's organizations who investigate churches more than that one.This is becoming like a trend. Well, John: religious reporting has been around for, for decades, but it's been done in a very kind of general way. And I think there's being a small push to be like, let's actually look at individual, like if someone is whistle blowing on their [00:04:00] church or is like giving us leads about a specific church, that it should be fair game and we should investigate them like we would any other business.De'Vannon: Right. Well, I wish you success with that as you get going and keep going, be sure to let me know if there's anything that I can do for you because, you know, I don't give a fuck about churches, but I give all the fucks. I give all the fucks about Christ as I always say. Mm-hmm. , but the church. Yay Jesus. And that's the way that, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.Now, before we get too much into this, I want you to tell me about that coffee mug in your hand. Can you hold it up the camera so that we can see Yeah. What it says. Apostate coffee roasters. You mind giving us a little bit of history on what the fuck apostate means and where you got that from? Yeah.John: Apostates just a derogatory term that different cults and religions have thrown at people who, typically it's someone who, like me, who used to be a part of the faith and is no longer [00:05:00] but it's, it's more broadly a pro. A similar word would be something like heretic. But the, yeah, so prostate coffee roasters, they're this coffee company that is run by ex Mormons and Mormons are not allowed to drink coffee.So it's a very like, empowering thing for them to roast their own coffee and make it so they're awesome. Love 'em to death. They're great. Make good coffee. So their De'Vannon: whole show is one big clap back. Not the whole show. Their whole fucking concept is one big clap back. Mm-hmm. . So do you have any idea why Mormons think coffee is Satan?Why do they think coffee is of the devil? John: Yeah. I don't know personally too much. You know, I didn't grow up Mormon or anything. I do know that just in my studies of Colts , what they do is one move to do is to control what people eat and drink. You know, in Southern Baptist culture that looks like alcohol [00:06:00] you know, in, in certain pockets of Christianity, historically there was only certain kinds of bread you could use for communion.Anytime you're trying to regulate what people are eat, eating, you're regulating what they're putting into their body. That's just a, that's just a very like kind of you've mentioned stuff like hypnosis. It's, it's a very like, Kind of mind numbing way to control a person is to control what they eat and drink.The other big one I talk about a lot is controlling what you wear. That's like a, that's a big thing that pops up in different cults. You'll see usually a distinction between how clergy dress and the followers and how people dress on Sunday versus the rest of the days is common in Christian circles.So basically if you can control what someone expresses and you can control what someone intakes, it's very easy to control their mind cuz you're already controlling their body. . [00:07:00] Mm. So that would be my, my, my spin on it. I don't know the theo, I don't know what theological reason they made up for coffee.Like I, I'm sure there's some, I'm sure somebody said it was you know, too addicting at some point is probably the modern version, I would assume. De'Vannon: Well, if that was the case, at least those bastards were even across the board, you know, unlike say the Pentecostals who were like, that was show not drinketh of the vine, but they're gross in a fucking gallon of coffee in the back every Sunday and like that.But that's all good, right? . John: Yeah. Well that's also, yeah, especially, especially if they go the grape juice route too, because even grape juice is from a vine. So that's kind of. , De'Vannon: it's all silly. The marijuana, the L s D mm-hmm , the shrooms, the coffee beans, the grapes, and any of their derivatives is something that is of the Lord.And it is not for humans to tell us what the fuck. We can't do really with [00:08:00] anything, but it's certainly not anything that grew up out the fucking dirt. Hmm. So, speaking of artistic expressions, cuz you're also fucking artistic. I mentioned the, the cover for your podcast the last time, but I wanted to talk about that again because I feel like it's just so enigmatic and so polarized and you have this big, huge fucker standing on like a pedestal and his little minions bowing before them for him sucking his dick or whatever the case may be, paying HOK in some way.And the interesting thing is you can't tell whether or not that's supposed to be a preacher, a rabbi, a pope, a pastor that's supposed to be God, you know, or Jesus or some like sort of deity. , and I know you said it before, but I'd like you to just tell us again why you went with this cover art, because I think it's so true.John: Well, this is a, every so humans like categories we like [00:09:00] to find a group. We like to label things as good and bad. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. That's just kind of how our brains work. And the problem is we've got kind of this weird concept of good guys and bad guys, and the church is pretending to be the good guys while they're being the bad guys.But you end up having to label specific things that are wrong because there's so many goodhearted people in. . And so a lot of times when I critique Christianity, people wanna spend the conversation of, well, you're not critiquing Christianity. You're critiquing this version of Christianity, which isn't necessarily wrong, I am way more focused on White American evangelicalism than the rest of it.But White American evangelicalism was not a term when there were slavery in the us. There it existed, but we hadn't [00:10:00] labeled it that yet. The Crusades, the was not only white people, was not American people and was certainly not evangelicals, but the Crusades were bad . And it stemmed from their beliefs their Christian beliefs.So I can't say everything all at once. , but what I hope the art communicates is the, the problem that I've spotted, the category that I think everything else falls from is the idea of leaders and followers of other people submitting to someone else. I don't really, I, I think it's worth bringing up white supremacy.I think it's worth bringing up patriarchy. I think all those things are very much worth talking about, but I don't think it's the only thing going on. I think we have a we're, we're sometimes scared, and I think we've been made to be scared of pointing out that what's really going on in churches is that cult structure of one man with [00:11:00] other people having the knee bow to him either literally or metaphorically.So again, the art is, is purposely vague because I think unless there's some fundamental changes 40 years from now when evangelicalism won't exist, it will be gone. We won't be calling anyone an evangelical anymore. The same problems, the same structure, the same issues will still be present unless there's foundational changes.Chow, I'm De'Vannon: getting Game of Thrones flashbacks. Okay. Like, how many season is it gonna take to get you to bend the knee? John Snow, get on down there. Boy. and motherfucking service. Yo, queen God damnit. And so . John: Yeah. Well seasons is an interesting way of thinking about it. Both television and, and you know, weather or whatever.But it's true. Like there's seasons of Christianity that that kind of come and go. But what seems to remain is that structure of one person being in charge of others or [00:12:00] multiple people being in charge of multiple others. But there's always that hierarchy. So again, I, I have tried to update the art before, but I think it, I think it's just the, it, it's, it's about what I'm talking about most specifically.You know, that my art. on that is in line with the problem I'm trying to point to. There's many other people who are doing great work to dismantle white Evangelicalism and I support all those people. But to me, that's not my niche. That's not what I'm trying to talk about. Hmm. Then De'Vannon: tell us like it, you know, and make it official here.What, what are you trying to talk about? What is your mission in this world? Hmm. John: I'm not just against Christianity, I'm against cults. I just know how much of a cult Christianity is. Hmm. And the reason I'm against cults is it's an erase. It erases people's identity. It makes their vulnerabilities their whole personhood.It [00:13:00] it, it limits them to a very narrow way of. , and I think there's cult speak outside of, you know, there's a lot of cult speak in the business world. There's a lot of cult speaking, just American culture when it comes to politics. So I'm against all of it across the board, the one I'm just super familiar with, and can get very detailed and very like you know, just kind of a prime example.And unfortunately a very big example in the US is Christianity. And one of the ways, it's the biggest example is it's absurd that the largest cult is the most protected class of people in the country. Like, that's concerning to me. We have an organiza a loosely organized group of people that are protected by constitutional rights and legal rights more than anyone.and they're not oppressed, but they're that protected and that's a very dangerous, as we've seen, very dangerous combination. So they're worth talking about the most, and it's the one I can [00:14:00] talk about the most, but I'm against cults across the board. I'm not just bitter about my church hurt, I'm not just upset because of this, that, and the other.This is a real problem that really needs to be talked about in real ways and real solutions need to happen. De'Vannon: That's interesting you say like the, these ultimate people's vulnerabilities, their whole personality. I've never heard it stated like that before. So from from the people who've reached out to you in response to your book or your show or the work that you're doing, do you have any sort of, I don't know if we would call it a testimony, any kind of bullshit somebody shared with you that a, a church or a cult put them through that was particularly scary or moving to you that you can recall?John: Yes. To me. So I, I have two thi things that I think of with that question. One is, nothing surprises [00:15:00] me anymore. Nothing . It, it can still hurt. It can still shock me. It never surprises me. It only makes me feel like, yeah, that makes sense. And frankly, I only feel like I was five clicks away from being the victim or perpetrator of whatever bad thing happened, because that's what the system breeds.It, it breeds perpetrators and victims . I mean, that's just what it does. There's, there's many horrifying stories. Sometimes I avoid telling them because, When you tell like a really I guess salacious, for lack of a better word story, like someone who, like, you know, I have an episode of my podcast where I interview a guy who was kidnapped by Christians, right?About as extreme as it can get. What people do is go, well, those Christians were crazy. Those were the crazy ones. [00:16:00] Or like, if someone talks about, you know, this is unfortunately becoming, we're all becoming aware how common this is. When someone was sexually harassed or abused by someone in the church they, they go, well, that, that guy needs to leave.Like he's, you know, he's bad. And, and the church would, that church was bad, but you should come to my church. You should do this, you should do that. It, it just gets a little exhausting for me to kind of engage and. Let me tell you this horrible story because frankly, the horrible story doesn't change anyone's mind because the cult won't let it change your mind because your empathy has been pressure washed out of you.You, you don't, you don't ha the story doesn't tug at you because the thing that tugs at you more is you've been told how ashamed you are and how shameful your existence is. And the only hope for reming that shame is believing in Jesus Christ. And so that belief that's so firmly held is actually gonna [00:17:00] trump your ability to be empathetic towards someone's story.So yeah, I could sit here and I could, off the top of my head at least tell you three stories that would make a lot of people who are unfamiliar with churches that would make their jaw drop, but it wouldn't change anything. And it's very sad because we want to believe that people's horrifying stories change stuff.And I think it does and to, and I think it can. . But I think a lot of the times it actually ends up being counterproductive because the cults, the cult leaders are anticipating that they've already done a lot of work to build a firewall against that particular human thing of storytelling to promote change.You know, I no better example than like Martin Luther King Jr. Right. You know, told amazing stories, was a great orator. Not the per, not a perfect person, but someone who told a lot of great stories and who was, showed the impact. And we like to [00:18:00] pretend that that changed the church and up more positive direction.But did it, I mean, I, I mean, what, what tangible, measurable things can we point to that were changed within church culture? I'm not talking about American culture in general. There was great things that came outta the Civil Rights Movement. What did the church really change? Not a lot. It just changed their verbiage, which they always changed their verbiage.But, but systemically what really changed. So if you want horrible stories, I can give them, but that's why I'm hesitant to a lot of the time is cuz I'm not sure it's actually that helpful. De'Vannon: What you said is, look, you said what you said . Okay. Did I accept that when I think of Martin Luther King or any of the civil rights, I never, ever think about the church, you know, except for the fact that the church stood silently by why people were murdered in the streets and stuff like that, you know?You know. [00:19:00] How's it say that? Well, John: and, and I mean, I mean, even Evangelicals hated Martin Luther King Jr. They called him a thug. They. There, there's a letter from the guy who wrote the Left Behind books. There's a letter from him to Wheaton College because they had a memorial service after King was shot.And he said, how could you celebrate the life of this man? They didn't just passively like, not like m l K, they hated him. Jerry Falwell hated Martin Luther King Jr. Because he was for segregation. So like, and again, like I, I, you know, I know this is an intense topic to go to right off the bat, , but, but I just think, I think we, I think sometimes those of us who have left the church think if we just tell enough stories of how bad we've been hurt, Christians will change.They don't give a shit. They don't, and it's, and some of it's not even their fault. A lot of the followers have been brainwashed to not give a shit. And [00:20:00] so the, the best hope is we can, with our stories, what we can do is help people who have already left know that they're not alone. Which is huge and that's really important work and people who are looking for a way out might find the way out.But if you're talking about systemically changing what cult leaders are gonna do it, it ain't gonna do shit. De'Vannon: Right. I concur. So, you know, that's why like in my ministry, man, I am preaching not to church people, but the people who have already been hurt or people who, who know people and love people who have been hurt because people don't go to church for the betterment of humanity.People go to church for entirely selfish reasons, to keep themselves outta hell, to work out their own self, soul, salvation, whatever it is. They're going there to get their blessing, their miracle. They're come up, they're not going there cuz they give a fuck about you. And then so yeah, I concur. There is no talking to them hardheaded people.Like if they're setting up there every god damn Sunday or whatever, they're not gonna be able to hear us [00:21:00] because they're constantly being re indoctrinated and re hypnotized by the big man up on stage or we god damn week. or the woman or the who of the fuck ever twirling about. So yeah, they're a lost cause shot of a miracle.John: Yeah. I, or also just explaining systemically what happens, you know, if you, if you're able to generalize it more than just a specific person, like one person's story and you can show them the patterns. You know, I used to be a cult leader, you know, I studied to be a pastor. I got out, I was hardheaded then.But the reason I got out was not because I heard a story that was finally, you know, enough, it was cuz I kept seeing the same thing over and over again. And I was like, this is just how a cult operates. And I was in denial about it. So I think cult leaders, the way you do reach them is say, don't you know what you're doing?Like, you know? Right. And if you actually focus the conversation on that and not just the extreme cases of bad things that happen, but actually point [00:22:00] to like the pattern. Like, okay, so do you have control over your congregation? . Like, that's a great question to ask a pastor because they'll, they'll struggle.They cannot give a yes or no que answer to it. But just be like, do you have control over your congregation? And you'll it then watch how they react. Cuz you'll see some interesting things. . You De'Vannon: can also ask 'em to apologize for something and get that same reaction cuz those bastards won't say they're sorry.And so, so now that you're speaking about control, I wanted to talk about, so y'all, his book, the called of Christianity is broken down into three succulent sections. The first one is called control. The section one is the sexual, the sec, second one is called Contained. Clearly I need to gimme some dick.Where the fuck did that come from? And the third one is called Convert. And you'll always, whenever you hear John's talk, he'll always say, control, contain, convert, control, contain, convert. And so, and that's how his book is broken down. And if I may, I'm gonna [00:23:00] read a little sniff it. That kind of echoes what you were just saying.And Howard, I had already taken down in my notes. Now, this is John speaking y'all, and he's saying, I don't recant anything in this letter. I said, holding back tears. I was feeling tired, dressed down, confused and hurt, yet unwilling to go again. So what I knew to be true, the truth was I had spent three hours in a boardroom that reminded me of the one I had seen in The Apprentice.I want you to tell us what the hell was going on here and why were you crying. . John: So yeah, so this is the first chapter of the book, and this is kind of, I, I, you know, my, my rose bud, my whatever, my my or villain or hero origin story, depending on how you look at it. So I was 16 years old going to a pretty stuffy church Presbyterian church, p c a for whoever that means [00:24:00]something to suit and tie church.And I was, I was angsty, you know, at the same time I was also in a punk band. I had grown out my hair. I was still very Christian, like, very conservative Christian, in fact. But I, you know, was around people who, you know, I, I, I was ex, I was becoming an adult, right? Like in as much as a teenager does.And the church was just ridiculous. And so, like, I, I had this whole rigamarole of, of beef with the, the leadership of the church. So I sent a letter. to email. I emailed the pastor and said, here are my problems with this church. And I had broken it into four sections of just like, they don't respect the youth of this church.They have a bad view of music. That was important to me cuz they were like, they had this whole, like, contemporary music is evil. They were like one of those. And [00:25:00] then they there were a couple other things. Oh, they, the way they hated Catholics actually really bothered me. The way they talked about Catholics was very not okay in my opinion.And then basically I'd told them I would never invite a friend to church here. Like I would never, like, do y'all want to actually save people? Because I would never invite. Yeah. So I wrote this whole long letter, sent it to the pastor. He forwarded it to the elders. I told my dad afterwards about it and my dad and dad was like, can I read it?And I was like, sure. I signed it to him. He is like, all right, proud of you. This is good stuff. . And so I told my parents that I wanted to face the elders alone. So we would go to their session room, which was a long wooden table, had like chairs on all around it. And then on the wall it had pictures of Martin Luther.It had Swingley and it had John Calvin. And then it had like these bookshelves that [00:26:00] were just like full of like reformation propaganda. And so it's me and the three elders I knew the most. And then for, for three hours they talked to me about how my long hair was sinful, which was the first time like, I thought, only crazy churches believe that, right?And they were like, no, you're trying to look like the world with your hair. And I was like, what? And then they talked about my best friend who dressed in all black, like how, you know, they're dressing in all black. Same friend was in the band with me and was just like, said, they look like the world.Talk to me about how I was the one who was disrespecting them. They weren't disrespectful of you, of youth. I was disrespectful to them and that yeah, that basically I, and, and I didn't confront them correctly. I shouldn't have written a letter. When you have a problem with someone, you go and confront them, and then if they don't listen, you bring another, you [00:27:00] know, the whole Matthew 18 dumb ass shit.And so I just, I, I was a wreck and so I cried. Eventually my dad came in, and that's the cool part of the story. My dad comes in and he goes, what happened? And, well, no, my dad comes in and actually the first things outta his mouth was who was yelling at my son. And it was a, it was a good moment for me and my dad.Our, our relationship only got stronger after that moment. then they started talking about the hair and stuff. Then my dad goes, look behind you. And there's like, you know, his wingy with his long beard and stuff, and he is like, and my dad goes, the person who sh what? I can't even remember the terminology anymore.The person who led me to the Lord, that's how they talk. The person who led me to the Lord had long hair. Like, what are you talking about? You know? and so it kind of got tense and then yeah, at the end I say I don't recant, which was a paraphrase of what [00:28:00] Martin Luther said when he was brought before, Catholics and, and excommunicated.cuz I thought that would be an extra sting of, since they idolize this man so much. that was the first time I switched from being a blind follower. I stayed a Christian for many years after that, but I stopped blindly following what church leaders say that day. De'Vannon: I like that whole recant thing.Like I was saying earlier that you said what? You said , I'm might, I might hit a bitch with that one day I recant, not it. John: Lost the fuck out. Yeah. It, it's a little dramatic. Well, because they, well, one of the elders said like, do you, do you have like, I want to give you the last word. Is there anything you wanna say?Because I could tell by the look on their face, they felt like they did something good. They felt like they did a good job of putting me back on the right path. [00:29:00] And I was like, guys, y'all just proved everything I said. Like, I, why would I recant anything? and they were, they were mad frankly. They were mad.De'Vannon: They always are. They, they were that way with Lakewood, you know, you know, when they, when the ki when the, when the kids choir director and the adult choir director were firing me from all aspects of volunteering for not being straight. Despite the, despite, aside from the fact they would call me in the office and question who I'm dating and stuff like that, trying to get all into who I'm fucking and whatnot.Well, I mean, we can't even fuck even doing all that. Just, you know, or hold hands or shit, I guess, whatever their rules were, you know? Mm-hmm. , when they offered me their conversion therapy package in order to stay and to be demoted, quote unquote, to an usher from being on, you know, camera and television and stuff in the more public ministries, and I got up to walk the fuck out, they were so confused, you know, that I didn't accept their conversion [00:30:00] therapy package.And they, when they were talking to me, they felt like they, they, they, they felt like I had hurt them and offended them. You know? Like, how could you, how could you hang out with gay people when you're not here, ? John: Yeah. I mean, when you, when you think, when you, you, when you think you're divinely appointed by God people aren't supposed to argue with you.And if they do, they're spo. If someone argues with you, they're arguing with the Lord. I mean, there's some who would never say, no, no, no, no, no. Like it's, it's, I don't, I don't have that kind of authority, blah, blah, blah. But I'm like, but in practice, like, I mean, this is what we keep agreeing to by showing up to church is that you're divinely appointed by God to do whatever the hell you wanna do, frankly And so, I, I don't know. I mean, it's, it's, but it's so sad, right? It's so sad that it happens to not only, you know, [00:31:00] adults or like people who've put a lot of work into the church. it happens to very vulnerable people. It happens like in my case, to a child. I mean, I was 16 years old and I had grown ass men ripping me a new one because I just challenged their bad behavior.I mean, this is what we were working with. Imagine if I was like a woman when I did that, or like, You know, or, or like, you know, not, not white, you know? yeah, like, I, I, I mean, it's just horrifying, right? It's, it's all about once you deviate from, the, the program, I mean, you're gonna, you're gonna experience some, some shaming at minimum.De'Vannon: Hmm. Some shaming in some shade. Yeah. Especially white men, they don't like to be told what to do and, and that they're wrong. They're accustomed to stepping on all the little brown people and stuff like that. But for the record, my brother, I think you got plenty of soul. You are always invited for the motherfucking cookout.any damn [00:32:00] day about to be crawfish season down here. Come stay with me. I got room in my house. I'll get you some soul food and fattening you up a little bit. , John: man, I miss soul food. You know, there's obviously a lot of great stuff here in Atlanta, but now I'm vegan, so like, so much of it is like off the table for me now.It's very sad. De'Vannon: So that means no crawfishes for you. Well, vegan is not. Yeah. There's no dairy in that, right? There's no dairy in, yeah, video1579991175: but John: it's a, it, it's an animal though. De'Vannon: You can't eat any animals either. John: Okay. I'm gonna have no animal, no dairy, some vegan De'Vannon: seafood shit for you. John: So some collards though. I can have some collards, which is good.You know, I De'Vannon: grow mustard greens. I got them in the backyard right now. Ooh. Okay. I cut you a pot. John: Let's goDe'Vannon: So the section called contain mm-hmm. march. Stuck out to me. In, in, in here. So I have long loathed Christian people for this fake oppression and things like that. Like what you mentioned earlier. We're gonna talk about [00:33:00] the myth of Chris and Daria. Mm-hmm. , after we talk about this whole people not wanting to make cake for the gaze.Bullshit. I like the way you said it. I'm gonna read a little ex sweeped as bugs bunnies, , sometimes racist ass would. Say he can't help how Disney dressed him. Sometimes he was in drag, sometimes he was talking to people in blackface. But there's a whole thing out there on YouTube about, you know, Disney and the different cartoons, racism.Go look it up cuz unfortunately Bugsy was in there too. So Romans 12 versus 20 through 21. This is from the book, says to the contrary, if your enemy is hangry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink For Baso doing, he will heap pointing cold on his head. So do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.John goes on to say, perceiving gay folks as enemies is [00:34:00] problematic in and of itself, but even if you do, I fail to see how refusing to give people some cake. Cake, cake, cake, cake scores you any brownie points for the God.John: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it, it is wild, right? Like that's, it's, it's, it's just, and it shows the contrary, like there's an evangelical message of we need to serve all people. And then there's another message that they're saying at the same time is like, but not if, I'm like, well, if there's a but not if, then the first thing doesn't make any sense.De'Vannon: And Jesus is saying, it is your most basic bitch Christian level. You gotta feed a bitch. You know, two people can be in a relationship and on the verge of divorce. I mean, if a pot of food is cooking, you, you can at least share that. I mean, yeah. Nevertheless, you've been commanded to do so. You're not supposed to leave people starving and without clothing.No matter how much you [00:35:00] disdain them, you're supposed to piss on them if they're on fire. It's stuff like that, no matter how much you don't want to mm-hmm. . So you conservative assholes out there when you don't wanna make me a cake because I walked in with eyeshadow on, just know. You're written of in the scriptures.You hateful ho. Yeah. Now then this myth of oppression, like you talked about earlier. Christians are a bunch of big fucking Karens running around something like. The God the world is against them. The moment they can't stop. I don't know, a trans athlete from participating in sports, then, oh my God, I'm being silenced.My rights are not being heard. I'm being so persecuted. Bitch, no one's coming after you. You just got told no for trying to come after somebody else. No one actually attacked you. . Mm-hmm. . I can't say anything more about this. So tell us who the hell, Chris. Chris and Aria . John: If, if memory serves me, I was telling you before we started recording, I, I wrote this [00:36:00]book a while ago, so I'm like, I don't actually remember all, everything, but the, that's the, the couple that supposedly got saved early on and, and really it was all about Chastity.Like they were like this couple that was, you know, like, oh, chastity is so great. and then because they're seeking to convert others. I think according to the story, it's Rome supposedly who throws a, i I think one gets fed to a lion, the other gets fed, burned at the stake, whatever. It's a pretty classic version of just early church persecution.There's a million different stories like this of just like different Christian heroes who were early Christians who, you know got converted and, and then they, you know like start, started bolstering the movement and Rome doesn't like it, so they killed them. 90% of those stories aren't true. They never happened.They were made up. It was just, it was just made [00:37:00] up. I mean, I really don't know what else to say about it. It's just, it's unverified. There were a few that happened and there was also some early Jewish persecution in that same time. That was absolutely happening. , but Jewish Christians, which was what they were at first did that kind of lumped their Jewish Christ Christendom beliefs with other sex of Judaism that were actually being persecuted.And so it just became this kind of whole glob of like of myth of saying that like, oh, if the people find out you're Christian, they'll wanna kill you for it. And that bread, like this whole martyrdom complex which is very similar obviously to a Messiah complex. And so yeah, it's just, it just, there's a lot of stories like that that, you know, you, you're free to fact check.Never happened. But they're told from the pulpit they're, you know, they're told the old, you'll hear a mirror million [00:38:00] different versions of basically like they were singing songs while they were being burned alive. They were reciting scripture while they were being burned alive. Didn't happen.It just wasn't very common. Occasionally there was some mob violence that was killing Christians, but it just wasn't a common thing. De'Vannon: I can't believe that the band was really playing as the Titanic ship went down either . But if that's what might not have, well, if that's what Rose wanna say, then we'll have to believe Rose or what the fuck ever.I want that diamond bitch, you know? . Okay, . So basically the Christian Church is a bunch of drama queens and stuff like that. And I, I, I don't know, you know what I want you to talk about, like, people who leave the [00:39:00] church and like blame themselves or haven't been duped by them because I went through that for like a really long time. , you know, it's like I was mad at myself, as they say, for buying this bullshit. True. I, looking back on it now, with a healthy mind, I was vulnerable.They took advantage of me, but I did not think that way for a many, many years. It's like, why was I so stupid? Why did I let them do that? You know, there's a grieving that happened in some, some self-loathing that came in there on me.John: Well, let me tell you a story. Yesterday I was driving to the grocery store and I saw someone on the side of the road that had a sign that said, Jesus saves. And I got outta my car and I went and talked to them. After about 30 minutes, I realized this was the most beautiful person I ever met. And guess what?The story I just told you is not. [00:40:00] So no . Not that I've just made that up. I didn't go to the grocery store yesterday. Oh. So the thing got me yo , I got, I got everybody. And that's why you shouldn't feel duped. We trust, that's what we do as humans. When someone's put, when something's put in a story form, we're compelled by what they're saying.That doesn't make anyone stupid. That makes us have empathy. That makes us like beautiful people. We don't need to blame ourselves. We need to blame people who take advantage of that. Now, I was able to just tell you I was lying and no harm is really done right. , we gotta now, but there might be a listener who goes, oh, I can't trust this guy.If he's able to lie that good, you know, fine. Don't. But the thing is, churches have built an entire system that took the storytelling, the beautiful storytelling of Judaism and just wrecked it for their own purposes. and added, took away, changed, edited [00:41:00] the story. You are not stupid for wanting to believe in a story that, that, that, that's just the thing you have to know.There's no, there's no stupidity. It's all on them . It's all on them to bear the responsibility of, of having power, of having and kind of a monopoly on redemption narratives. I mean, they've kind of created this universe literally where the, they, they have a redemptive narrative that is attributed to them.They should wield that power carefully, and they don't. So no. Anyone who gets caught up in believing it, don't blame yourself for that. That's, you're a human being. Don't blame yourself for very normal human things to do. And don't blame other people who are still believing it. understand where they're coming from.It does take work. It's not easy. I don't have a [00:42:00] magic bullet solution, but I just think being aware of why you fell for it is important. Cuz most people didn't fall for it for evil reasons. They usually fell for it for really, really good, important reasons. Mm-hmm. . De'Vannon: So a another quote that you say from your book, it's concerning these foolish people.You say, John says, y'all the claim that they are in a relationship with Christ, that their churches are their families and that they love sinners, but hate sin and that divine beauty is interwoven through all of it. John says, cool story bro. Doesn't mean you're on a cult. . John: Yeah. Well, and it's true. It's just like there's, there's a, there's an element of family that, that they pretend to provide.and that's fine. And sometimes it, it's not all pretend. Sometimes they do some really important things for each other. I don't see why that's intention with the idea that they're a [00:43:00] cult though. I, I, I think, I think you can do good things while being in a cult. I just think cults are bad things. De'Vannon: Just don't drink the Kool-Aid bitches.I'm just saying. Pour it upon the ground and run the fuck away. So then the final run, run, run, run for is run. So the final section called Convert. Hmm. I thought this was such a confident statement for you, for you to write, and I just, I'm just like reading it cause we wanna talk about hell and whether or not you believe it's real, because one of his chapters is I believe it's called a, a yeah, it's called a made up thing called Hell.Y'all. John is the most titillating, tantalizing, thought provoking. This makes you wanna dive into them like some good pussy or some good pussy. Chapter titles. I mean, the, the, the, the, the, I'm gonna read some of 'em. Slave Segregation, sorry. Faux wait. Merit faux [00:44:00] Meritocracy with a side of the Theocratic Tyranny.Selective History, the Myth of Oppression. Made of thing. Call held superficial and super fiscal. You know, the, the, the, just the Fuckings chapter Titles are art. You know what it's gonna be about. And, you know, shit's gonna be edgy and fresh and everything that, that, you know, that we need right now. And so, whew, chapter ta fucking chapter titles gave me life.So, so from, from, yeah. The John: chapter titles are better than the book. So , De'Vannon: that right there is exactly what I'm gonna read now. You exude so much fucking confidence because of the way you're able to slay yourself and kind of make fun of yourself, but then not really, you know, you have to have like the biggest pp or just not even care because you, you just, you're just so like authentically you and you're so like, relaxed about it.Y'all, this is what John says about himself growing up. He says, I doubt [00:45:00] I am the only one to have grown up dabbling in mature discussion topic. It is way too. Wait, what the fuck? Wait, wait. Lemme say that again. I doubt I'm the only one that have grown up dabbling, mature discussion topics way too young to remember being younger than 10 and debating with my cousins over suspicion about who goes to hell.Young is honestly, I'm sure of any philosophers, theologians, our professional commentators, communicators have been around or had been around for this adolescent think tank vomit, would escape from their mouths quicker than corrections even. So good for us for trying to figure out life's deepest questions.And I thought, how, how? Just confident, you know, just to, just to be able to look back on yourself and laugh without being negatively critical. You know, like, I can't believe I thought or did that way. Ha ha ha, ha ha. But here I [00:46:00] am today, so. Can you speak to us about that sort of self-confidence? Where did you get that from?How are you able to look back and say, my God, you know, I was a mess, but not attack yourself. You know, just appreciate where you were then while taking in where you are now. Make jokes about it and just go on swinging your big dick through life, . John: So how do you Well, I was gonna say, I was gonna say the large penis is most of itBut I, no, I think it's so here's the thing. Truth be told, most of my friends would not describe me as confident. Writing provides a, allows me to be the best version of myself. And so what comes across in my writing as confidence is probably what I want to be. It's not always what I am. [00:47:00] The other answer I'll give is therapy.I, I punish and it used to be worse. So I've come a long way, but I punish myself for some of who I was. But I had a therapist. Tell me once how many years is enough to punish you for what you did? On very different things, you know? I mean, I have a, I have a lot of shame about all sorts of things I wish I had done differently in life.But what's, but what's my sentence, right? Like, what, what, what, how long do I have to negatively talk about who I was before? It's enough, before enough time has passed, before I've given myself enough lashes, so to speak. Like, what's the number? Put a number to it. And when she said that to me, it kind of, just reshaped how I thought about things.I'm like, there really isn't anything [00:48:00] stopping me from being the person who I want to be. So that's a little deeper answer than that little anecdote about me talking to my cousins about hell . It was. But I think I, I appreciate you seeing that that that is something actively working on as we speak, and something I want to get better at is, and it's not so much self-confidence, although I, I, I, I, I know I'm witty and I, you know, I, there's just certain personality traits I know about myself.But I wanna love myself and I haven't figured it out yet, but I used to not even want to. And that's the, the biggest change that happened in my life is when I, not, not when I woke up one day and started loving myself, but when I woke up one day and said, loving myself should be a goal. because for a long time it wasn't even a goal, and I was indoctrinated to believe that it would actually steer me away from heaven or my loved ones, or [00:49:00] love in general.If I tried to love myself, I would become selfish. I would become sinful. I would become self-serving because the only way, proper way to love yourself would be to love God. I don't agree with that anymore. I, I think that I th first off, there's a trope going around that's been going around for a while, that you have to love yourself before you can love other people.Bullshit. I'm calling bullshit on it. You can love people so deeply while you hate yourself. You can, you can have all sorts of love. The, the, the, the truth behind that trope is it will not be sustained. You can't sustain love for other people if you're not actively practicing love with yourself.Because love is a practice. It's not just like a thing, you can't help. It takes work, it takes choices. It does take feelings, but it takes controlled [00:50:00] feelings. It takes managed feelings. And for most people it takes some therapy. And therapy can look different for different people. It doesn't have to be sitting on a couch.You know, I, I used to do activity therapy with my therapist going on walks. You know there's all sorts of things you can do for you, and no one's gonna know what you need more than you. But yeah, I, when I look back at my past self, I do feel a lot of shame. But the fact that my goal is to not makes all the difference in the.De'Vannon: Well, I hope you overcome all of that. And I just, there no, remember Jesus being on the cross where I think he had a murder on one hand and a thief on the other? And you know, the Lord says the only sin he won't forgive you for is if you blaspheme the Holy Ghost, which is not something really easy to do.I don't think most people even know what the fuck that means. And so that doesn't mean that as a human we don't have to work through, you know, shame and [00:51:00] guilt. But, you know, I just always like to remind people, you know, and you of that, you know, all things are forgiven no matter what, you know, you know, according to the word of, of Jesus and his work on the cross.So this means a murdering people, oh God, fuck y'all. I'm not saying go out and slice people down, just thinking, go run to the church and ask for forgiveness. That's not what I'm saying. But I'm saying like, if you're sitting in jail somewhere and you done done it and it's been 20 years and you killed whatever person, Okay, that's over.Now, you know, you have a path forward, but Jesus does require us to tell the truth about everything, you know, to make whatever amends we can to people realistically, you know, and safely, you know, if the person's around, he wants us to as, as, as he says, leave our gift at the altar and go get right with the person.And not to let the sun go down on our anger. But there is always redemption. There is always grace, is grace is sufficient for us. No matter what you have done, you just don't blast being the Holy Ghost. Everything else. It's fine. I regret having sold so many god damn narcotics to people who I [00:52:00]could tell were too, were so weak-willed that I could bend them, you know, to, to my, to my desire.You know, sometimes I think about that, but you know what? It's over. I don't sell drugs anymore. I hate the fact that I prayed on them in their vulnerabilities. You know, to make myself feel good. That's John: such a big one. Can, can I focus on two things real quick? Whatever the hell you want. Okay. Okay. Because pr preying on vulnerabilities is a big part of my shame too.Hmm. And it's really hard because I grew up in a cult that taught me how to pray on people's vulnerabilities. Subtly, not like explicitly, but just being in that environment and all of that. So that's a hard, hard thing. So good on ya. For, for, you're correct. I mean, it's something you can't change.It's not, you know, the damage is done. And you do have to accept that that was a u that [00:53:00]doesn't exist anymore or even more accurately. That's a u that you've done work to and make sure that you're not prey on vulnerable people anymore. And whatever small bit of you that was either naturally good at it or indoctrinated to be good at preying on other people, if you're able to change that about yourself, you are so much better off than so many people who are in the cult who cannot turn that off and have no mechanism to turn that off.The second thing is I don't think you need Jesus for that forgiveness and grace personally. I don't wanna take it away from anyone . That's not, that's not my personality. I'm like, if that, if that, but I just, I would, I would be amiss and offbrand if I didn't if I didn't say you do not need Jesus to have grace.You need yourself to give grace to yourself. Forgiveness is something you can offer yourself to. And [00:54:00] so I, I just, I, I have to get that in there of like, Jesus is a cool archetype, is a cool story, is a cool whatever for it, but you don't need it. And if it's too triggering for you, walk the fuck away.Get the fuck out of there. You don't need it. De'Vannon: I say both because even with Jesus offering all, even when Jesus offering all the forgiveness in the world, if a person cannot accept it or cannot conceptualize that as a reality, then it, it'll never, even though they have it, it won't be in their reality. So to them it won't exist.And so I, I hear you on the self-work part of it. I throw Jesus in there. John doesn't, why, why don't you, why don't you feel like, so do you think, do you, do you think Jesus is more of like a story if he was like a cool guy, do you not believe that he is the son of God? Oh, he is not John: Well, and I'll say why he is not First off, Jesus is only as much God as you and I are.In my [00:55:00] opinion is how I would spin that if I wanted to. Son of God was coined by Paul. Jesus never said he was a son of God. He does make that like illusion where in, in John where he says like I am the father or whatever. Son of God is specifically a Greek term that Paul was using because that was a more familiar Greek idea.Judaism did not have the idea of a son of God. The Jewish understanding of Messiah was not supposed to be a God. It was supposed to be an enlightened human being. So those are just things that developed later. So I just, that terminology doesn't resonate in my worldview. Again, I'm not here to necessarily dog on people's personal beliefs, at least of all yours.But, but I, I more just want to make that clear distinction that it's like what I like about Jesus. Is what's reported about him through a very biased lens, , and through like a very [00:56:00] like developed and evolved narrative, the redemption narrative that we've landed on with Jesus is incredibly powerful, and I think a beautiful story that is probably more beautiful than any other story in literature I can think of.And there might be some sort of value that you can attach to it. I just don't think you need to worship Jesus to get anything De'Vannon: interesting. Oh, I don't take any of this personal, I'm always one thing about Christianity in the, in the, in the, the pursuit of spirituality. In my humility, I guess it might not be too humble for me to call myself humble, but you know, like , that my fucking humility, my fucking god damn humility, I, I understand that not everything is known about the approach to God, the approach to the trinity.You know, I don't believe that I have all the answers and I have enough sense to know anything that I think could be wrong, except for in the case that I've had, like [00:57:00] something miraculous happen, like a dream, a vision, an angelic appearance, you know, a touch by the Holy Ghost, you know, or something like that, you know?Mm-hmm. , my personal experiences, you know, you know, are non-negotiable to me, but my understanding of word of, of what's written absolutely negoti because you know, as I've gotten more into it in trying to learn the original Bible languages and the way they were written in the cultural influence and stuff like that, I've had something like, wow moments.Like, what the fuck? Now, when I was over in the Middle East last year, you know, I was shocked to learn that, you know, where was I at? I was in the United Arab Emirates. You had an Egyptian tour guide and stuff like that, and he was all like taking us all these moss and stuff. He was like, , we don't believe that Messiah has come, you know?Mm-hmm. at all. They're, they're like, Jesus was cool, and they're all about worshiping God. They believe Allah and God are like the same to them, but they're like, N Jesus just one of the other enlightened ones, but they're very dedicated to their, to [00:58:00] God and everything like that. I feel like more dedicated than Christians are, and they're more real about it and shit like that.You know, if I, you know, I could, I could easily fit into, into, you know, the Arabic culture over there. So I'm not surprised to hear you say that you don't necessarily think Jesus is the son of God, because those people don't either. I, I choose to believe that they're massive prosperity comes from their devotion to who they believe in and the way that they treat each other.Mm-hmm. so, so So, so what you're saying is based on what you read and researched Son of God, and Jesus always called himself the son of man according to what I read. You know, but, but I've never, I've never what considered what you've said before, that someone else called him Son of God, you know, he never called himself a Christian.You know, anything like that. Or as you put it, John, you say, every man before Jesus came up with rules, Jesus got rid of him. And then every man after [00:59:00] him added more rules. Mm-hmm. . So people, yeah, people tend to like to add shit. I quote you on that from time to time on my show, I'll be like, John Vanier said this, and soJohn: Yeah. Well, and to be very clear, I, I, I admire and even dare say I'm am inspired by Jesus. But I just, I just, the only, the only thing when it comes to the practical side of things is just anytime my, like my alarm bells go off, when there's a direct tie between, you need Jesus. . That's just like a big red flag to me.Not because some people might need Jesus actually, like personally in their own personal life, it might enrich it, it might give them a spirituality. I like to think of it as a template. It gives them like a template for their spirituality. That's great. But the second it's pe all people need Jesus.Then I'm like, fuck no. I'm like, , get, get that, get that outta my face. Because that is, [01:00:00] in my opinion, going back to the artwork. That's what can create that like hierarchy is just creating that need for Jesus. De'Vannon: Yeah, and that's another thing. I have enough goddamn fucking humility to, to realize that not everybody's going to be a follower of.I know that, you know, as I, as I say, from time to time, I'll hang out with somebody who, who sucks Satan's dick, as long as they're not trying to personally hurt me, because not everybody's gonna be a Christian. Mm-hmm. or be a follower. I hate, I hate the word Christian. So do you feel the same way about like God and the Holy Spirit?Like in terms of non deifying them? John: Woo. Man, once you open up the Trinity, that's a whole freaking new, that's a universe. I'll know if you, if you read that after, after the prologue of, of my book. But I, I believe it's cut off into three sections. Jesus was awesome. God might be [01:01:00] great, and the Holy Spirit haunts me.And the, the God might be great is kind of a, a nod to Christopher Hitchens, who's one of my favorite authors who wrote God is Not Great. Because my, my answer to him is, well, he might be. , but probably not. You know, it's kind of like, yeah, the, I, I, I know what you're saying, but you know, I also understand that most people, for most of history, I think it's a very arrogant stance to to act like the idea of God is silly.I think that's a pretty arrogant stance to have. So it's not one I take when I say the Holy Spirit haunts me. There are spiritual experiences, like you said, for you, they're non-negotiable, right? Like you have these experiences that define your life. I've had those myself. Here's the thing, they are negotiable for me.And I would love to just say this was all in my head. I [01:02:00] can't, I can't know that , but I would love to be able to say that. So for me, I, it's a little different because Jesus, the character of Jesus is the one that's especially in evangelicalism, but in Christianity as a whole, is the one who's dare I say, name has been taken in vain.The most you know, as far as like using him as a character, using him in a very manipulative way. When you get to the Holy Spirit, like you can get really culty really quick when you start talking about like Pentecostals and like, you know, just some of the hooping and the hollering and God told me this, so it must be true that that stuff is yikes.But the concept of God is kind of, has no meaning because the word God means so many different things to so many, to the, to each individual we imagine him that that's like in the, in the proper sense, we imagine him. So maybe less dangerous than, [01:03:00] than. You know, saying you need God is probably less dangerous than saying you need Jesus, but I'd prefer you to say neither, you know and you need the Holy Spirit might be even more dangerous, but it's just probably rarer, you know?But yeah, I don't know if those are just initial thoughts. Again, because, because I'm not an atheist. I don't, I don't claim to be, but I think atheists get a lot of shit because people think they're crazy. And I'm like, well, they're certainly not crazy. I mean, they're the most rational of all of us.They, they're just, you know, I, I just, I just don't identify with it. But I, all of that to say I just love all people and I don't want people to feel like they have to go through a very narrow lens in order to receive love, forgiveness, whatever they want to receive in life. They don't need Jesus for that.They don't need God for that. They don't need the Holy Spirit for. De'Vannon: why.you say you feel like you're, like, what I would call a, like an indisputable encounter with God that I [01:04:00] had. I find it non-negotiable. You said you would like yours to be negotiable. Mm-hmm. , why do you say you would like to be, or you like still fighting against your, the church or your experience?So if God approached you personally, what you're, what I'm hearing you say is that, you know, it's really not negotiable, but you would like it to be. John: Why? I know it's not negotiable for you and I know it's not negotiable for most people. It is negotiable for me. How do you the, the, the thing? Yeah. Well, I don't, most of the time cuz I, I got other shit I gotta doThink about it. But no, I, I, you know, I, I had, I had a, I have a conversion story. I, I felt the presence of God or Jesus or whatever I, I assume as much as anyone. I mean, right? Like I went and studied to be a pastor, like clearly it meant something. I don't think I was just a full on narcissist who was like, oh, I'm gonna be the voice of God, like, da da da da da.Like, I don't, I really don't think, I think it was motivated. [01:05:00] Pretty hol wholesomely and like . I thought it was a, I prayed a lot. I prayed more than anybody I knew, you know? Like, I'm like, surely this was all real, right? I don't know. I was 11. What the fuck do you know, at 11? Like, I'm, I'm like, there, there's, and what do you know when you've been indoctrinated for over a decade?That when you feel certain things, it's definitely this. Oh, like, I'm like, you know, there's like, there's placebos, there's, there's all sorts of things we know about what we can do with our own brain. Then I'm like, I'm not gonna say it was definitely this, or definitely that. I don't know, and I probably never will know, but I'm not gonna live my life based on those experiences because that is that's cheating myself out of a very full life.De'Vannon: Okay, I see what you're saying. What you're saying is due to, you haven't been such a young Impressional age when you went through everything, you don't know if that's like some sort of P t s D, some sort John: of, or, [01:06:00] or even in adult life, you know, like there, I had spiritual moments, if you wanna call 'em that, like an adult life, you know, I was a worship leader.I, I remember very vividly sometimes I was leading worship and like, would be struck with something that felt otherworldly. The whole g the whole gauntlet, whatever a Christian can tell you about their experiences with Jesus, I'll see you one and I'll raise you one, you know, but but I just, I'm just like, but I'm not gonna pretend that because I felt like it was something and I was told to feel like it was something that, it definitely was that thing.I, I just, I wanna, I wanna have a little more humility than that and have a little more understanding of alternative worldviews. De'Vannon: I think churches should start paying all of us reparation checks, s for all this motherfucking mental health shit that we have. So yeah, the checks need to start. The money needs to start flowing the other fucking way away from these churches and

united states god tv love jesus christ american amazon texas social media church lord disney interview man bible talk hell books young truth religion christians food holy spirit writing christianity forgiveness arts coffee satan revelation addiction bachelor jewish greek rome game of thrones middle east myth stuck martin luther king jr old testament cult boy titanic religious egyptian trailer literature congratulations cake sins personally bitch mormon podcast hosts judaism colts bullshit titles arabic convert catholics hades apprentice south park allah holy ghost left behind oppression mm martin luther merit ness ems kool aid faux civil rights movement united arab emirates karens presbyterian right wing segregation evangelicals christian church upwork chow bending southern baptists crusades cuz lakewood john woo john calvin sex drugs john wesley wheaton college evangelicalism lemme show host meritocracy apostate contained jewish christians american legion freeup christopher hitchens white americans moody bible institute jerry falwell pentecostals podmatch john snow bugsy verner hok johnno sheel john yeah john well biblical exposition john so john let john yes de'vannon de'vannon hubert

Your Iconic Image : Beyond the Lens

Your Iconic Image

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 18, 2023 24:45

“We teach people how to think of us.”Are you ready to steer your reputation? Are you ready to up-level your brand? Are you ready to connect with your audience and show them who you really are? Are you ready to create visual assets that frame the way you are seen and understood? And, most importantly….are you ready to show up on purpose?My name is Marlana and I am an international photographer and visual strategist. My client base has included athletes, celebrities, WWE Superstars and public figures including Miss North Carolina.My experience includes storytelling, advertising, location scouting and set styling and design. My work has been featured on magazine covers and in NY Times ads.I have been hosting Your Iconic Image for 100 episodes now and for episode 100, my first guest, John Dalrymple is going to turn things around and interview me. www.marlanasemenza.comIG: marlana.semenza.photoTranscription : Vision In WordMarlanaWell, welcome to the 100th episode of Your Iconic Image. And today, you are actually going to get a little insight on me, and what we're going to do is, we're going to bring this whole thing full circle. My very first guest is going to do the interview. If you missed his episode, please go back and watch it. It is called What Makes An Icon? John, the show's yours. JohnWell, hello, Marlana. How are you? Marlana I'm well. John Well, it's an honor to talk with you today. You know, you are a genuine and authentic person, incredibly talented. And I would even say gifted in your ability to bring out the best in people. You've reached this milestone 100 podcast. And today, we get the chance to get to know you. Even though you've done 100 podcasts, many people really don't know what you do. So, first question, tell us about what you do.MarlanaI am a photographer and visual strategist. So, what that means is, I take all the things that make you unique, and I bridge the gap between that and what your audience or clients need to know. I do that in images, and that's in a nutshell, that is that.JohnOkay, you're in a crowded field, as we all are. Tell us what makes you different than other photographers.MarlanaI think part of it is my background. But also, at its core, I'm really not in the photography business. Photography is the vessel that I used, and the means of communication that I use. But really, I'm in the reputation business. And so, I think that's the biggest difference.

453: Greenpixie with John Ridd

Giant Robots Smashing Into Other Giant Robots

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 15, 2022 28:33

John Ridd is the Co-Founder and CEO of Greenpixie, which is building solutions to reveal and reduce cloud emissions. Chad and Will talk to John about giving a clearer view of AWS emissions down to the service level, why cloud emissions are a much bigger sustainability issue than most people realize, and how this will be the next big issue of the climate crisis. Greenpixie (https://greenpixie.com/) Follow Greenpixie on Twitter (https://twitter.com/greenpixiehq), Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/greenpixiehq/), or LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/greenpixie/). Follow John on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-c-ridd/). Follow thoughtbot on Twitter (https://twitter.com/thoughtbot) or LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/150727/). Become a Sponsor (https://thoughtbot.com/sponsorship) of Giant Robots! Transcript: CHAD: This is the Giant Robots Smashing Into Other Giant Robots Podcast, where we explore the design, development, and business of great products. I'm your host, Chad Pytel. WILL: And I'm your other host, Will Larry. And with us today is John Ridd, the Co-Founder, and CEO of Greenpixie, which is building solutions to reveal and reduce the emissions of the cloud. CHAD: John, thank you so much for joining us. I have to admit that as a developer, this is something that I've been thinking a lot about recently. We practice test-driven development. We run continuous integration, even the things that we have running in the cloud in terms of the websites that we run and that kind of thing. I'm also just really becoming aware of when I make a new branch in everything that I run, and I'm making a code change and pushing that up to GitHub; it then kicks off a build every single time any team member is doing that. And I can just see the impact that even just a single software product can have potentially on our environment. And I've started to become more and more guilty about that. So I'm excited to talk to you about how [laughs] we might be able to fix that problem. JOHN: Yeah, absolutely. I think one of the big reasons that we've really seen the opportunity in the cloud emissions space is this disconnect really between how developers are incentivized to think, and rightfully so. They need to build and innovate at all costs; that's what drives the innovation in any tech company or any company. But the sustainability way of thinking and thinking, what am I building? What servers am I using and turning on? Just hasn't been in the conversation with developers. And they're the ones who are making these decisions using cloud providers to build out the products that the company needs. So it's great to hear that you're now aware of this impending issue from development. CHAD: So I'm excited to dig more into the product. But I'm curious, you were doing digital marketing before starting Greenpixie, right? JOHN: Yeah, I ran my own marketing consultancy, worked with a number of companies, big and small. And where I found my knack was sort of demand generation; really, starting off projects from nothing is what I've always done. It's clear now that...so Greenpixie was a bootstrap startup. Really using that ability to at least come up with an idea and take it from zero to one, bring demand to an issue, that's how Greenpixie started. And it actually started with the head of engineering, Chris, who I met at my co-working space, and really we traded ideas through a hackathon on the weekend. And I had this idea when it came to website emissions and just knew that there was a software and a product play there. And what we do is connect into Google Analytics, put it through some carbon algorithms, and give them the ability to see how much digital carbon the website is producing. And from my marketing background, we've developed our own marketing, internal marketing software, which is a combination of we've built our own email servers with a high inbox. And we do semantic web scraping to find relevant prospects in the sustainability space. So we built the MVP and put this idea for Greenpixie out to the world, and the overwhelming response that we got was people being shocked at the idea of digital carbon and how their digital operations do have a sustainability impact. It really gave us the confidence to think there's demand for this idea of emissions. And since then, we've now moved into carbon emissions down the carbon rabbit hole. But my marketing experience explains how it started in the first place. CHAD: So how does...sometimes when faced with, I think, all kinds of climate issues, people can feel overwhelmed or helpless or feeling like what do I do as an individual to have an impact? So what does Greenpixie and Cloud NetZero enable an individual, team, or company, or developer to actually see and do? JOHN: Cloud NetZero connects into the leading cloud providers. So at this stage, we can give a clearer view of your AWS emissions down to the service level. And this is a key first step. So we take a you can't affect what you can't measure philosophy. And that was a big, big step for us. And by cutting into the cost and usage reports and putting it through our carbon algorithms, we can then get visibility to engineers. So everything you're building up in the cloud, we then give a full transparent view of the associated emissions that are being created from that by using our algorithms and methodology to convert the electricity used from the computation and storage and take into account the geographic location of the data centers of which you're using. As you can imagine, there are different carbon intensities in different countries during different times of the day. So we actually hook up into an API that gives us this carbon intensity data down to the hour. So we give a really comprehensive view of your carbon emissions footprint, which is what we consider the gold standard in sustainability. Because what makes the digital vertical so unique within sustainability is we've got data coming out of our ears. [chuckles] The data is there to connect into the software, so we can give this crystal clear picture. Whereas in other branches of sustainability, if you're into supply chains, et cetera, you've got real-world problems that you have to put real-time into. So that's the first step that we do is giving you this clear picture of your emissions. And from that, we then proceed to suggest reduction strategies to reduce those emissions. WILL: John, I'll be honest. Before getting on the podcast with you, I never thought about my cloud emissions as a developer. Now I'm seeing, wow, there is a lot there with that. On your Twitter, I saw this stat: imagine driving 1.3 billion miles all the way to Saturn. The carbon you would release would be about the same as the amount from all of these streams of Netflix's top 10 shows in the month that were released, 6 billion hours of viewing. I'm just mind-blown just thinking about that. For someone who is just now thinking about my cloud emissions, what would you tell me as a developer or any CEO that's listening to the podcast? JOHN: So yeah, you're right. This is a much bigger sustainability issue than most people realize. Currently, it's estimated around 2% of global emissions are from the cloud and data centers use, which puts it near the level of the aviation industry. And because the cloud is so esoteric and it's called the cloud, you think it's light and fluffy, and you're like, okay, it's over there; it's fine. But there's a hard infrastructure that makes up the digital world that we enjoy, and that's thousands of racks of servers. That's so much gallons, like, millions of gallons of water used to cool these data centers. And because of this, there are countries such as Ireland and Singapore that have now begun to ban further construction of data centers. Because in Ireland, over 10% of the grid is taken up by these, well, I believe there was an article in The Telegraph that referred to these data centers as vampires, [laughs] vampires on the grid sucking all this energy up. And the reason that this exists is it comes down to a company level or to a developer level. You're renting these data centers in order to grow your operations. And this aggregate demand goes straight into why these data centers exist and how much electricity they're using. But what you can do for a certain output...because we're a tech company and we love tech. And that makes us different to maybe some sustainability, really hardline sustainability environmental point of view because we actually think you can achieve the same output for 40% less energy use. So there's waste that is pretty rife across the cloud space, and that also comes with the amount of money spent on the cloud. There can be servers that have been left turned on that are no longer used. There can be non-essential computation that could be moved to low carbon intensity hours of the day. And there's so much that can be done and still basically enjoy and build the tech that we all aspire to build. CHAD: I'm going to resist taking a tangent into What We Do in the Shadows and the energy vampire, or we can call them Colin, I guess, instead of vampires. JOHN: Yeah, yeah. [laughter] CHAD: So I used the calculator that you have on the website on our website, thoughtbot.com. I was pleased to see that it produces less carbon than 95% of websites. What goes into that calculation, though? JOHN: So what we do on the estimator, on the webpage, the calculator, so we take into account whether your server being used is green or standard based on requesting that homepage. And then, really, there's a lot of overlap with PageSpeed optimization, rightfully, so the heavier the web pages, the more images. And if it's been coded lazily and it's heavy, which it hasn't been in your case, which I'm sure you're really happy about, that basically does have an effect on the electricity used in order to serve the website. And we also provide a website carbon report, which goes a step further and takes into account your Google Analytics, which goes for all your pageviews and takes into account some other factors too. CHAD: When you're looking at the carbon footprint of a website, am I understanding that you're also taking into account the carbon footprint of the people viewing what it takes to view the website on the client too? JOHN: It's very interesting, and we are going into the client side of emissions. That is definitely something that we're looking into and continue to do so. But now we focus more on the cloud. We stuck with websites as our main priority, that would mean the next step was going into client side, and it can, and that logic does go up. And it shows the ability of measuring sustainability impact when it comes to digital because, of course, you can get device information from Google Analytics, and that can then be used to give an accurate prediction. But that is something that we would definitely consider doing in the future. But you see the potential. It can go in all these different directions. CHAD: A little bit of a meta question, then, so the calculator is running on people's websites. What is the carbon footprint of running the calculator on the site? [laughs] JOHN: Well, that's the thing; we do have transparency of our own operations. So we're a seed-stage startup, and our operations might get a lot bigger. But for now, and given the sustainable approach, we take with how we run our cloud and run these tools, around two tons of CO2 we produce in a month from operations. But looking into other tech companies, you can imagine how AWS can get when it comes to the bigger companies and everything in between. It can really be hundreds or tens of tons. That has been currently unaccounted for and not addressed, which put into perspective, it's acting on your carbon emissions as an individual. And let's say you're a developer who has the power to do this. You can have the effect of like ten times going vegan or not using air travel. So it's just really we really love the idea of combating carbon emissions, and developers, particularly combating carbon emissions is, using your unique skills in order to fight the climate crisis in a way that a non-technical person couldn't. CHAD: So what are some of the things that you're doing as a company to solve that for yourself? Are there particular cloud hosting providers that are actually better than others? JOHN: Yes, it does vary. So there are the big cloud providers, and we are on AWS due to the startup credit scheme, which, as you can imagine, that's very beneficial when you're starting from a bootstrapped model. And within AWS, you can actually...so choosing the geographic location of where you're spinning up the servers is one way you can reduce that. So our servers are in Ireland. So we're part of that issue actually, now that I think about it, because they have a relatively low carbon intensity. And that's one way that we ensure the carbon we're using is minimized. But there's a whole spectrum. So if you wanted to go at all costs and convenience and costs are out the window, there are niche carbon fighters, which actually are off-grid renewable power data centers. If you have the means, that is the optimum you can go in terms of the carbon intensity. But in terms of how we build, so just the typical making sure that we're turning off products, features, and servers that we don't use and being mindful of that, putting non-essential compute to low-carbon intensity periods in the day and just minimizing costs and using computation for a certain output is how we take that philosophy. MID-ROLL AD: Are your engineers spending too much time on DevOps and maintenance issues when you need them on new features? We know maintaining your own servers can be costly and that it's easy for spending creep to sneak in when your team isn't looking. By delegating server management, maintenance, and security to thoughtbot and our network of service partners, you can get 24x7 support from our team of experts, all for less than the cost of one in-house engineer. Save time and money with our DevOps and Maintenance service. Find out more at: tbot.io/devops. WILL: On your website, I see that 127 billion is wasted in idle cloud spend, so obviously, one of your goals is to reduce that amount. What other goals is your company looking forward to solving? JOHN: I would say our main goal is to reduce millions of tons of needless cloud emissions using scalable software. That is our guiding light. But within that, it correlates largely with cost savings for companies. So we could actually save companies millions of pounds as well or millions of dollars. So I'm from the UK; [laughter] I went for pounds. Yeah, that's the big push; that's our guiding light. And we really want to be the torchbearers for digital sustainability as an idea. So having the awareness, we take responsibility for driving awareness for the issue also. As a team, we have a great combination of technical minds but also creative and marketing, getting the message out there and demystifying carbon emissions. So it's a technical issue because there's a technical issue when you dig into it. But we want to put it in a way that a non-technical decision maker in the C-suite would understand the issue in terms of the effects that you can have as a company in a sustainability drive. CHAD: So you mentioned you got started from that original hackathon idea. And how did things progress for you from there? You now have a team of people working. Did you end up taking some investment in order to continue on? JOHN: We did. We actually started it...so we started it as a passion project from that hackathon, saw the potential. I saw a small business opportunity through the website measuring. And we saw there was demand out there, so we started there. Then we saw it as a side project and continued to see potential and made the call to basically...the initial team was three of us. We went full-time and said let's see what we can do with this. Then I came from a marketing consultancy...I self-funded it to the means that I could for the first six months. It's an interesting experience when you get possessed by an idea, and it's just I need to see this through. I see the potential. It's for a great cause. I think there's a big business opportunity here. And then, really, it came to that point, and we did start going down the investment route. We were part of an incubator associated with the University of Cambridge called Carbon13. It's a really interesting program where they put together experts in climate science, the developers. And you come together to try and come up with these big ideas to basically reduce millions of tons of emissions as a startup. And there was plenty. There was, for example, there was offsetting companies, there was carbon credit startups, everything you can imagine. And it was there that we got put on the investment journey because at the end of the program, you get what was an £80,000 investment to then move on and then go down the VC route. Turns out we didn't get the investment despite us being one of the favorites. It didn't work out for various reasons. And then we were in a situation where I was like, okay, we need to get this investment in order to keep going and scaling the team. And we ended up being VC-backed for our pre-seed from a company in London called Ascension. So we did a £250,000 pre-seed round to get things going. And that's why we have a team who is now working on this full-time. And it's been a bit of a journey, but the trials and tribulations of startups is just the game. And now we're looking to get our seed round. We're hoping to be closing by the end of the year. CHAD: Congratulations on the progress so far. Why do you think Ascension was interested in investing in you? JOHN: So, really, at pre-seed stage, I've talked to VCs and said market, founder, co-founders, anything else is just too early to really know with any certainty. So I think they saw that we were committed, enthusiastic about the idea. Will, the other co-founder, and CTO, is a full-stack developer. It's his second startup. And with my demand generation background, we thought we were a good fit. But really, I think a lot of time and thinking, and commitment has gone into (blood, sweat, and tears) has gone into thinking how we can create a product or software company that addresses carbon emissions. And I think investors have a good radar of when people are really committed, and that's what we were. WILL: You've recently done a soft launch of Cloud NetZero. Can you give me more information around that? JOHN: Yeah, absolutely. We did our soft launch, so this is after the pre-seed investment. We got the 250,000. And we built the product that we laid out in that pitch, which was a software that integrates to AWS and gives you this granular breakdown of your emissions by service. And that was what we presented on our soft launch. We did an in-person event, which we just got a small room and managed to...so around 50 people turned up, which we're pretty proud of. And people do seem to be attracted to this idea. We use my marketing background [laughs] to kind of bolster those numbers. But it was a really great experience. So it was actually on the side of our co-working space where we did a hackathon originally. And it was a bit of an experience, quite a heartwarming experience that everyone has come together. I'm just like, oh, it was in that room that it started as an idea, and now 50 people coming from VC backgrounds, from sustainability, from tech are all coming together. And considering we started in COVID times, to have everyone in the room was just great. So it was great. Yeah, thanks for highlighting it. I really have good memories of that soft launch. CHAD: So people can get a demo and sign up now. JOHN: Yeah, absolutely. So the product is up and running. It went from idea to reality which we're very, very proud of the product team for hitting it on time as well. So we did a 100-day push, and on the 100th day, it was ready for us. And we actually got a big update Monday next week, which is going to be the V 1.1. I call it V2, and then my CTO says, "No, it's V 1.1." [laughter] CHAD: Oh, you need to make your CTO understand that for marketing purposes, you need to make your version numbers bigger. JOHN: Yeah, yeah, he's just like, "If you think that's V2, you don't know what you're saying." [laughter] You can contact us, and we can basically show you the onboarding to get you closer to your cloud provider. And you can have a crystal clear picture of your carbon emissions. And the companies we're talking to now so software companies, so pretty well-known brands. We're now in conversation with as well as just your heavy-duty tech companies. And they're really our ideal client we're looking to now because they have a large amount of carbon emissions, and they want to be really measuring them for their sustainability initiatives. They are actually going to be required to...from the beginning of next year, there's regulation creeping in that's going to make companies measure their Scope 3 emissions, and we have the product to do that. And once we go over that first stage of measurement, then the next step is giving you recommendations to reduce it ultimately, and that will be both in cloud emissions and costs. So we actually are a cost-saving software ultimately because we can highlight wasted cloud spend, and there's a lot of it in these tech companies. CHAD: So you've launched. It sounds like you're focused on getting customers and making sales. How does the pricing work for the product? JOHN: At the moment, we are charging 10K a year to use the software. This is for...so it would be your mid-sized tech company is really who that's aimed for. Anything that goes into really heavy-duty cloud emissions analysis would be probably just down the road just because the complication gets considerably...there's a lot more computing that we need to do on our end, which there are costs associated with that. And there's a lot more, as you can imagine, a lot more hand-holding in order to get integrated and that type of thing. So the pricing would be larger for those more developed companies who have huge AWS accounts. CHAD: A lot of companies' pricing is one of the things that they struggle with early on. I assume you'll learn, and your pricing model will change. But is there something that particularly you weren't sure about when it came to the pricing? JOHN: So the pricing it's really what we're seeing from other parallel softwares on the market more towards the cost reduction side of the cloud. They don't focus on emissions. It's...we'll plug the right place for that. And I think given the opportunity cost, especially from the sustainability and measurement perspective, the alternative is companies are spending a lot of money on sustainability consultants to try and figure out these emissions for the reporting means, and our software does the heavy lifting for you, as any good product does. And with the cost savings on top of that, it's about right for now. But as we improve the product and can accommodate these bigger enterprise clients, the price model will evolve and probably get more expensive. But not to overcomplicate; it is the logic at this point. And once we do have the ability to take on these more complex arrangements, the pricing would reflect that. Yeah, so that's the plan. WILL: Well, John, I thank you for coming on the podcast and being a part of it. Is there anything else that you would like our audience to know? JOHN: We're shouting from the rooftops about carbon emissions. This is going to be the next big issue of the climate crisis. So I truly believe that there are estimates that digital emissions will rise past 10% of global emissions by 2030. Our thirst for data isn't going anywhere. And there's a real chance that computing principles such as Moore's Law that have allowed these improvements in hardware to keep up with the demand for data won't necessarily last forever. And from that, we need to really wake up to the fact that the digital world, despite it being, yeah, it seems like it happens by magic, there is real sustainability impact. But the good news is we think that using the scalability of software...because the scalability of software that has seen so much success for companies can be used to have an equally positive impact on the planet and prevent this issue of digital emissions by using the inherent scalability of digital and availability of data. So that's really what I'm preaching at the moment. And we believe the best first step for that would be a product called NetZero because it gives transparency over these emissions. You can see it in front of your eyes, and then decisions can be made in order to reduce them. That's what I chose to be my soapbox moment. [laughter] CHAD: That's great. John, if folks want to find out more, see that demo, get in touch with you; where are all the different places that they can do that? JOHN: greenpixie.com is where you can just contact us, and we'll be straight on the phone with you. Another place to see what we're really up to and get more ideas of digital sustainability the best place is probably our LinkedIn company page. We're quite active on there. If you want to take your first steps into digital sustainability, start there. And if you think your company is ready to act on their carbon emissions or you just want to find out a little bit more, then yeah, just contact us through our website, and we'll have a chat. CHAD: Awesome. Everything that John just mentioned is going to be linked in the show notes, along with a complete transcript for this episode. You can subscribe to the show and find all of that at giantrobots.fm. WILL: If you have any questions or comments, email us at hosts@giantrobots.fm. CHAD: You can find me on Twitter @cpytel. WILL: And you can find me on Twitter @will23larry. This podcast is brought to you by thoughtbot and produced and edited by Mandy Moore. CHAD: Thanks for listening, and see you next time. ANNOUNCER: This podcast was brought to you by thoughtbot. thoughtbot is your expert design and development partner. Let's make your product and team a success. Special Guest: John Ridd.

Episode 108: Character and voice actor Jim Meskimen

Augmented - the industry 4.0 podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 28, 2022 48:32

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with character actor Jim Meskimen on building an acting career one step at a time.LINKSJim Meskimen website: https://jimmeskimen.com/Jim Meskimen acting reel: https://jimmeskimen.com/acting/The Acting Center: https://theactingcenterla.com/Behind the Page: The Eli Marks Podcast (Episode 222): https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/eli-marks-podcastA Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Eli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcast***Meskimen Transcript Jim Meskimen — Character and Voice Actor John Gaspard: Today, we're going to talk about your life as an actor and having a diversified pool of things to draw from to be a working actor. I listened to a couple other interviews with you, and there was one point they kept coming to that I wanted to avoid, which was immediately talking about your mother. My connection is, and was, that we went to the same high school, Southwest high school in Minneapolis. So, I thought, well, that's my great connection. And then my friend Jim here, who is … one of the reasons he's here is because he is a working actor as well, but in a much smaller market here in the Twin Cities. So, I thought having him as part of this chat would be interesting. Jim, what is your story? Jim Meskimen: And he happens to have the name of Cunningham. John: Well, we're gonna get to that. Here we go. Jim Cunningham: Therein lies the story. Your mother made an appearance along with some other famous TV moms at, you know, we're very proud of the fact that Spam is produced here in Minnesota. Meskimen: That's right. That's right. Cunningham: And there is a Spam museum. It's that important to us, Minnesotans. Meskimen: Yes, I know she's been there. We had some Spam swag that she gave us one time. Cunningham: Well, there, it was from that. She came as a famous mom, along with some other famous TV moms, Barbara Billingsley, and-- Meskimen: And Florence, maybe? Florence Henderson? Cunningham: I think so. Yeah. Yeah. Right. And I was the emcee of that event and I was interviewing them as they arrived on the red carpet. And I said to your mother, Oh, I'm just so thrilled to meet you because my last name is Cunningham. And more than that, my dad's name is actually Richard Cunningham. And so is my brother.” Meskimen: Oh, my gosh. Cunningham: During the height of the Happy Days craze, we literally had to have an unlisted phone number because every third call was, “Is Fonzi there?” Meskimen: Oh my God. Oh my God. Cunningham: And your mother said to me, “You have to prove to me that your name is Cunningham.” So I took out my wallet and showed her my driver's license. And she said, “Oh, you poor darling.” And she gave me a nice hug and a peck on the cheek and it was just, I cherish, I cherish the memory. Meskimen: That's really sweet. That's hilarious. She challenged you like someone would make that up, you know, so she had to really get to the bottom of that one. Cunningham: But your mother was just charming and a delight. Meskimen: That's great. Cunningham: Yeah. Sorry. We got off on a tangent. Gaspard: We've given the elephant in the room some peanuts. Now we're shoving it off to the side for you. Meskimen: Well, if I may say it is, it is no problem at all. I love to talk about my mom. She has blazed such a path for me, not in terms of, you know, any kind of practical nepotism, but just because everyone loves her and loves what she represents. And so I find it very easy to make friends with strangers in this way, because you're already kind of disposed to, well, you must not be such a schmuck, you know, he's got this mom. And so I'm always very happy to talk about her. She's a delight and she's 93. She lives very close by and she's very happy in enjoying her retirement. Gaspard: Excellent. All right. So we want to talk about being a working actor, but before we dive into the acting part, I know when you started out, you were focused maybe more on art and cartooning and that. How did you make the switch from that to acting? Meskimen: Well, I kept both plates spinning. I studied, I taught myself to cartoon and illustrate, enough to be a professional, you know, not enough to be a super genius, kind of in demand, tremendous demand person. But enough to work. And I did that in New York city. And I had this need to perform. And so, I also did plays, I would do little projects. I would perform, you know, when I could. When I went to college, I didn't take theater classes, but I would do plays, you know, people would audition. And if there was a guy — I was very good at accents. So, you always needed a funny guy with an accent. Sometimes, you know, I could get the part of the old man, the old French guy or whatever. And that I just was always a few clicks above the rest of my fellows there. So I really kept both these activities going while I was sorting out which one was gonna be the path. Cause I really honestly wasn't clear on what I'd be doing. And, I felt strong feelings about both, but I didn't feel at that time, I didn't see how I could mesh them together. I didn't see how one was going to be, how I'd have to jettison one completely. And it took me a while to figure that out. And when I did, it was a big relief and I went, okay, I know why I want to pursue acting. I know what's honorable about it. I know why it's right for me at this time. And so I'm going to go for it. And then I went with full energy towards that, but I always, I mean, I haven't forgotten how to draw or paint and I do it now. I'm older, I'm 62. That was when I was 23. So at this point in my life, I wouldn't mind sitting home and painting a little bit and being away from everybody. But at the time I felt like I needed a more social existence, a more social career that would have more collaborative aspects. Cunningham: As you look back on things, do you remember some of the first things that you got that were maybe, you know, of note? Meskimen: Yeah. I started off, I came to New York and I started a bunch of things all at once. Cuz New York is a great place get started, you know, and start things and be a starter. So I was studying acting and I was studying improv. I had a false start. I went and studied at the Stella Adler school for a while, which was a disaster. And I vectored off of that as fast as I could. And I got into improv, which was much more suited to my temperament and I think is better training in general. So I was doing that. I was looking for an agent and I was also supporting myself as an illustrator cartoonist in the meantime. So I didn't have to be a waiter. I could have a pretty decent job. So the first things I got had to do with my ability to do impressions. And be a voice actor. So my improv group that I was in had a gig weekly doing what was then a regular feature of the old McNeil Lehrer report, if you ever remember that show? Gaspard: Oh yeah. Meskimen: The McNeil Lehrer report, which was a news show. It was like a hard news show, but it had a funny section every Friday. They would take the political cartoons of the day and just by kind of zooming in and out and changing panels, they would sort of, you know, semi-animate them statically. And they would add voices to it. And then they hired us to do the voices of, you know, Boris Yeltsin, then Reagan and whatever was happening on the time. And we'd go in every Friday. It was my first AFTRA a job and I think I made $114 bucks a week, but it was $114 bucks a week, you know, back then when a ride on the subway was 50 cents. That was like, this is okay. So that was a nice, kinda like, oh, that's a stability, you know? Cause I think I did, we did a whole, I don't know, a season or more of it. And every week, you know, it was kind of cool. My biggest breakthrough came in the area of on-camera commercials. And I had remembered that my mom, when she was a single mom, she would, every now and then before Happy Days, she would get guest spots on things like Mannix and Mission Impossible and Hawaii-5-0. But those were pretty few and far between. And then, if she booked a commercial, it was like, oh, you know, thank God because it would generate enough income, through residuals for her. And back then commercials paid very, very well. Today it's more rare, as you know Jim. It's kind of a disappearing thing, as things go on the internet. But a network commercial back then could help you stay alive. So, I had that in my mind. I was like, you know, I need to get into commercials. So, I auditioned and eventually, after a couple of years, actually two years at least going on a lot of things as a young man, I started to get into commercials. And there was one very, very lucky day that changed my life completely. And it had everything to do with whatever else I was studying, because I was studying communication at that time. I was studying improv at that time and those things came together in a beautiful way. I had an audition for a grocery chain out of Texas called Skaggs Alpha Beta, the euphonious name of Skaggs Alpha Beta. And they were looking for a spokesman to interview people in the store. And they had had some market research that told 'em that, you know, you call yourself the friendliest place in town, but you're not so friendly. So, they wanted a friendly spokesman who could talk to people, actual real people and have fun and whatever, you know, and be clean and not insult people. And that was what I had been studying in improv, you know, clean comedy. Supportive comedy, you know, not cutting the legs off of people. So, I got this audition. I went physically and did it and they said, “oh yeah, yeah, that's great. We're gonna hire you.” I'm like, great. It's three commercials and three regional commercials, which is not a huge deal, but for me it was like, well, this is great. Then after we did those three commercials, they came back about a month later and said, “all right, we want you to be our spokesman to do all our stuff all year long. We'll give you a contract, radio, TV, photo, you know, put you in the newspaper, the little circulars and billboards and what have you.” And it was like, forty grand. And I'm like, oh my God, I didn't even know this existed. My mom never had anything like this. This is like new territory. Well, I did that for five years for that company. And every year, the price went up, the contract got sweeter. By the end of it. I was making, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just on that job, which would take about seven days a year to do. And that changed my life, because it gave me tremendous confidence, because I created all the material, I improvised every second of it. Maybe not every second, but you know. And it gave me the wherewithal to exist in New York comfortably without having to really sweat the day job and to do plays and to do things that, you know, if you have time, you go and you do improv shows and you don't worry about, am I making any money? You don't sweat it. And then I actually got known because the footage, I would take the footage and I would cut it into reels and I would send that around and I got more spokesman jobs. So, you know, it was like a side business that sort of developed outta nowhere. Off of one audition. Sometimes it makes me scared to think: what if I was late? What if I didn't make it that audition, life would be so different. Cunningham: Somewhere in the multiverse, that's happening. Meskimen: That poor sucker in the multiverse but he probably has all my hair. So it's fine. Cunningham: Did you do any Happy Days with your mom? I was just thinking as a young kid, did you do any? You know, walk-ons or extra work on any of the shows your mom was doing? Meskimen: No. The only time when she became Marion Cunningham—your pseudo mom—she got me into an episode and my sister, not the same episode. She exercised a little bit, you know, and it happens to be one of the most famous episodes of Happy Days that I was in.I'm a young man, 17, on the beach looking buff. And I come and announce the fact that they've caught a shark out in the water. And then the rest of the show is about how Fonzi's going to jump the shark. Gaspard: But it sounds like growing up, that you learned the life of a working actor because you've lived with a working actor, is that safe to say? Meskimen: A hundred percent. I think one of my primary advantages in my life has been that I saw what it is, you know, and what it isn't. And I saw it. My mom also was particularly driven and also focused and intent, you know. She's a high achiever. So, whereas a lot of actors go, well, I'm waiting for my agent to call and I don't know, I can't do anything, you know, until they give me an audition. Maybe I can, blah, blah, blah. And I realized that's like a losing attitude. Because what I saw was a woman who went, Hmm, uh, who can I call? What can I do? Who must I reach out to? Who must I meet? Should I do a play? Absolutely, I should do a play and I should let everybody know that I'm doing this play. And even though it's a crappy play and I'm getting no money, I'm gonna do it. And I looked at that and went, okay. I see. You need to promote yourself. She hired a PR person. She always had a PR person and would utilize that in any way that she could. And then, how do you live and raise kids and pursue this weird career that is so herky jerky, what do you do? And I saw how she did it. She would economize and we hired out—she always remembers this—we rented out one of the bedrooms in our house. Mind you, we have three bedrooms. We hired out a third of our house to a college student, because, you know, that was 60 bucks a month or something she would get and shared a kitchen with this person. And, she would do plays and she would volunteer for things and she would push it along, push it down the road. I remember vividly seeing her rehearse lines for an audition over the sink. We were getting ready to have dinner or lunch or something. And she's going to take off in a minute in the car and drive to Hollywood and do this audition. You juggle, but she was a hustler, in the sense of a hard worker. She was a depression child and I think that came as just part of the territory back then. But even more than other people her age that I observed, she was just intent. And it came from this vision that she had of as a girl of seeing her name on a marque and changing her name too—so it would look better—and just being like, I'm gonna do this. Which I recognize now from my life experiences and for my own philosophy that it's a very smart way to go about it. Gaspard: Yeah, it really is. You know, it's interesting in looking at your career and then looking at my friend, Mr. Cunningham here, who I've known for 30 some odd years. Meskimen: Oh, wow. Gaspard: And seeing that you both have a very similar mindset when it comes to not saying no to things. I learned that from Jim. Don't necessarily say no to something right away. Listen to what it is. A lot of times you're gonna accept stuff just because you're not doing anything else and why not. And you never know where it's going to lead. You both have this living in sort of a limbo world of: I don't know what's coming next, but because you've said yes so often, and because you're easy to work with and because you bring the goods and because you have so many different threads, there's almost always something coming in. Because you've just kept the streams open. And that's why I wanted Jim to meet Jim, because you both represent the same thing just in different towns. Meskimen: Soul brothers! Cunningham: Exactly. Well, I'd like to think. Gaspard: But now you have an online course to help actors become working actors. Because there's a real difference between an actor and a working actor. I'm in the low budget movie world and there's a difference between being a screenwriter and a screenwriter who's working or being a director and being a director. You can say your thing, but to actually be working at it on an ongoing basis, doesn't necessarily just happen. And it sounds like in your course, you're going to walk people through that process. Meskimen: Yeah, I've really tried to do that. That's exactly right. You can break down a career, and I'm sure Jim understands this very well, like you have the production side of things, which is the rehearsing, showing up, acting, great. And everybody's focused on that. You're like, that's what acting is. Well, that's right. That is one sliver of the job. The other sliver is marketing. There's also a kind of a sliver that's having the big goal and the vision and sort of the planning and being the visionary of the organization, because you're an organization. There's finance, there's paying bills, there's keeping one's self fit, medical things. There's a lot of different moving parts to it. And, and most of us think of acting as like, oh yes, there I am on the stage holding the skull. Giving the speech to Yoric. Okay, that may happen, that may be part of it, but that's like an eighth of it or a 15th of it. So, in my course, I've tried to share what those other parts of the organization that I do. Because I was paying attention, thank God. It didn't just happen by luck. It happened very concertedly and very determinately. So I know what we did. And I say we: I've got a little team of people, with my wife and now my daughter helps me, agents, managers, other people to actually keep it rolling, because it is that kind of life, the freelance life. And there are many different kinds of freelancing lives that people can lead. But in an actor freelance life, you don't know the next week. Like, I looked on my calendar yesterday. And I went, wow, there's a lot of blank space on that calendar. And yet there is no blank space in, you know, my bills summary--I'm going to have to pay whether there's something or not. So now today, because of all the promotion that I do during the week, now I have a couple jobs. I never sweat it because—probably like Mr. Cunningham—I know that these are the actions that I have to do. I know that schedule's gonna fill out. It's gonna fill out ahead of me almost like a train track rolling out in front of the steam engine. So, in the course, yeah, I've composed a bunch of different videos where I talk about certain things about auditioning, about promotion, marketing, and other very important aspects of keeping the career rolling. I don't teach acting. I'm not going to go there. My wife has a wonderful acting school and anybody can check that of out if they want to. It's called The Acting Center and they run online courses as well as in-person here in LA. I'm not teaching anything, but I'm sharing. What did I do? And what have I found after 35 years of doing this are the important steps to take, the important actions to always keep in, and what might happen, and how I've bobbed and weaved and kept things going so that I didn't have to take another job. I never had to back up and go, well, I retreat, you know, now I'm gonna go and just go into teaching or now I'm gonna go into, you know, real estate or nothing wrong with that. And I know a lot of actors have done it, but I have not had to. And I'm a little bit stubborn at this point. I'll go kicking and screaming into any other, non-artistic field. Gaspard: Good for you. Without giving away too much of the course, we've got a couple questions that I'm always interested in when it comes to this sort of career. What's the biggest mistake that beginning actors often make? Meskimen: I think the biggest single mistake is to have the right mindset concerning who is creating the career. Because we come seemingly with hat in hand, as actors, to the audition, to the theater, to meetings, interviews, we can fall into the trap of thinking, I'm waiting for someone to give me something. When we're really desperate, we're really like beggars and it can get pretty bad. And as any actor who's been begging knows, it just doesn't work very well. It's very unattractive. Unless they're hiring a beggar. For the role of the beggar, you know, then it's okay. All other times it's really anathema. So, I think it's a viewpoint of like, I am gonna create this career. That's what I saw my mom do. And that's what I exercised too. I totally mobilized that, because I'm a creative person, I like to create. So, it was kind of like, well, here's a good excuse: You want an excuse to create? Guess what? Your whole career is up to you.What you wanna do, what you're good at? How much you pursue it, how well you do, how fast you go, how much you get paid. It's really kind of up to you. And that may seem counterintuitive or stupid, or, you know, bewildering to people as they just start out, because we are looking to collaborate. We are looking to fill a hole that someone else has created. You know, somebody is out there right now, writing a part in a show that will need to be cast. And the casting director will be looking around for that person. That hole didn't exist until that writer came up with it. So, in a way, they have created that, they've created that opportunity, that position that needs to be filled. But we can always sort of be ready for those things. I believe in sort of deciding and picturing things and putting things out there in the universe. So, I do that sometimes I'll go, you know, somewhere someone is writing a great part for me and, it's very difficult to actually link that to cause and effect. But the fact is I've been working as I said for a long time. So, I think it's just a mindset of: you have to take the hat out of your hand, put the hat on your head or on a hook and go, you know what? I am the guy in charge. So, how much money do I wanna make? What do I wanna do this year? Take charge. Don't go, well, I hope, if only, well, maybe if things go well, somebody might possibly grant me… No, no, no. That's a losing attitude. That's an expectation, you know, and being the effect of something rather than actually trying to cause something. So, it's a hard lesson to tell people, because so much of life is sort of dictating that we behave like people that are created upon. You know, we are marketed at, you know, come and watch this movie, sit in the dark while we tell you a story and feel this way and laugh at this part and, you know, and pay this money and, oh, okay. We get that all day long. There's stuff, just shooting at us all day long and at some point, the artist has to kind of shake it off and go, what do I wanna make? I'm gonna make it, you know, I'm gonna produce it, I'm gonna create it. And so that's what I think is the biggest change. The biggest mistake that could just go through a whole lifetime or a whole career of a person is like, they're thinking like, God, the agent will give me the thing. And then I might, if I possibly do well, they will give me the part and then maybe they'll keep all of it in and not edit out all of it. And, and then maybe they will pay me and you know, all this kind of awful , you know, slave kind of mentality. As much as you can turn that around. You'll notice that the very big actors didn't take no for an answer. They developed their own projects. They were fussy. Sometimes they were saying, I won't do that, but I'll do this, you know. They're demanding on themselves and, and many of them have created their own things. I always think about Billy Bob Thornton, would Billy Bob Thornton have the terrific career he does today? He's a great actor, but do you have the career that he has today if he hadn't decided, man, I'm gonna write this script and star in this Sling Blade thing myself. I don't know. I doubt it. And there's lots of examples of people like that, because he wanted to do it, cuz it was something he observed in life or had this idea, I think while he was on another shoot and he turned, you know, the material of his life into this project that he believed in and miracles happened. And a lot of stories like that. Gaspard: So you had the advantage of growing up, watching a working actor. So you had probably a bit better sense of that world than someone coming in from the outside doing it. But was there anything that you were surprised by once you started being a full-time working actor? Meskimen: One lesson that I learned very quickly was: I probably would've had a commercial career about two years earlier, but I made a mistake. A strategic error. There's a lot of potency to beginner's luck in show business. We hear a lot of stories. They're almost like legendary stories about people who went well, you know, I wasn't, I didn't even have the audition. I went with my buddy and my buddy didn't get the job. And I did. And you hear that there are gazillion stories like this. Right? Same thing happened to me. I went with my friend to visit a girl who was working for Barbara Shapiro casting in Manhattan. And I went to say hello to this girl. And she said, “oh, by the way, you know, we're casting for this beer commercial.” So I got a call back. I got a second callback. I got a third callback and they pay you for the third callback. But in between the second and third callback is where I made my error. This is funny, because it was related to impressions and impressions has always been a door opener for me. It was a Miller beer commercial with guys sitting around at campfire. And I went well, I'm playing a guy who stands up and does a John Wayne thing. That was me. They kept calling me back, kept calling me. And then I had some stupid conversation with the girl that I had been going out with at the time. And she said, “why don't you do Henry Fonda?” And I went, “yeah, I'll do Henry Fonda.” That was the end of that. So the lesson I learned is a very important lesson. Most actors pick this up very quickly, but I just kind of screwed up. It's that if they keep calling you back, don't change anything. It's going right. If they ask you on the day: Okay, we saw your John Wayne. I wonder, can you do any other voices? That would've been the perfect time to whip out your Henry Fonda, as they say. But I screwed that up. Two years before I got another really good opportunity. So, I never change anything now. I learned that lesson very quickly. When I did finally book a commercial, I had gone in and I got a call back and I remembered on the day I had like a headache. The day I did the first audition, I was cranky. And on the day I got the call back, I'm like that day, I'm like, well, I feel great. Well, I'm not gonna act like I feel great. I'm gonna be cranky. And I went in and I booked that job. By applying this do not change anything. Cunningham: Smart. A lot of people don't think that through, boy. That's a really good tip. If you're an actor listening, that's the price right there. You just got gold just dumped right into your lap. Meskimen: Yeah, it would be like, if you went to a restaurant and you had the halibut one time and you go, oh my God, this halibut's great. I'm gonna come back. And if they serve you the halibut and now it's in a totally different sauce. You're like, what the fuck? I came for the halibut. What happened? Cunningham: What happened? As you think about, you know, actors like me, can you point to some, you know, sort of generic, “Hey, this is here's another trap don't fall into this one?” Something that you see other actors kind of making that mistake again and again? Meskimen: Sure. And it's related to my first comment about what's the biggest challenge in changing this mindset of who's in charge and being in the driver's seat, if you will, of your career. And I think I wind up talking to a lot of people, particularly guys our age who maybe have not made their peace with social media. But for me it was a major breakthrough to finally have the discipline to get onto YouTube and begin what has become the last 11 years of really, just an interesting chapter of my life, where I have something that I would've loved to have in New York, which is this access and ease of production. Anyway. Not to talk too much about myself, but just the fact that most actors are underutilizing, I think, the technological reality of today, of being able to share performances with the world and to generate interest in what you do. And to also creatively expand and reach out and come up with content yourself that may not at first have any kind of monetary value to you, but as a product, as a promotional activity, is virtually free and can create great windfalls and attention. Are you doing anything on YouTube or anything? Cunningham: You know, I'm really not. And not only am I not doing it, but you're the first person to suggest that if you were to use that in some way, that there would be a benefit there. Now, I'm not a great actor. I'm better as myself than I am as anybody else in general. And that's where the bulk of my work comes is being me in front of a camera, or on stage. The challenge has been thrown down now: what could I do on YouTube? And could that effect, because as you mentioned, as you get older, the opportunities decrease. They're looking for a 30-year-old, they're looking for a 40-year-old, and I'm not that anymore. I always used to tell people what you want is the number of auditions to go down and the number of jobs you're doing to go up. That's the goal. And now I'm finding that's no longer true for me. It's inverted now. Meskimen: Yeah. Well, I can speak to a couple of points to that. So, I understand about playing yourself and being like a spokesman or being like something, a character that is more or less how you appear to other people. I would suggest that you're much bigger than that.You're much more various than that. Your possibilities and potentials as just a human being are far beyond what your body might dictate: how you look and how you think about things, even some ideas you have. I think you're bigger than that as an individual. And one of the things that I love about acting is that one gets to occupy a completely different point of view. (as Ian McKellen) For example, this is why I do a lot of impressions is because sometimes I can just change into another person and look at things completely different point of view. That's sort of the magic of it. I mean, the expectation of an actor generally is that they can do different things. You wouldn't buy a Swiss army knife and find that it has one blade and go, I'm really happy now. You'd go, wait, where are the scissors? Whereas the ballpeen hammer or whatever. To be an actor means I can play a lot of different characters. I can play a lot of different roles. Now, as we get older, maybe, you know, that gets narrower, but we can certainly always push. Push it out. And I think you can surprise yourself by what you're actually able to do. You've got a lot of wisdom now, you've earned that over the years, you've met a lot of different kinds of people, and I think it's probably something to take a look at. An actor, if you look at the job description, if there is such a thing it's like knowingly taking on another point of view to help tell a story, that's kind of a quick definition of what it would be like. So if you are facile and ready to occupy other viewpoints, to look at things from the point of view of someone who's, you know, just physically exhausted or someone who's been just kicked around their whole life or someone who's just won the lottery. You know, if we practice this, which is what they do at the acting center, just kind of changing viewpoints and looking at things from different points of view, then you discover that, you know, I can do a lot of different things. Because a human being is like that. A human being can adopt all kinds of different viewpoints and feel all different kinds of ways and express different kinds of emotions.And there's a great freedom in that. I think you'll blossom if you start to have a little try at that. Cunningham: I like that. That's good advice. I like it a lot. Gaspard: You know, it's interesting. You mentioned social media and we're all of a certain age and feel like things might be passing us by, but Jim Meskimen, your use of social media, your use of YouTube—I found you on TikTok—your promotion of yourself does not seem like promotion. It does not seem like marketing. It is just you, having fun, doing the things you do. And then in some cases it's impressions. It's other cases, it's you doing characters that you've created. And I think that's sort of the secret to promoting yourself on social media is: Do what you love and eventually people will find that and want to be part of that. Meskimen: Yeah. And there's an example. Thank you for noticing that. I appreciate it. And I'm having the best time. Two things I wanna say about that. one is: I don't know if you've ever heard the entrepreneur, Gary Vaynerchuk? He said something very, very helpful about branding. Because branding, when we talk about branding, it immediately sounds like something we don't wanna have anything to do with. But branding is reputation. That's another good synonym, your reputation. And we prove our reputation all the time. By how we talk to people, what we do, what choices we make, it's pretty simple. So if we let people know, Hey, I was at this concert and I had a great time. Well, we know that about you. We know that you love Fleetwood Mac, you know, and that you had a great time on last Wednesday. That is your reputation too. If you create a character or you go to a play or you just say, God, you know, this is on my mind and I have to say something about it. That's your reputation too. That's your brand. People get to know you that way. And the other point I wanted make was in terms of the volume of what I do and how it doesn't seem like branding. It's just me having fun. And that is indeed entirely what it is. There was a guy when I was kicking around New York, back in my twenties, in various subway hubs, like grand central station or times square in the subway downstairs. Every now and then I would walk past this young man who was a drummer and he was banging on—not drums—he had like a joint compound bucket. And he had, I swear, I remember one time he had crisper from refrigerator—you know, the shelf, the drawer. Anyway, he was banging away those buckets and those instruments, which obviously did not cost a lot of money. And the sound just racketed through the subway. And it sort of integrated; when you walked through to that drum beat. You were kinda like, yeah, I'm in New York and I'm walking. Not for nothing, this is the right soundtrack for this little part of my life right now, you know? And how many people would walk by this guy every day? Was in the hundreds of thousands, probably, right? So, there is a guy—this is a great example, if you think about it in terms of social media—this was a guy who was drumming for a massive audience every day. And were people giving him money? I never gave him a dime. I mean, he couldn't have made more than, I don't know, 75 bucks a day. Who knows, maybe made more than that. But that wasn't the point. The point was 10 years later maybe, or earlier, there was a production, called, Bring in the Noise, Bring in the Funk. This guy got hired. He was seen by the director. He was in a Broadway show. He was performing seven nights a week. I can guarantee he wasn't making $75 a day. And it just was like: oh, look at that. That's a great, very easy example of like, okay, this is what obviously he loved to do it. Nobody said here is the way to the Broadway: Get your bucket of joint compound young man. And go thee to Times Square. No, not a chance. He loved rhythm. But he made it go right. And I don't know where he is today. I don't even know the guy's name, but I know that it was the big start of something with tremendous potential for him, you know. Gaspard: Follow your bliss. Like they say, you never know. I have two working actors in front of me right now. Tell me about rejection and dealing with rejection and how you deal with rejection Meskimen: Oh, good question. Yeah. Rejection is like a kind of a shock to the beginner, because we kind of know it's coming, but it still hurts. And the fact is that it's something that you have to kind of make friends with, which sounds really, really impossible. I just watched a video of a guy who—I think it was Joe Rogan. I watched a little on TikTok. Joe Rogan was talking about this ice-cold bath. That you know, it's now a thing to do these super cold plunges to try to handle inflammation in the body. And I watched him because I want to see you go in that bath. And he went in. I'm like, how long is he going to stay in that thing? It's 34 degrees, just above freezing, but he was in there. I lost interest. So he went on for minutes and minutes. And being judged and being rejected is like that cold bath. Now, Joe Rogan said that the first time he went in that bath, he could do it for about a minute. And then he got the hell out of there and went into a sauna. Probably. Now he can go in for 15 minutes. So, it was like that for me with rejection. Because, you know, you prepare something it's—and when you're an actor, it's different than other jobs. Because other jobs, if you're producing, like, even a piece of artwork, you know, it's exterior to you. It's not you. It's that piece of paper. It's that object that you've created. With an acting job, it's like, oh, it's your hair, your body, your face, your tone of voice, your presence, your smell. It's all what you're offering, you know, whether you want to or not, it's there. Especially in the pre-Zoom days. So, the levels and the dynamics of you being judged are just exponential. You know, you're like, wow, oh, you didn't like it the way I sat, you didn't like the way I said that one word, you know. There's all these swords to die on. But if you recognize and get familiar with the procedure, then after a while, that bite that it had originally does start to taper off. And at this point— and early on for me, I'd done hundreds of auditions—I'm like, some I get, some I don't get. Unless somebody says something really cruel, which is a whole different category of thing. There is just a natural judgment and evaluation. That is part and parcel of being an actor, where they go, “thank you very much.” And you never hear from them again and you go, wow, that's one thing. If someone says, “yeah, you know, you're not quite right. You're not quite good enough. Boy, we were really expecting something better or, wow, that sucked.” I mean, there's a whole range of othernesses. Then that that is something that you don't necessarily get comfortable with. But after a while you kind of gird your loins and go, well, that comes up, I have a different response to that. You know, I'm gonna say a little something or I'm gonna make a mental note: This casting director is an asshole. But that's different. The everyday kind of, “thank you very much for coming in rejection,” that's just something that if you do it enough and if you're not too precious about it and you don't take it personally, cuz it is not personal, it absolutely is not. You know, one good thing too is to—if you're an actor and I have not done this, so I'm giving you this advice that's kind of secondhand—but go and participate in a casting process where you're not being cast. Watch other actors come in, be a reader or something, and observe the variety of people that come in and what is attractive and what is unattractive and what is distracting and what is not distracting. And it'll give you some reality on like, oh, okay. We've interviewed or we've auditioned 15 people for this role, 12 of them could do it. They were fine, but this one's hair is this way. And this one has a little better this and you know, and I don't know, I met this guy before, I'll work with him again. They're arbitrary, small kind of gentle reasons why the person gets hired. And it's not the Roman arena where they go, Thumbs down. You're dead. Now it's thumbs down, you are a failure. You—it's your turn to be eliminated. It's not that. It's like, yeah, you're great. You're great. I got nothing to say except the director wanted to work with this guy. And you've got to make your peace with that and go, yep, I would do the same thing if I was a director. I wanna work with this guy. Who cares? It doesn't matter. Gaspard: I still remember William H Macy saying once he was on a TV show and went up to the producer/director, the guy in charge, and said, “thanks so much for casting me in this.”And the guy said, “yeah, it was between you and another 5,000 people, but you'll work.” Meskimen: I just found out—this is interesting—I got a role in a show that I'm gonna work on next week. And I was like, wow, great. You always, you know, these days, Jim, you know about this, you do these at home self-tape auditions, and it seems fake. It still seems kinda like I'm not in show business. I'm just doing it in the back of my house, but they call you up and they go, you know what? We want you for the role. And I'm like, oh, okay, great. And I'm all chuffed about it, you know, excited. And the wardrobe man, when I went to the wardrobe fitting, for reasons of his own I'm sure, told me that, “Yeah, they originally hired another actor to do this part and then the schedule changed and so he couldn't do it.” And so then I found out, you know, in that sort of covert way that I was not the first choice. I still get to do the job. But that's another aspect of things that could come in and sour things and you can start to feel sort of like a victim a little bit. But you know what? I just look at, what am I trying to do? I'm trying to get bigger and better parts in bigger and better shows. So that like, like Jim said, maybe I don't have to do so many auditions. Maybe they come to you and say, we have an offer. I love that. That happens sometimes, but I am also very happy to audition. I'm very happy to meet with people because for me, I look at an audition is a performance. Especially these days when they expect a performance. I don't hold the script. I memorize it. I work it out. I spend hours and hours and hours getting that show together and shoot it to the best of my ability, put the best sound on it that I can and fire it back as quickly as I can. And it's fun for me. I like the activity of acting. I like the activity of portraying a different person, of trying something out. And that's, that's the joy of it. And the chore of it.

From The Back Seat: The SEMA Experience or Breakfast With Ken Block, 35K Steps & Parking Adventures

Get Out N Drive Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 17, 2022 29:09 Transcription Available

John: Hey, is this thing on?? Jason: It is. So, I recently found out that our Recording Engineer and Editor, Paul, has a secret file of recordings that he calls From The Back Seat. John: Wait…what? So when we are just rambling on about car stuff, he's recording?Jason: Yep.John: Well, that can't be good.Jason: Turns out, it's not too bad. What you are about to hear are some of those recordings. Disclaimer: No car guys were hurt during the making of this episode. Put on your seatbelt. Here we go! It's here! The SEMA recap show! What's it like to go to SEMA? The guys are going to give you their take on what it's actually like to go to SEMA, some SEMA secrets and their favorite things at SEMA. Special thanks to everyone at Racing Junk for hosting the Get Out N Drive Podcast in the Racing Junk booth!Speed over to our friends at RacingJunk.comBe sure to follow Get Out and Drive Podcast on social media!GOND WebsiteIG: Get_Out_N_DriveTwitter GetOutNDrivePodFB Get.Out.N.Drive.PodcastYouTube https://tinyurl.com/GONDYouTubeJoin our fb group to share pics of how you Get Out N DriveFollow Jason on IGIG @oldecarrguyFollow Jason on fbfb @oldecarrguySubscribe To the Olde Carr Guy YouTube ChannelFollow John on IGIG @customcarnerdFriend John on fbRecording Engineer, Paul MeyerSign Up and Learn more about National Get Out N Drive Day.Grab your Official Decals, Apparel and other cool shirts at GetDriveGear.com Subscribe to the Str8SixFan YouTube Channel.Be sure to join the coolest place on YouTube on Thursday nights at 7pm CST, The CarrGuy & SixFan Show, powered by the Get Out N Drive Podcast.Music Credit:Licensor's Author Username:LoopsLabLicensee:Get Out N Drive PodcastItem Title:The RockabillyItem URL:https://audiojungle.net/item/the-rockabilly/25802696Item ID:25802696Purchase Date:2022-09-07 22:37:20 UTC#SEMA2022#SEMA#GetOutNDrive#RacingJunk#KenBlockSupport the show

las vegas drive adventures speed cars breakfast get out parking automotive apparel backseat sema combe ken block recording engineer drive podcast john well john hey racingjunk

Episode 101: How Academia Shapes Manufacturing with John Hart

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 2, 2022 41:31

Augmented reveals the stories behind the new era of industrial operations, where technology will restore the agility of frontline workers. In this episode of the podcast, the topic is "How Academia Shapes Manufacturing". Our guest is John Hart (https://www.linkedin.com/in/ajhart/), Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Director at the Center for Advanced Production Technologies at MIT. In this conversation, we talk about John's research on micro and nanotechnology and material science, which universities and colleges that teach manufacturing, the role of MIT in this ecosystem, and why now is a key moment in manufacturing history. If you like this show, subscribe at augmentedpodcast.co (https://www.augmentedpodcast.co/). If you like this episode, you might also like Episode 92 on Emerging Interfaces for Human Augmentation (https://www.augmentedpodcast.co/92). Augmented is a podcast for industry leaders, process engineers, and shop floor operators, hosted by futurist Trond Arne Undheim (https://trondundheim.com/) and presented by Tulip (https://tulip.co/). Follow the podcast on Twitter (https://twitter.com/AugmentedPod) or LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/75424477/). Trond's Takeaway: There has never been a more interesting time to be in manufacturing or to watch manufacturing. The tremendous breakthroughs that we are about to witness have been made possible by a confluence of emerging technologies and startup innovations, as well as a growing awareness of the importance of building human-centric technologies. We are indeed at a crossroads with profound challenges in the growing talent shortage, the need for workforce training, an aging industrial base, and the demands for manufacturing competency from the wider innovation ecosystem. We have to make progress fast, and innovations are just maturing to be able to do so at the scale and pace required. It will, again, be amazing to watch the manufacturing industry. Parts of it will perhaps, again, become the industry of industries. Transcript: TROND: Welcome to another episode of the Augmented Podcast. Augmented reveals the stories behind the new era of industrial operations where technology will restore the agility of frontline workers. Technology is changing rapidly. What's next in the digital factory, and who is leading the change? And what are the skills to learn and how to stay up to date on manufacturing and industry 4.0. In this episode of the podcast, the topic is How Academia Shapes Manufacturing. Our guest is John Hart, Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Director at the Center for Advanced Production Technologies at MIT. In this conversation, we talk about John's research on micro and nanotechnology and material science, which universities and colleges that teach manufacturing, the role of MIT in this ecosystem, and why now is a key moment in manufacturing history. Augmented is a podcast for industrial leaders, for process engineers, and for shop floor operators hosted by futurist Trond Arne Undheim and presented by Tulip. John, how are you? Welcome. JOHN: I'm well, Trond. Great to see you. Thank you for having me. TROND: Well, I'm excited to have you talking about...well, hopefully, a lot of different things, but how academia gets to shape manufacturing, this fascinating venture that is manufacturing. But you yourself, John, you grew up in Michigan, is that right? You were close to this from an early age. JOHN: I was close to it. Yeah, I grew up in Royal Oak, Michigan, a suburb north of Detroit. If you know the Detroit Metro area, there are the mile roads, and the Detroit River is sort of Zero Mile. And I grew up between 14 and 15 Mile Roads, so in the hotbed of the good, old U.S. auto industry. TROND: Well, exactly. Because looking a little bit at your background here, you spent quite a few years as a summer intern at General Motors before you got yourself to...or actually perhaps in the beginning, in your undergrad years from UMichigan, is that right? JOHN: I did. After my first year at UofM, I worked as a summer intern at GM and went back a few years in a row in different roles in different areas. And honestly, when I decided to pursue a graduate degree and ended up at MIT, I thought I might just get my master's and go back and work in the auto industry, but things changed, and here we are today. TROND: Well, here we are today. You got yourself an undergrad from UMichigan. And you worked there for a little while, I believe, but then came to MIT with a master's, Ph.D. This is way back. But you won the prize for the best doctoral thesis in micro and nanotechnology. So that set you off on the path to rediscover nanomaterials, I guess. JOHN: Yeah, well, it's a really maybe exotic combination of topics. My master's thesis was on precision machine design, the design of these large mechanical couplings for industrial robots. And then, for my Ph.D., with the same advisor, I worked on carbon nanotube synthesis. But there you have the dipoles of manufacturing research, materials, processing, and mechanical design that have shaped how I've taken things forward since then. TROND: Well, but it is in these unique combinations that innovation starts to occur, right? JOHN: Yeah, exactly, combining different topics. And that's one reason I love manufacturing is that it is the union of materials processing, and automation, and software, and now also getting more interested in the organizational workforce aspects. It's a very rich, multidisciplinary layered topic. TROND: Yeah. And we'll explore this both from the organizational angle, and, indeed, I'm super interested in this material angle on things because it seems to me like you're exploring the very, very small nanostructures, but then you're then printing them on the very large canvas. So you're exploring materials from one extreme to the other. JOHN: Yeah. Well, it depends on your objective and what topic you're working on. There are cases in our research where we need to understand the formation of materials, not quite from the atom up but from the nanoscale or microscale up. And there are cases where we more or less abstract or coarse grain those link scales and focus on macroscale properties. TROND: Well, and then you also focus quite a bit on teaching. I noticed that you actually launched the first massive online course on manufacturing processes, and hopefully, we'll get to this a little bit as well. JOHN: Sure. TROND: But teaching and basically working on the next generation of manufacturers, whether they be the engineers or really anybody else, has certainly been one of the big challenges in manufacturing really forever. What is it that fascinates you so much about teaching this to a grander audience than the usual university audience? JOHN: Well, first, I'll say I believe that the top priority of universities, including in the area of manufacturing, is to educate future leaders and engineers. That said, the number of people we educate on our campus is a small fraction of those who could really benefit from what we teach and the way we teach. And that's not just geographically, but it's also in terms of their role in the workforce. So I believe manufacturing education should address all levels of the workforce. And to get at your question more directly, when I came to MIT, I was asked to take over our core undergraduate manufacturing class in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. And as I learned to teach the class for myself, I was intrigued by this emerging trend of digital learning, and this was 2015, 2016. And I was able to get some funding from MIT internally to create an online version of the course that would be offered free to the world, and probably 100,000 People have taken it so far. And it's been a great experience and evidence of how there is very broad interest in manufacturing really across the world. TROND: 100,000 people have taken this course. JOHN: Yeah. Well, I'll say 100,000 people have signed up for the course. This is the classic trade-off with online courses. It doesn't mean 100,000 people complete the course. It means that number signs up and hopefully took something away from it. It also speaks to the flexibility. You can sign up for a course and maybe just listen to one lecture, but if you take something valuable away from it, that's great. TROND: So I wanted to talk a little bit about how academia shapes manufacturing. And I know that there are, you know, you and I work at MIT, and you've had experiences obviously at University of Michigan. But there are other manufacturing centers and institutes all around the world. Could you lay out this landscape a little bit for us so that we get a sense of where the excellent centers of manufacturing are located? I mean, one structure, just to pick that, is manufacturing institutes, and I know that's sort of dear to your heart for a couple of different reasons that we'll get into. But what are some of the centers beyond MIT where there is activity that is organized in a way that really is something to focus on? JOHN: First, I think of in the U.S., Carnegie Mellon, Georgia Tech, Purdue, Michigan, Stanford, places that have defined manufacturing centers or have a body of work that relates to manufacturing that I would say there's a critical mass of faculty, and students, and affiliation with industry. Also, Penn State in the area of additive manufacturing and product design. It's hard to be comprehensive. I don't want to forget anyone big, but that's a sample of some of the notable ones. Internationally, a lot of activity in Europe; I admire the University of Cambridge, the Institute for Manufacturing there, where manufacturing is more or less a department, or it's within the Department of Engineering, which is analogous to what we would say is a school or college of engineering here in the U.S. And they have a broad set of activities that have been there for decades focused on manufacturing at the IFM. TROND: And if you think about the best schools to get educated in this topic, is it necessarily only the top brands? I mean, certainly, they have different roles. So when it comes to undergrads or even shorter, or I guess even community colleges have a really fundamental role in the formation of this sector, can you talk a little bit about that? JOHN: Oh, for sure. When you think of manufacturing education, we must think of the full stack of institutions that educate the workforce, from vocational institutions to community colleges where the student's goal may just be to complete a vocational program or complete a two-year degree and then exit the workforce, all the way to the four-year degrees, advanced degrees, and executive education. And given how manufacturing is paramount in the workforce and the economy, we need to educate folks at all those levels. But by far, the largest number of people are at those vocational community college levels and then to the bachelor's level. So I have a Ph.D. I love to mentor Ph.D. students. But that's a small fraction of the manufacturing workforce. TROND: What about in the U.S. setting? There's something called the Manufacturing USA, and there are these institutes that have sponsorship from various government agencies, most of them through the Department of Defense. But there's also a bunch at the Department of Energy and one, I guess, from the Department of Commerce. What is the role of basically government-sponsored sort of research and innovation activities in this field? It would strike me, I guess, that historically, it's quite important. JOHN: Certainly. You're alluding to the manufacturing innovation institutes, the MIIs that were started during President Obama's administration. Actually, MIT's work, the Production in the Innovation Economy study, and the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, which emerged from that, was key in scoping the MIIs, and now there are 16 or so around the country. It's one example of public-private partnership. Public-private partnership is key to cultivating interest in manufacturing and also providing resources for technology translation and commercialization. I think the MIIs have had a great impact on awareness of manufacturing, on R&D, and really applied research in some critical technology areas. But it's only a small part of what we need to do to regrow and expand our industrial base in the U.S. TROND: So I want to move us shortly to MIT to discuss both your own research activity and how extensively you are now aiming to take a more organizing role to kind of get more out of all of the exciting work that's happening at MIT. But before that, I just spotted perhaps an older project of yours that I thought was extremely cool. You were once called a nanoartist, and you had this NanoArt Nanobliss gallery with visualizations. You previously mentioned Obama. I believe you made a NanoArt structure called Nanobama or something of that sort. How did this come about? And, again, I mean, I'm guessing this just sort of testifies to your interest in science communication as much as in the depths of science, which we'll get into in a moment. JOHN: You got it. The inspiration was how do we communicate what we're doing in the lab to broader audiences just to make them aware of what's happening in new technology, new materials? In that case, it was nanotechnology. If you don't mind, I'll tell you a bit more of the story. When I was an assistant professor at Michigan, we were doing a lot of work on carbon nanotube manufacturing, which was a follow-on from my graduate work at MIT. And I admired President Obama, or he was a presidential candidate at that time. And without implying a political inclination, I somehow put together the words nano and Obama in my mind. TROND: [laughs] JOHN: And I said, wow, it would be cool to have a Nanobama. So one thing led to another, and I actually worked with some students in my group to fabricate these little portraits out of carbon nanotubes representing Shepard Fairey's portrait of Obama that was used widely during that first presidential campaign. And I just posted it online, I think one day after the election, and it took off. It went viral, so to say, and was featured as Nature's Image of the Year. It was printed on the newspapers you used to get as you walk onto the subway in the morning around the world. There was a company that would syndicate this stuff, and they just sent it around. So it got a lot of attention. And it showed me the power of an image in communicating something. And, of course, President Obama, that was a historic election. The play on words was exciting, and also the fact that it was a little bit intriguing science and technology that was nano was interesting. And one more thing, a colleague of mine at Michigan then was working in the White House, and he said, "Hey, can you send us a Nanobama?" So I made this frame with a little piece of the real material, and a picture of it from the microscope sent it to Washington. I didn't hear anything about it until I got a call from the White House asking me to declare the value for the President's tax return because he decided to keep it; I kid you not. And then, after Obama left office, I was with my family at a bookstore in Wellesley, and I saw the book, the retrospective book of Pete Souza, the White House photographer. And I opened up the book, and I see a picture of Obama and John Boehner in the Oval Office in the middle of this book. And right on the doorframe is the Nanobama. So it actually made it to the White House, which was a pretty awesome feeling. TROND: It must be an awesome feeling, and, again, I think that, especially in this field of manufacturing which is so challenged at times, right? And people are talking about how these factories are greedy, or is this a great job, or whatnot. And there have been all of these historical moments. But then there is also this fascination around the topic of certainly of technologies and the excitement around it. Why don't we continue a little bit on this strand before we get into sort of the overall role of MIT? I'm really curious about how your research has evolved. So generally, I get that you're combining these nanostructures with manufacturing and materials research, and certainly, you have applied it to additive manufacturing. How would you say that your research has evolved over these years? What are the things that you have been doing? I've picked up on a few things that I definitely wanted to cover. I mean, certainly, you've been working on this industrialization of 3D printing, both as a research area and as a commercial area. Carbon nanotubes must have been kind of where you started. I'm curious where that work is going. And then I saw that very recently, with a student, you've been doing some work that I'm personally very enthused about, which is a plant-derived composite that might replace, hopefully, plastics with sort of a hardness and stiffness that is somewhere at the boundary between conventional plastics and metals. I mean, for me, I don't quite see how all of these things are intimately connected. Where do you go for, you know, where's my next proposal here, and where's my next patent? JOHN: They aren't necessarily closely connected. But I like to say that the themes are typically one or more of materials, manufacturing, and mechanical systems or automation. And what I love about manufacturing, especially in the materials domain, is to control a process, to understand a process, and then to do something new, you need to investigate its fundamentals. And sometimes, you need to design a new instrument or machine to get the job done. So our work is often problem-inspired or opportunity-inspired. Like, the cellulose work that you mentioned recently was actually sponsored by a large consumer products company interested in a more sustainable composite material that could be used in packaging. And we looked at potential routes to formulating different materials, and we landed on cellulose. And then, we developed a formulation, a mixture of cellulose nanocrystals and polymers that ended up having exciting mechanical properties, particularly very high hardness, and toughness, more so than existing polymers. And another unifying theme is scalability. It's important not to worry too much about scalability in the early stage of research, and there's lots of amazing research that's just for science. But we like to do things that we hope will be scalable one day, so choosing ingredients that would be cost-effective or using techniques that could be industrialized, even if the techniques look very different in the lab. And maybe I've lacked to give a precise definition or focus, but I think it's also indicative of the broad span of manufacturing. And manufacturing has many, many dimensions beyond the ones that we work on in my lab at MIT. TROND: Well, you kind of answered a question that I was going to ask, too, which is it doesn't seem like you start in a linear fashion, you know, in other words, you start with some sort of basic problem that everybody in their literature has established and then you move to this, that, or the other. Sometimes it comes from a company. The challenge comes from a company, but you formulate the solution completely. It seems to me that students also have lots of ideas and kind of formulate projects. Talk to me a little bit about this process of where the problem comes from versus where the solution and impact comes from because you seem to...sometimes the output truly is just, you know, like, in this case, art or a physical prototype, and you're sort of happy with that outcome. Other times, you're actually delivering something into, presumably, eventually, an assembly line. JOHN: Yeah. And we work as hard as we can on technology translation, both in terms of the knowledge that we publish but also in terms of the steps that we take to spin technology out. You're right; the early stage is very important. And I like to often see the early stage as a collaboration between myself and the researchers. And in many cases, the core idea we end up pursuing comes largely from the research or the research team. In many cases, it might be seeded by the interest of a sponsor or an idea I have, and then we work together on actually figuring out what's the approach, what are the outcomes, and what's the path to success. MID-ROLL AD: In the new book from Wiley, Augmented Lean: A Human-Centric Framework for Managing Frontline Operations, serial startup founder Dr. Natan Linder and futurist podcaster Dr. Trond Arne Undheim deliver an urgent and incisive exploration of when, how, and why to augment your workforce with technology, and how to do it in a way that scales, maintains innovation, and allows the organization to thrive. The key thing is to prioritize humans over machines. Here's what Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, says about the book: "Augmented Lean is an important puzzle piece in the fourth industrial revolution." Find out more on www.augmentedlean.com, and pick up the book in a bookstore near you. TROND: You have commercialized at least two ventures together with others at MIT and external people as well that I know about for sure. I wanted to just briefly mention both Desktop Metal and VulcanForms. Let's perhaps cover Desktop Metal first, so that's a 3D printing company. Tell me how that got started and what your role was there. JOHN: So I was very fortunate to be a member of the founding team of Desktop Metal. So there were seven co-founders, and we launched the company in early fall of 2015. And Ric Fulop, who's the lead founder and CEO, approached me at that time, and he heard that I was interested in working on 3D printing and, of course, knew a bit about my background in manufacturing and machine design and asked me to jump on board. And funny story, how just connections persist over the years; I actually knew Ric when I was a grad student because I was doing my carbon nanotube work using the space of now my colleague, Yet-Ming Chiang. And at that time, Yet and Ric were launching A123 Systems, a successful battery company. So that was a reason why I think Ric knew to get in touch with me when he heard about me. And serendipity was a great experience. TROND: Serendipity when you are in the right places, right? If you're hanging around Yet-Ming Chang, yeah, that's right, very special serendipity. Tell me a little bit about VulcanForms. Until very recently, you couldn't talk so much about it. Nowadays, you did go out in New York Times. I've read that piece. So there is a little bit more detail around it. Let me ask a very basic and perhaps dumb question, large-scale metal 3D printing, what's the big deal there? I thought didn't Desktop Metal do 3D printing? So it's kind of a dumb question. Why is there a second company? Is there really such a variety? I think that the regular person just thinks 3D printing is 3D printing. JOHN: 3D printing is a broad and deep subject. Like, first of all, 3D printing processes exist for polymers, for metals, for many other materials. And there are even several 3D printing technologies for metals. I'll tell the origin story for VulcanForms quickly if that's okay, and then get back to the question. So when I came to MIT as faculty in 2013, I had been a professor at Michigan for a few years. And I landed, and one of the topics I thought of looking into was 3D printing. I was actually asked by a colleague to teach a class not on 3D printing, but I was able to propose the topic. And in that class, there were many incredible students. One of them, named Martin, stuck around at MIT after finishing his master's in manufacturing, and we ended up comparing notes and launching VulcanForms in 2015, a little bit before Desktop Metal came to be, but not that long before. And we stayed quiet for seven years. We raised our seed round a couple of years ago. And the focus of the company is number one, laser-based metal additive manufacturing. And second, while we've built our own additive technology, we're a manufacturing company. So we produce parts at scale, and that is a real need and has been a barrier to growth of the additive industry. There's so much interest and uptake in additive. But the ability to achieve high-quality production using additive as the formative step in the process at scale has largely been untouched. So from the early days, we thought that we could approach the market with that plan to become a manufacturing company. TROND: Staying quiet for seven years that can't have been [laughs] particularly easy. JOHN: Yeah, it's not easy, but it's very, very worth it because we got to focus. And also, there are different boundary conditions that allow you to keep your head down and get work done, and one of them is having great and patient investors who believe in your approach and who see the progress behind the curtain. And as a result, we felt we would hold off launch. And we were fortunate to get picked up by the New York Times earlier this summer. And now we're excited to talk about what we do. TROND: Yeah, that article did hint a little bit at what your printers can print that others cannot and kind of at what scale. Can you give some examples of the kinds of things that you are now contracted to print or are perhaps already printing? JOHN: So the company is focused on a variety of industries, generally industries where high-value metal parts are difficult to manufacture and where there is a real pent-up need for more agile, high-value manufacturing medical devices such as medical implants, semiconductor components, not microchips but cooling devices for various computer systems. We have a lot of business in the aerospace and defense area, working with several of the defense primes, both on additive parts and on machining, honestly. The company, as described in the New York Times article, we acquired a machine shop in Newburyport, Massachusetts, earlier this year. And that was twofold, one because in order to deliver finished parts, you need to often integrate additive with machining. So it's not just 3D printing; it's building a stack of software and physical processes to create a finished part. Second, advanced machining is also a digital manufacturing technology, and as a company, we're very interested in applying our capabilities as a digital manufacturing organization to the area of CNC machining as well. TROND: So, taking that experience then from these two companies and your vast interest and research area plus your interest in communication, what is it that you're now focused on at MIT more largely? That's another kind of secret that's slowly being let out. But you have had this notion and have shared this with me and others, obviously. There was a seminar open to whoever was invited, I think, but not a full public launch. Manufacturing at MIT has historically been quite important, but you think that there's even more, to be done. You lined up a couple of the projects, but there are many more things that MIT has done. Could you maybe just briefly address the role of MIT historically in influencing manufacturing? And what else is it that you now want to accomplish? JOHN: Yeah, for sure. And since I came to MIT nine years ago, I've learned of the incredibly rich history that the institute has in manufacturing, both on the technology side, you know, in the mid-1950s, building among the first CNC machines, ultimately transformed commercial aviation in 1980 building one of the first 3D printers in the world, and so on. But not only that, but also, historic accomplishments in the social sciences, understanding the globalization of manufacturing, you know, what delineated the U.S. versus the Japanese auto industry in the 1980s. What is the intrinsic role of manufacturing in innovation, the production, and innovation economy led by my colleague Suzanne Berger in around 2010. And then broader than manufacturing, though, the work of the future study just a couple of years ago looking at the connection between technology and work. So looking at all those accomplishments and understanding the present moment that we're in, which I can also reflect on later, I've been exploring how to create a new presence for manufacturing at MIT. And the term manufacturing at MIT is more or less a placeholder representing the community of faculty and students across disciplines, both technology and social sciences, that touch on all the dimensions of manufacturing. So as we've returned from Zoom life to more in-person life, I've been making my way around campus and building a team of folks, faculty advisors, external advisors, industry partners, and so on to hopefully put forward a new center at MIT that has a focus on manufacturing across the disciplines. And this is not to replace existing activities but just to augment those activities and bring industry together with us to support research, to lean deeply into workforce training programs, to collaborate with public organizations at the state and federal level and internationally, and also hope to cultivate more entrepreneurship. Because my experience, fortunate experience as an entrepreneur over the past several years tells me that there's opportunity for more new companies that contribute to the future of manufacturing, whether they're manufacturing companies actually making stuff, whether they be software and services companies. Or perhaps the biggest need is hardware companies for whom manufacturing is a route to success. So you may not be manufacturing something yourself, or you may not be manufacturing goods for others, but understanding manufacturing and scaling a process is really key. And that intellectual DNA of manufacturing is more cross-disciplinary than ever. And I've observed over my nine years at MIT how there's just more engagement in manufacturing as a discipline, as this cross-disciplinary theme. And that's an area where I feel such a center can really play a role by adding something to the intellectual community across the institute. TROND: There are so many things that come to mind when you produce this narrative because, I guess, on the one hand, manufacturing is a little bit of everything. On the other hand, it is clearly very delineated because it's all about making things and making them at scale. And there's a whole industry, but, of course, every industry almost has a manufacturing arm. How do you delineate the subject of manufacturing? And I'm sort of curious, you know, at MIT, if you use a broad church definition, almost everybody there contributes to manufacturing. So that would be both a challenge and an opportunity, I guess. JOHN: Yeah, you're exactly right. So, first, within MIT, we have many collaborations with different departments and other research centers. And the nature of the collaboration depends on what the focus is. Second, when it comes to interfacing with industry, I've come to look at industry as kind of a grid where you could say the columns are the end users, say, aviation and space or consumer or construction. And then, the horizontal lines in the grid are technologies, robotics and automation, 3D printing, software and IT, et cetera. And getting a little bit in the weeds of the organization here, so first, we're working on launching a flagship industry consortium, or we're recruiting flagship industry partners for a new center. And those will be companies, world-leading manufacturing companies across the grid. Second, we will operate consortia in different technology in industry areas that may be located within our center that may be in collaboration with others around MIT to really drive focus. And when industry comes and interacts with us, I want them to understand how their business fits into the broader spectrum. And we find particularly in the work related to 3D printing that companies appreciate being connected with peers across the value chain. They say 3D printing is materials at the frontend and finished parts at the backend, and there are some machines and software, and so on. When you bring companies together across their value chain, across their supply chain, under the umbrella of an academic organization with this sort of problem-solving mindset, we find that that can be valuable to the companies that we partner with. TROND: And, John, there's obviously a scale at MIT that's hard to replicate for any university or school just because there are so many people involved in technical innovation. But on the other hand, I would say there has been a sense that other sectors if you could call them that, have always been moving much faster than manufacturing. And, you know, okay, fine, there are industrial revolutions, but the ones we talk about now as industrial revolutions are more, you know, they are maybe on the software side and stuff, but that the core of manufacturing it may be because of its inherent nature. It's complex; it's about physical infrastructure, at least a lot of it still. So it's hard to innovate in that sector. Would you say that one of the ambitions you have with this manufacturing at MIT initiative is to speed up that innovation? And if so, what are the mechanisms that would bring manufacturing as a whole, I guess, on an even faster sort of clip? JOHN: First, if I look within MIT, we see the opportunity to combine the physical side, the mechanical engineering, the material science, with the digital side, with software, and controls, and computation. And that's an area where it's clear that new technologies can be de-risked, can be scaled more quickly. And it really requires this symbiosis of the physical processes and the digital intelligence. Second, I think we can do better research. I can do better research by understanding where the big problems and opportunities are. And by connecting closely with industry, forming networks with various stakeholders, we can define better problems that we can ask our students to solve. And third, I've noticed, especially over the past year with all the geopolitical discussions and the imperative for sustainability, that we're at a time where there's this alignment between industry and government and the investment community and manufacturing, physical manufacturing, physical industry is vital. We can't do enough there to catch up, to grow. And I think that's a real opportune moment to recognize that while I think the pendulum has swung to the digital world and software over the past 10, 20 years, life has changed for the better in so many ways. We have to focus on the physical world now, especially to address the climate crisis, and also think of how we can improve economic equality across our communities, how we can provide better job opportunities, how we can deliver education to individuals who don't have the opportunity to go to university or don't have the resources to travel, all those things. So that's another reason why, one, I see manufacturing as this rich, cross-disciplinary topic that I can file a patent and write some exciting papers and graduate with a Ph.D., but it means so much more to feel technology at scale. And second, you need the intersection of these disciplines to understand not just technology but organizations and human dynamics to create change and create positive impact. TROND: So I realized that we're going to have to cover... there are so many other questions I have for you is what I'm trying to say here. But my last question in this round, I think, is going to be one on...we briefly mentioned, or you briefly talked about augmentation. And you know that I have a special interest; obviously, the topic of the podcast and the title is augmentation. So there is something here about the tension, perhaps between augmentation and automation. How do you see that tension or the relationship between working from the human-centric perspective that technologies are in service to perhaps augment people and processes versus this automation perspective which maybe takes, and I'm paraphrasing here, a little bit more of an efficiency approach and tries to go for machine scale first and then just adjust everything later? How do you see those two things now, as perhaps, you know, manufacturing is coming into another kind of growth moment? JOHN: If I understood you correctly, I don't think they're mutually exclusive, right? Certainly -- TROND: No. Not necessarily. Not necessarily. JOHN: Certainly, manufacturing will become more automated in places where automation makes sense. Certainly, automation is challenging to implement to scale, to get right. But in some cases, the driver to more efficient technology-first manufacturing is automation. In other cases, and hand in hand with that, human workers and businesses, organizations can only become more effective and efficient, working in synergy with data and automation. I'll use the example of someone overseeing a 3D printer, a state-of-the-art 3D printer, and watching the screens to make sure everything is going well and doing a better job by being presented with information that shows, hey, this might be a problem, or there are no problems here, but being empowered to make that data-driven decision. And also, from my work outside of MIT, we find that folks who do best operating that advanced equipment with digital data might have a machining background. They might also have a passion for gaming on the side. So they might be used to sensing and responding to dynamic digital events. And that's another comment on skills evolving in the workforce too. TROND: Well, I mean, one thing that is for certain is that if MIT gets its act together on manufacturing, things will happen. I trust that we're going to have to come back and talk about a lot of emerging projects here in the coming years if you get people lined up. So very exciting. Thank you for speaking to me. Is there sort of a challenge that you want out there to the community when it comes to how, you know, not just academics can contribute to shaping manufacturing but how we all should think of these manufacturing challenges? Is it something that we should leave to experts right now because it's so complicated? Or are there ways that the broader interested public can get engaged in this problem? Is it possible to engage, and where should one engage? JOHN: That's a great question. First, to the general public, I'd say stop and think about what manufacturing means to you, or find one of your favorite things and look up how it's manufactured. Imagine the life, the journey of the product as it comes to your door. And second, I'd say the area where most of us can make an impact is in education and learning and contributing to our communities. Perhaps if you're an engineer working somewhere, you might want to teach at a community college one night a week if you have time in a future semester or explore ways that you can bring new knowledge, new technology to your organization if it makes sense. TROND: Exciting challenges. Thank you so much for sharing a little bit of what you're up to with us, John. JOHN: Thank you, Trond. TROND: You have just listened to another episode of the Augmented Podcast with host Trond Arne Undheim. The topic was How Academia Shapes Manufacturing. Our guest was John Hart, Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Director at the Center for Advanced Production Technologies at MIT. In this conversation, we talk about John's research on micro and nanotechnology and material science, which universities and colleges that teach manufacturing, the role of MIT in this ecosystem, and why now is a key moment in manufacturing history. My takeaway is that there has never been a more interesting time to be in manufacturing or to watch manufacturing. The tremendous breakthroughs that we are about to witness have been made possible by a confluence of emerging technologies and startup innovations, as well as a growing awareness of the importance of building human-centric technologies. We are indeed at a crossroads with profound challenges in the growing talent shortage, the need for workforce training, an aging industrial base, and the demands for manufacturing competency from the wider innovation ecosystem. We have to make progress fast, and innovations are just maturing to be able to do so at the scale and pace required. It will, again, be amazing to watch the manufacturing industry. Parts of it will perhaps, again, become the industry of industries. Thanks for listening. If you liked the show, subscribe at augmentedpodcast.co or in your preferred podcast player, and rate us with five stars. If you liked this episode, you might also like Episode 92 on Emerging Interfaces for Human Augmentation. Hopefully, you'll find something awesome in these or in other episodes, and if so, do let us know by messaging us. We would love to share your thoughts with other listeners. The Augmented Podcast is created in association with Tulip, the frontline operation platform that connects the people, machines, devices, and systems used in a production or a logistics process in a physical location. Tulip is democratizing technology and empowering those closest to operations to solve problems. Tulip is also hiring, and you can find Tulip at tulip.co. To find us on social media is easy; we are Augmented Pod on LinkedIn and Twitter and Augmented Podcast on Facebook and YouTube. Augmented — industrial conversations that matter. See you next time. Special Guest: John Hart.

ceo director university president europe washington technology talk energy new york times professor zoom nature michigan japanese dna mit public barack obama detroit institute white house 3d defense massachusetts production engineering gm stanford commerce cambridge academia manufacturing penn state carbon world economic forum shapes internationally purdue georgia tech general motors wiley oval office mechanical engineering executive chairman tulips emerging technologies ric augmented cnc carnegie mellon klaus schwab nanotechnology wellesley john boehner royal oak uofm trond ifm newburyport john hart shepard fairey material science detroit river pete souza innovation economy john you miis desktop metal john yeah john well detroit metro john so john oh john thank john they takeaway there manufacturing usa augmented lean a123 systems

Episode 107: Dawn Brodey and Brian Forrest on “Frankenstein” and “Dracula.”

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2022 58:38

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with Dawn Brodey and Brian Forrest, talking about the various film versions of “Frankenstein” and “Dracula.”Dawn gave me 4.5 films to revisit: The 1931 version of Frankenstein, Frankenweenie (the feature and the short), Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and Young Frankenstein.Meanwhile, Brian assigned me the original Nosferatu, the 1931 Dracula, Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, Horror of Dracula, Dracula in Istanbul and Bram Stoker's Dracula. LINKSDawn's podcast (HILF): http://dawnbrodey.com/ - showsBrian's Blog and Vlog, Toothpickings: https://toothpickings.medium.com/ A Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Frankenstein (1931) Trailer: https://youtu.be/BN8K-4osNb0Frankenweenie Trailer: https://youtu.be/29vIJQohUWEMary Shelley's Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/GFaY7r73BIsYoung Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/mOPTriLG5cUNosferatu (Complete Film): https://youtu.be/dCT1YUtNOA8Dracula (1931) Trailer: https://youtu.be/VoaMw91MC9kAbbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/j6l8auIACycHorror of Dracula (Trailer): https://youtu.be/ZTbY0BgIRMkBram Stoker's Dracula (Trailer): https://youtu.be/fgFPIh5mvNcDracula In Istanbul: https://youtu.be/G7tAWcm3EX0Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Eli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcastDawn and Brian TRANSCRIPT John: [00:00:00] Before we dive into the assignment you gave me—which was to watch stuff I hadn't seen and also rewatch stuff I had seen to get a better idea of who's done a good job of adapting these books—let's just jump in and talk a little bit about your area of expertise and why you have it. So, I'm going to start with you, Brian. I was very surprised after working with you a while to find out that you had a whole vampire subset in your life. Brian: A problem, you can call it a problem. It's fine. John: Okay. What is the problem and where did it come from? Brian: I was just vaguely interested in vampires for a while. When I was in my screenwriting days, someone had encouraged me to do a feature length comedy about vampires, and that led me to do a lot of reading. And then I just kind of put it aside for a while. And then I was, I had just finished a documentary for Committee Films and they said, do you have any other pitches? And I thought, and I said, you know, there's still people who believe in vampires even today, that could be really interesting. And I put together a pitch package. Then, the guy in charge of development said, [00:01:00]this is what we need to be doing. And then it stalled out. Nothing ever happened with it. And I said, what the hell. I could do this on my own. I could fly around and interview these people. And I did, I spent a couple years interviewing academics and some writers. And along the way, I started finding all these very intriguing moments in the history of either vampire lore or fiction or even just people who consider themselves vampires today. And all these things would connect to each other. It was a lattice work of vampires going back hundreds of years. It didn't fit the documentary, unfortunately, but I found it way too interesting. And I said, I need some kind of outlet for this. And so I started writing about it on Tooth Pickings. And that eventually put me in touch with people who were more scholarly, and it opened up a lot more conversations. And now I can't get out. I'm trapped. John: Well, the first sign is recognizing there's a problem. [00:02:00] Okay. Now, Dawn, you had a different entryway into Frankenstein. Dawn: Yeah, well, I was a theater major and a history minor at the University of Minnesota. Go Gophers. And, this was in the late nineties, early two thousands, when there were still a lot of jobs for people who had degrees and things like this. Or at least there was a theory that this was a reasonable thing to get educated in. And then I graduated in 2001, which was months after 9/11, when all those jobs went away. And so, I had this education so specific and what was I gonna do? And gratefully the Twin Cities is a great place for finding that kind of stuff. And one of my very first jobs out of college was at the Bakkan museum. So, the Bakkan museum was founded by Earl Bakkan, who is the inventor of the battery-operated pacemaker. And he has always, since childhood, been obsessed with the Frankenstein movie that came out in 1931. And he attributes [00:03:00]his great scientific invention and many others to a science fiction in general. And to the spark of the idea that comes from sources like this. So, when he opened the museum, he insisted that there'd be a grand Frankenstein exhibit. And that means going back to the book, and that meant going back to the author, Mary Shelley, who wrote the novel Frankenstein, she started writing it when she was 16.And so, I was hired because—boom, look at me—my degree is suddenly colliding, right? So, I was hired by the Bakkan museum to create a one-woman show about the life of Mary Shelley, where I would play Mary Shelley and would perform it within the museum and elsewhere. And through the course of that research, I read the novel for the second time, but then I read it for my third, fourth, fifth onwards and upwards. Because the show was about 45 minutes long, I referenced, you know, the novel, the books, the popular culture, the science behind it. And the deep dive just never stopped. And so long after I was required to do the research and the show was done and up, I just kept reading. [00:04:00] And it gave me the opportunity to meet experts in this field and the peripheral field, as I would sort of travel with this show and be an ambassador for the museum and stuff like that. And, yeah, it still curls my toes. John: All right, so with that background. I'm going to just be honest right here and say, I've read Dracula once, I've read Frankenstein once. So that's where I'm coming from, and both a while ago. I remember Frankenstein was a little tougher to get through. Dracula had a bit more of an adventure feel to it, but something I don't think has really been captured particularly well in all the movies. But they both have lasted and lasted and lasted.Why do you think those books are still, those ideas are still as popular today? Dawn: I will say that I think Frankenstein, it depends on what you mean by the idea. Because on the surface, just the idea of bringing the dead to life, is, I mean, the Walking Dead franchise is right now one of the most popular franchises. I mean, I think we are really pivot on this idea. And I remember saying to a friend once that the part in [00:05:00]Revelation where the dead rise is like the only part of the Bible that I don't question. It's like, oh, the dead will get up. You know, we always just seem to be real sure that at some damned point, they're getting up. And so I think that that is part of why that it sticks in our brains. But then the story around Frankenstein—especially as it was written in 1818—has so many universal and timeless themes, like ambition and what is right and wrong. And the question that Jurassic Park posed in 1995 and continues to—1993 around there—and continues to pose, which is: just because science is capable of doing something, should it do something? And how do we define progress? Surely the very idea of being able to beat death and not die seems to be kind of the ultimate goal. And here is someone saying, okay, so let's just say, yeah. We beat death and everyone goes, oh shit, that'd be terrible. [00:06:00] You know? And then also, I always love the idea of the creature, the monster, Frankenstein's creature himself, who has a lot of characteristics with which people have identified throughout history. Some people say, for example, that Mary Shelley's whole purpose for writing Frankenstein was a question of: didn't God do this to us, make us these ugly creatures that are imperfect and bumbling around and horrifying? And then once he realized that we weren't perfect, he fled from us in fear or fled. He just keeps going and every generation has a new media that tells the story a little bit better, a little bit different, and yeah, there we are. John: I will say that for me, the most memorable part of the book was the section where the monster is the narrator and is learning. And I think with the exception of Kenneth Branagh's film, it it's something that isn't really touched on that much. There's a little bit in Bride of Frankenstein, of him going around and learning stuff. But the sort of moral questions that he [00:07:00] raises as he's learning—what it is to be human—are very interesting in the book. And I wish they were in more of the movies, but they're not. So, Brian on Dracula, again, we have dead coming to life. Why do we love that so much? Brian: Well, it's one of the questions that made me want to make a film about it myself: why has the vampire been so fascinating for hundreds of years? Why does it keep coming back? You know, it ebbs and flows in popularity, but it never leaves. And it keeps seeming to have Renaissance after Renaissance. Dracula specifically, I think one of the interesting things about that novel is how many different lenses you can look at it through and not be wrong.People have looked at it through the lens of, is this thing an imperialist story? Is it an anti-imperialist story? Is it a feminist story? Is it an anti-feminist story? And you can find support for any of those views reading Dracula. And I think that some of it might be accidental; there's times where Dracula is catching up to whatever the cultural zeitgeist [00:08:00] is right now. And we look at Dracula and we say, oh, he was thinking about this back then. Or maybe Bram Stoker was just very confused and he had a lot of different ideas. John: All right, let's explore that a little deeper. You each gave me an assignment of some movies to watch or to re-watch that you felt were worth talking about, in relation to your subject of Frankenstein or Dracula. I'm going to start with Frankenweenie, just because I had not seen it. And in going through it, I was reminded—of course, as one would be—of watching Frankenweenie, I was reminded of Love, Actually. Because I came to the realization after years of Love, Actually being around that it—Love, Actually—is not a romantic comedy. It is all romantic comedies, all put into one movie. And Frankenweenie is all horror films. Condensed, beautifully and cleverly into one very tasty souffle. [Frankenweenie Soundbite] John: I stopped at a certain point making note of the references to other horror films. Just because there are so many of them. But the idea that it references everything from Bride of Frankenstein to Gremlins. They do a rat transformation that's right out of American Werewolf in London. The fact that they have a science teacher played by Martin Landau doing the voice he did as Bela [00:10:00] Lugosi in Ed Wood. I mean, it's a really good story that they just layered and layered and layered and layered. What was it about that movie that so captivated you? Dawn: Well, so much of what you just said. And also it seems to me the epitome of the accessibility of the story of Frankenstein. The idea that if anyone can think of any moment in which if I could bring someone back to life. But what I love about it too, is that the novel Frankenstein that is not Victor Frankenstein's motivation. It generally tends to be the motivation of almost every character, including the Kenneth Branagh character--at some point, he, when Elizabeth dies, his wife dies for the second time, he says, yes, I'm going to try to bring her back. But it is so not the motivation of the scientist in the book. It is just ambition. He just wants to do something no one else has done. And lots of people die around him and he really never, ever says to himself at any point in the novel, I wish I could bring them back, I'm going to bring them back. That's never, that's never part of it. He just wants to be impressive. And so, I love [00:11:00] that it starts with that pure motivation of wanting to bring the dead to life; just wanting to bring your dog back, so that it's so accessible for everyone watching it. Who wouldn't wanna try this? But then, even in that scene with the teacher, when he shows the frog. And he's demonstrating that if you touch a dead frog with electricity, its legs shoot up, which give the kid the first idea of bringing his dog back. Which is like a deep cut in, in the sense that that's nothing -- Mary Shelley herself and her friends were watching experiments exactly like that before she wrote the book: galvanism and animal magnetism were these really popular public demonstrations happening in London and elsewhere where they would do just that. But because electricity itself was so new, I mean, it blew people's hair back you know, that these dead frogs were flopping around. It was the craziest thing. And a lot of them were thinking to themselves, surely it is only a matter of time before we can, we're gonna have our dead walking around all the time. So, it was so circulating and so forward. [00:12:00] So it's not just movie references and it's not just Frankenstein references. That movie really includes source deep source references for how Frankenstein came to be. And I just love it. John: Which brings me to Frankenstein, the 1931 version, in which Colin Clive has a similar point of view to what you were talking about from the book. He just wants, you know, he wants to be God. [Frankenstein soundbite] John: What I was most impressed with about that movie or a couple things was: it starts, it's like, boom. We're in it. First scene. There there's no preamble. There's no going to college. There's no talking about it, right? It's like, they're starting in the middle of act two. And I think a lot of what we think of when it comes to Frankenstein comes from that movie, [00:13:00] that the stuff that James Whale and his cinematographer came up with and the way they made things look, and that's sort of what people think of when they think of Frankenstein. Now, as you look back on that movie, what are your thoughts on the, what we'll call the original Frankenstein? Dawn: Yeah. Well, I love it. You'll find with me and Frankenstein that I'm not a purist. Like I love everything. Like I have no boundaries. I think this is great. One of the things that 1931 movie did was answer—because it had to, anytime you take a novel and make it a movie, you take a literary medium and make it a visual medium, there's obviously going to be things that you just have to interpret that the author left for you to make for yourself individual. And in this instance, that individual is the cinematographer. So, we're gonna get their take on this. And one of the real ambiguous things that Mary Shelley leaves for you in the novel is the spark of life. What is the spark of life? She does not in any [00:14:00]detail describe lightning or static or any of the recognizable or, or future developments of how electricity would've been. Brian: I was shocked when I first read that book and saw how little space was devoted to that, that lab scene. It's blink of an eye and it's over. Dawn: “I gathered the instruments of life around me that I may infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my.” Period. I just, what I love is what I love about film in general is that they went, oh, spark being all right, girl, it's a dark and stormy night and you know, and there's chains and there's bubblers and there's a thing. And the sky opens. I mean, God bless you, like way to just take that thought. Make it vivid, make it, build a set, make us believe it. And it's so, so pervasive that in Frankenweinie, you know, which of course is about Frankensein. [00:15:00] Like that is one that they do: he's got the white robe that ties in the back and the gloves. And in Young Frankenstein, it's the, you know, that lab scene. And so I love that. And the other thing that they had to do was describe the look of the creature, make the creature—Frankenstein's monster himself—look so like something. Because she, similarly in the novel, says that he is taller than a regular man, has dark hair and yellow watery eyes. That's all we know about what the Frankenstein looks like. And so, in 1931, Boris Karloff with the bolts. And it's black and white, remember, we don't think his skin is green. That he turned green at some point is kind of exciting, but of course he was just gray, but just dead flesh, you know, rotten, dead walking flesh is what's frightening. And, I just thought that the movie did that so well, John: I think the makeup was kind of a green/gray, and that when color photos came out of it, that's why someone went, oh, [00:16:00] it's green, but it wasn't green. Brian: I thought I saw a museum piece of, you know, an actual makeup bit that Jack Pierce did and I thought it was greenish. Dawn: Yeah. Greenish/gray. I think, yeah, the rots, just kind of trying to capture the sort of rotten flesh. Brian: It's just like the bride's hair was red. Dawn: That's right. That's right. My day job here in Los Angeles is as a street improviser at Universal Studios, Hollywood. And two of their most treasured characters of course are Frankenstein and Dracula. So, while most people might separate them, John, they are usually arm and arm where I work every day. And the bride has recently come back to the theme park as a walking character, and they gave her red hair. We don't mess around. John: That's excellent. But you mentioned Dracula, let's jump into the 1931 Dracula. There's a connection point between the two that I want to mention, which is the amazing Dwight Frye, who is Fritz, I believe in Frankenstein. And I'm not the first one to mention his naturalistic [00:17:00] acting kind of putting him above everybody else in that movie. Famously, when he's running up the stairs, stopping to pull his socks up at one point. He's just really, really good in that. And then you see him in Dracula as the, essentially the Harker character. I think he was called Harker -- Brian: Yeah. Well, he's Renfield in Dracula. They merged those two characters. I thought it was a smart move for a first attempt at the film. Yeah. And Dwight Frye, he's in a lot of other Universal horrors, too. Dwight Frye often doesn't get the credit. He somehow was not the leading man he should have been. John: I don't know why that is. He turns up again as an assistant in Bride of Frankenstein. He's a towns person in Frankenstein meets the Wolfman. And then he tragically died on a bus ride to an auto parts job that he took because he wasn't getting any acting work, which was too bad. A really, really good actor. Brian: There is another intersection besides the fact that they were both produced by Junior. Lugosi was put into the [00:18:00] short, the trial film they shot for Frankenstein. I can't call it a short film, because it was never intended for release. But they shot a cinematic test reel and they had Lugosi play the monster, but he was under a sheet the whole time. I think he may have been able to pull the sheet off. It's a lost film. We don't know for sure. We just have kind of the recollections of a few crew people. John: I've never heard of that. I would love to see that. Brian: I would too. I think a lot of people would really love to see it, but it was as much a kind of a testing ground for Lugosi— whether they wanted him to be the monster—as it was for some of the techniques, the things they wanted to try in the film. And what I understand is the producer saw the test reel and they said, yes, we love this look, this is the look we want you to give us. And then it's whatever version of Lugosi not getting that part you want to believe: whether Lugosi turned it down or the producers didn't like him or something. But he ended up not taking that part. John: But he is of course always known as Dracula. So, what are your thoughts on their adaptation? Which [00:19:00]again is not the first adaptation but is the kind of first official? Brian: Yeah. The first to bear the name Dracula, although, well, I'll back up a second. Because some releases of Nosferatu called it Dracula. He would be named as Dracula in the subtitles, you know, because that's an easy thing to do in silent film, you can just swap that out however you want to. But yes, it's the first authorized official film adaptation. John: Well, let's back up to Nosferatu, just for a second. Am I wrong in remembering that the Bram Stoker estate—Mrs. Stoker—sued Nosferatu and asked that all prints be destroyed? And they were except one print remained somewhere? Brian: Close. That is the popular story that she sued Prana Films. She won the lawsuit. All films were set to be destroyed. Now there's a guy named Locke Heiss and a few others who've been doing some research on this. And they will tell you that there's no proof that a single print was ever destroyed. It's a more fun story to say that, you know, this one was snuck away and now we have the film. But there was no real enforcement mechanism for having all the theaters [00:20:00]destroy the film. Who was going to go around and check and see if they actually destroyed this film or not? Nobody, right? So maybe some people destroyed it. Maybe Prana Films destroyed their remaining copies. But the exhibitors kept all of theirs and there's different versions and different cuts that have been found. So, we know that some of these reels went out in different formats or with different subtitles or even different edits. And some of them have made their way back to us. John: There's some really iconic striking imagery in that movie. That haunts me still. Brian: What I always tell people is see the film with a good live accompaniment, because that still makes it hold up as a scary film. If you see a good orchestra playing something really intense when Orlok comes through that door. It feels scary. You can feel yourself being teleported back to 1922 and being one of those audience people seeing that and being struck by it. John: What do you think it would be like to have [00:21:00] seen that or Dawn to have seen the original Frankenstein? I can't really imagine, given all that we've seen in our lives. If you put yourself back into 1931, and Boris Karloff walks backwards into the lab. I would just love to know what that felt like the first time. Dawn: You know, what is so great is I was fortunate enough to know Earl Bakkan who saw the movie in the theater in Columbia Heights, Minnesota when he was 10 years old.And he went, he had to sneak in. People would run outta this, out of the theater, screaming. I mean, when they would do the close up of Frankenstein's Monster's face, you know, women would faint. And of course that was publicized and much circulated, but it was also true. People were freaking out. And for Earl Bakkan—this young kid—the fear was overwhelming, as you said. And also in this theater, I was lucky enough, I did my show in that theater for Earl and his friends on his 81st birthday. So, I got to hear a [00:22:00] lot of these stories. And they played the organ in the front of the curtain. Brian: Is this the Heights theater? Dawn: Yes, the Heights. Brian: Oh, that's an amazing space. Dawn: So, they played the organ in there and it was like, oh my God. And it was so overwhelming. So, I'm glad you asked that question because I was really fortunate to have a moment to be able to sort of immerse myself in that question: What would it have been like to be in this theater? And it was moving and it was scary, man. And yeah, to your point, Brian, the music and the score. I mean, it was overwhelming. Also, I think there's something that we still benefit from today, which is when people tell you going in this might be way too much for you, this might scare you to death. So just be super, super careful. And your heart's already, you know… John: And it does have that warning right at the beginning. Dawn: Yeah. Versus now when people sit you down, they're like, I'm not gonna be scared by this black and white movie from 1931. And then you find yourself shuffling out of the bathroom at top speed in the middle of the night. And you're like, well, look at that. It got me. Brian: That reminds me, there [00:23:00] was a deleted scene from the 1931 Dracula that was a holdover from the stage play. Van Helsing comes out and he breaks the fourth wall and he speaks directly to the audience. And he says something to the effect of—I'm very much paraphrasing—about how we hope you haven't been too frightened by what you've seen tonight, but just remember these things are real. And then black out. And they cut that because they were afraid that they were really going to freak out their audience. Dawn: It's like a war of the world's thing, man. It's oh, that's so great. I love that. [Dracula Soundbite] John: So, Brian, what is your assessment of the 1931 version? As a movie itself and as an adaptation of Stoker's work? Brian: The things they had to do to try to adapt it to film, which they borrowed a lot of that from the stage play. They used the stage play as their guide point, and I think they made the best choices they could have been expected to make. You know, there's a lot of things that get lost and that's unfortunate, but I think they did a decent job. I don't find the 1931 version scary. I like Bela Lugosi. I think he's a great Dracula. I think he set the standard. With the possible [00:25:00]exception of the scene where the brides are stalking Harker slash Renfield, I don't think the imagery is particularly frightening. The Spanish version, I think does a little bit better job. And you know the story with the Spanish version and the English version? Dawn: We actually talk about it on the back lot tour of Universal Studios. Because they shot on the same sets in some cases. Brian: Yeah. My understanding is that Dracula shot during the day, Spanish Dracula would shoot at night. So, they got to benefit maybe a little bit by seeing, okay, how is this gonna be shot? How did Todd Browning do it? Okay. We're gonna do it a little bit differently. It's a little bit of a cheat to say they move the camera. They do move the camera a lot more in the Spanish version, but the performances are a little bit different. I'm going to, I can't get her name out. The actress who plays the ingenue in the Spanish Dracula, I'm not going to try it, but you can see her kind of getting more and more crazed as time goes on and her head is more infected by Dracula. You see these push-ins that you don't see in the English version. There's blocking [00:26:00] that's different. I put together a short course where I was just talking about how they blocked the staircases scene. The welcome to my house, the walking through spider web. And how it's blocked very differently in the two versions. And what does that say? What are these two directors communicating differently to us? In one, Harker slash Renfield is next to Dracula. In one, he's trailing behind him. In one, we cut away from the spider web before he goes through. And in the other one, we see him wrestle with it. That's not really what you asked, John. Sorry, I got off on a tear there. John: I agree with you on all points on the differences between the two films. Although I do think that all the Transylvania stuff in the English version is terrific: With the coach and the brides. The Spanish version, the biggest problem I have is that their Dracula looks ridiculous. Brian: He's not Bela Lugosi. You're right. John: He looks like Steve Carell doing Dracula and there is no moment, literally no moment [00:27:00] where he is scary, whereas Lugosi is able to pull that off. Brian: There's a lot of people who have observed that the Spanish Dracula would be a superior film were it not for Bela Lugosi being such an amazing Dracula in the English version. John: He really, really nailed it. Brian: And since he learned his lines phonetically, he could have done the Spanish Dracula. Just write it out for him phonetically, because he didn't speak English very well. John: If we could just go back, you know, cause a lot of things in history we could change, but if we could just be at that meeting and go, Hey, why not have Bela do it? Okay. So then let's jump ahead, still in Dracula form, to Horror of Dracula. From 1958. With Christopher Lee as Dracula and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. [Soundbite from Horror of Dracula] Brian: For some people, Lee is the ultimate Dracula, and I think that's a generational thing. I think he's great. He's got the stage presence and I love Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. I don't like the film as a whole. It feels like I'm watching a play with a camera set back. It doesn't work for me the way it works for other people. That is personal taste. Don't come after me. John: It does, however, have one of the greatest, ‘Hey, we're gonna kill Dracula' scenes ever, with Peter Cushing running down the table and jumping up and pulling down the drapes and the sun. Brian: Oh, right. Interesting. Because in Dracula, the book, the sun is not deadly, remotely really. But that's [00:29:00]the influence of Nosferatu being pasted onto the Dracula cannon, that the sunlight is deadly to Dracula. Dawn: I remember having this fight very enthusiastically in the nineties when Bram Stoker's/Winona Ryder's Dracula came out and I was already sort of a literary nerd. And they were like, hey, they have a scene with him walking around during the day. And I was like, yeah, nerds. That's right. That's cuz vampires can walk around during the day.I was very already, like, you don't know anything, go back to history. Brian: And there's a seventies version where he's out on a cloudy day, but he is not hurt either. There suggestions in the book that he's more powerful at night. Dawn: He's a creature of the night. I always understood he had to wear sunglasses. He was sort of like a wolf. Like they show him as a wolf during the day; it can happen, but it's not great. Brian: I like the way they did it in the Gary Oldman version. He's suited up. He's got the sunglasses on. There's not a whole lot of skin exposed. But he's not [00:30:00] going to turn into smoke. John: Well, okay. Let's talk about that version and Kenneth Branagh's version of Frankenstein. Dawn: Ug. John: I'm not going to spoil anything here, when I say it doesn't sound like Dawn cared it. Dawn: You open this, you opened this can of worms. John, sit down for a second. Listen. He calls it: Mary Shelly's fucking Frankenstein. I inserted the fucking. I'm sorry, I wasn't supposed to say that. He calls it. He calls it. How dare you, Kenneth, Brannagh, call this Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. So that was A-number one. But I went into it all excited: It's Kenneth Brannagh. Love him. He calls it Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and he starts with the ship captain out at sea, just like the book. And so I pull up my little, you know, security blanket and I'm like, oh, Kenneth Brannagh, do this to me, buddy. Do it to me buddy. Show me Mary Shelley Frankenstein as a movie. [00:31:00] And then he just fucks it up, John. And he doesn't actually do that at all. It's a total lie. He screws up every monologue. He makes up motivations and then heightens them. And it's dad. The acting is capital B, capital A, capital D across the board. Everybody sucks in this movie. It looks bad. The direction is bad, and it has nothing to do. He tries to bring Elizabeth back to life. This is a huge departure from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Brannagh, that's all I have to say for now. John: All right, I was fooled by the fact that he started at, at the north pole. Dawn: That's because he's tricking us, John. That's because it's the whole movie is a lie. John: Okay with that same mindset, what do we think of Bram Stoker's Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola? Dawn: I love that one. Brian: I'm afraid that I don't have, I can't match Dawn's intensity in either respect. Um, except I thought Robert DeNiro [00:32:00] was really good in Frankenstein. Dawn: But that's no, he's not. you're wrong. Your opinion is valid and wrong. Yeah, I'm kidding for listeners who don't know me. I am, I am kidding. Of course. Everybody's opinion is valid except for that one. Yeah. The movie, everything about that movie is bad. John: He is, I think, miscast. Dawn: And Helen Bonan Carter is one of the finest actresses of not just our generation, but of all time. And she sucks in this movie. John: Right. So. Bram Stoker's Dracula. Brian: Bram Stoker's Dracula. [Soundbite: Bram Stoker's Dracula] Brian: Also produced by Branagh. And I assume that is the connection, why they both start with the author's name. I always call it Coppola's Dracula because it gets too confusing to make that distinction. I thought it was a decent movie, but it didn't feel like Dracula. It felt like someone who had heard of Dracula and wrote a good script based on what they had heard. So many divergences that bothered me, although I think it's aged better than it felt the first time. I remember seeing it when it first came out in the nineties and not thinking much of it. And I think audiences agreed with me and it seems like it's been kinder, that audiences have been kinder to it as it's gotten older. John: Okay. Dawn, you love it. Dawn: I loved it. I loved it. It, you know what though? That was one of [00:34:00] those movies that unlike, unlike Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, I can't look at with like an adult critical eye because I, what year did it come out? Was it like 90, 92? I'm like middle school getting into high school and like Winona Ryder was everything. Vampires are everything. I mean, Gary Oldman is the, is a great actor and it's so sexy, very sexy. The sex is Primo. And so I remember loving it, very moving. I don't remember comparing it as certainly not as viciously to the novel because I read Dracula after I had seen the movie. And so there's always that inherent casting where Nina is always going to be Winona Ryder. But I do remember really loving the Gothic convention of the letter and that the movie did seem to utilize and to great effect how letter writing can build suspense and give us different perspectives in a, in a unique cinematic way. Brian: [00:35:00] The two or three biggest stakes that film puts in the ground are not to be found in the book. So there's no love story in the book. There's no Vlad in the book. John: Can I interject there? Isn't that basically, didn't they just rip that off of Dark Shadows, The idea of my long lost love is reincarnated in this woman. I must connect with her. Brian: That is a good question, John. I'm glad you asked that because I call it the doppelganger love interest. Right? We first see that, the first time I know of it happening, I'm sure there's an earlier precedent, is in The Mummy, but then Dark Shadows does it. But that's not where Stoker, I mean, that's not where Coppola and a screenwriter claimed to have gotten the idea. They claimed to have gotten it from Dan Curtis's Dracula in 74. John: Dan Curtis, who produced Dark Shadows, with Barnabas Collins, falling in love with his reincarnated love. Brian: But Dan Curtis's Dracula comes out two years after Blacula. That has a reincarnated love interest. John: Not only does the Blaclua [00:36:00] have a reincarnated love interest, but if I'm remembering movie correctly at the end, when she says I don't want to go with you. He goes, okay. And he's ready to go home. It's like, sorry to bother you. Brian: No, uh, in Blacula, he commits suicide John: Oh, that's it? Yeah. He walks out into the sun. Brian: He goes home in a different way. John: Yes. He's one of my favorite Draculas, the very stately William Marshall. Brian: Yeah, absolutely. That is a favorite of mine. John: Anyway, you were saying stakes in the ground from Coppola's Dracula. Brian: Well, the, the love story, the equating Dracula with Vlad the Impaler. And I felt like they did Lucy really bad in that movie. They had her turn into a wanton harlot, which is not in keeping with the book. Some things are okay, but they really said these are the building blocks of our story and that bugged me. But Anthony Hopkins I liked, so, all right. Dawn: Alright, but see, this [00:37:00] the itch that still that still makes me wanna scratch though: why say Bram Stoker's Dracula? Why say Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? I mean, because I think you heard the venom, obviously. If they took Mary Shelley's name off that thing, you can make Frankenweenie. And I will love, like, I love Frankenweenie. Do your Frankenstein homage all day, all the time. But when you call, when you say it's Bram Stoker's, I think that this is what has been frustrating historians like me and getting high school students Ds in English class ever since. Because it just creates the false perception that you've basically read the book. Right. Or that you, if you know the thing you know the book and it's just a cheap ploy. And I don't like it. Brian: I think, somebody correct me on this, that there, there had been a plan to do a reboot of the Universal monster franchise, and these two movies were supposed to be the reboot of it. [00:38:00] And then they would've then done HG Wells' Invisible Man. John: The Mummy killed it. They've tried to reboot it several times. And that was the first attempt. Brian: Yeah, I've heard that called the dark universe. They were trying to do their own MCU. Dawn: Yeah. Well, at Universal Studios, there is of course in, in LA, in general, there's the property wars, you know? What what's, who has what? And sometimes those get really blurred. Like why does Universal Studios have Harry Potter? When we can see Warner Brothers from the top of our wall/ And that's obviously, you know, those things happen. But when it comes to like the IP or intellectual property, those original monsters are so valuable and they always are at Halloween. And then it's like, sort of, how can we capitalize on this? And yeah. And it's cross generational. Brian: All they really own right now is the look right? They own Jack Pierce's makeup job from Frankenstein. Dawn: But I think that that's exactly the point; [00:39:00] the delusion of what is it that you own if you own, you know, Frankenstein, whatever. But yes, there was definitely an interest to sort of revamp all of the original Universal Monsters they call them and it's the Mummy, Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Invisible Man. John: It's everybody who shows up in Mad Monster Party. Dawn: Exactly. [Soundbite: Mad Monster Party] Dawn: But yeah, The Mummy, starring Tom Cruise, was a tremendous flop. And I think that sort of took the wind out of everybody's sails. John: Let me ask you this, Dawn. If Mel Brooks had titled his movie, Mary Shelley's Young Frankenstein, instead of Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein, would you have a problem with that? Dawn: Yeah, no, but no, I would not have had a problem, because that would've been irony and juxtaposition. Not just a straight lie. John: So that brings us to some comedies. Young Frankenstein and Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein, which I was very surprised and a little unnerved to [00:40:00] realize a few years back, Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein was made a mere 10 years before I was born. And I had always assumed it was way back then. And it's like, no, it wasn't all that way back then. It was pretty, pretty recently. Brian: That happened to me when I realized that Woodstock was only six years before my birth. And it always seemed like ancient history. John: Is that the common thing, Madame Historian? That people kind of forget how recent things were? Dawn: Oh yeah. Remember Roe V. Wade. Sorry, too soon. Brian: We're recording this on that day. Dawn: Yeah, absolutely. I think that it happens to everybody so much faster than you think it's going to. I remember looking around in the nineties feeling, well, surely the seventies was ancient history, you know, because they had That Seventies Show, which debuted as like a period piece. I am still very young and hip and happening and [00:41:00] they are in production for That Nineties Show right now. And I said to my husband, That Nineties Show. I was like, Jesus, I guess that's 20 years because I was in the nineties they did That Seventies Show. And he goes, no baby that's 30 years. And I was like, I'm sorry. I said, I'm sorry, what? He goes, the nineties was 30 years ago. And I just had to sit down and put my bunion corrector back on because these feet are killing me. John: All right. Well, let's just talk about these two comedies and then there's a couple other things I wanna quickly hit on. What are our thoughts on, let's start with Young Frankenstein? [Soundbite: Young Frankenstein] Dawn: I told you I'm not an idealist and we're not a purist about Frankenstein, but I am an enthusiast. So that is why I told you to watch Kenneth Branagh's movie, even though I hate it so much. And that is also why I love Young Frankenstein, because I think that it is often what brings people into the story. For many, many people, it introduces them to the creature. They may know literally nothing about Frankenstein except for Young Frankenstein. And that's actually fine with me because I'm a comedian myself. And I believe that parody is high honor. And often when you parody and satirize something, especially when you do it well, it's because you went to the heart of it. Because you got right in there into the nuggets and the creases of it. And there is something about Young [00:43:00] Frankenstein as ridiculous as it is that has some of that wildness and the hilarity and The Putting on the Ritz. I did find out from my Universal Studios movie history stuff, that that scene was very nearly cut out. Mel Brooks did not like it. And he just didn't like that they were doing it. And of course it's the one, I feel like I'm not the only one who still has to make sure that my beverage is not only out of my esophagus, but like aside, when they start doing it. [Soundbite: Young Frankenstein] Brian: And I understand they were about to throw away the sets from the 1931 Frankenstein when Mel Brooks or his production designer came up and said, Stop stop. We want to use these and they were able to get the original sets or at least the set pieces. John: I believe what it [00:44:00] was, was they got Kenneth Strickfaden's original machines. Ken Strickfaden created all that stuff for the 1931 version and had been used on and off, you know, through all the Frankenstein films. And it was all sitting in his garage and the production designer, Dale Hennessy went out to look at it because they were thinking they had to recreate it. And he said, I think it still works. And they plugged them in and they all still worked. Brian: Oh, wow. Dawn: Oh man. It's alive. John: Those are the original machines. Dawn: I didn't know that. That's fantastic. John: At the time when I was a young kid, I was one of the few kids in my neighborhood who knew the name Kenneth Strickfaden, which opened doors for me. Let me tell you when people find out, oh, you know of the guy who designed and built all those? Oh, yes. Oh, yes. I know all that. One of my favorite stories from Young Frankenstein is when they sold the script. I forget which studio had said yes. And as they were walking out of the meeting, Mel Brooks turned back and said, oh, by the way, it's gonna be in black and white, and kept going. And they followed him down the hall and said, no, it can't be in black and white. And he said, no, it's not gonna work unless it's in [00:45:00] black and white. And they said, well, we're not gonna do it. And they had a deal, they were ready to go. And he said, no, it's gonna stay black and white. And he called up Alan Ladd Jr. that night, who was a friend of his, and said, they won't do it. And he said, I'll do it. And so it ended up going, I think, to Fox, who was more than happy to, to spend the money on that. And even though Mel didn't like Putting on the Ritz, it's weird, because he has almost always had musical numbers in his films. Virtually every movie he's done, he's either written a song for it, or there's a song in it. So, it's weird to me. I've heard Gene Wilder on YouTube talk about no, no, he didn't want that scene at all, which is so odd because it seems so-- Brian: I never thought about that, but you're right. I'm going in my head through all the Mel Brooks films I can remember. And there is at least a short musical interlude in all of them that I can think of. John: But let's talk then about what's considered one of the best mixes of horror and comedy, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein [00:46:00] [Soundbite: Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein] Brian: As with comedies of that age, it, it starts off slow, but then it starts to get very funny as time goes on. And all the comedy is because of Abbot and Costello. They are the, [00:47:00] the chemistry they have on screen. I don't know how much of that was actually scripted and how much of it was just how they rolled with each other. But it works really well. Not much of the comedy is provided by the monsters or the supporting cast or even there's maybe a cute, a few sight gags. But wouldn't you say most of the comedy is just the dynamics between them? John: It is. The scary stuff is scary and it's balanced beautifully at the end where they're being chased through the castle. The monsters stayed pretty focused on being monsters and Abbot and Costello's reactions are what's funny. Dawn: If I may, as someone who has already admitted I haven't seen much of the movie, it's feels to me like it may be something like Shaun of the Dead, in the sense that you get genuinely scared if zombie movies scare, then you'll have that same adrenaline rush and the monsters stay scary. They don't have to get silly. Or be a part of the comedy for your two very opposing one's skinny, one's fat, you know, and the way that their friendship is both aligning and [00:48:00]coinciding is the humor. Brian: I believe there is one brief shot in there where you get to see Dracula, Frankenstein's monster and the Wolfman all in the same shot. And I think that might be the only time that ever happens in the Universal Franchise. During the lab scene, does that sound right John? John: I think you really only have Dracula and the Wolfman. I'll have to look it up because the monster is over on another table-- Brian: Isn't he underneath the blanket? John: Nope, that's Lou Costello, because it's his brain that they want. And so they're fighting over that table. And then just a little, I have nothing but stupid fun facts. There's a point in it, in that scene where the monster gets off the table and picks up someone and throws them through a window. And Glenn Strange, who was playing the monster at that point -- and who is one of my favorite portrayers of the monster, oddly enough -- had broken his ankle, I believe. And so Lon, Chaney, Jr. put the makeup on and did that one stunt for him, cuz he was there. Brian: He did that as Frankenstein's monster? John: Yes. Frankenstein. Brian: I didn't know that. Yes, I [00:49:00] did not know that. So he plays both of those roles in that movie? John: Yes. Let me just take a moment to defend Glenn Strange, who played the monster three times: House of Dracula, House of Frankenstein, and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. In House of Frankenstein, he is following up the film before that, which was Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, in which, in this very convoluted universe, Lugosi is playing the monster, even though he didn't wanna do it in 31. Because his brain in Ghost of Frankenstein had been put into the Monster's body. So, in Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, it is Lugosi as the Frankenstein monster. It is Lon Chaney Jr., who had played the monster in Ghost of Frankenstein, now back to playing Larry Talbot. So, it is Wolfman versus Frankenstein. And the premise of the script was he's got Ygor's brain and it's not connecting properly. He's gone blind. They shot that. They had tons of dialogue between the two characters of Larry Talbot pre-wolfman, and the monster, Bela Lugosi. And the executives thought it sounded silly. So they went in and they cut [00:50:00] out all of Lugosi's dialogue out of the movie. So now you have a blind monster stumbling around with his arms in front of him, but he doesn't talk. And if you look at the movie, you can see where he's supposed to be talking and they cut away quickly. And it's really convoluted. Glenn Strange who then has to play the monster next, looks at that and goes well, all right, I guess I'm still blind. I guess I'm still stumbling around with my arms in front of him. Which is the image most people have of the Frankenstein monster, which was never done by Boris in his three turns as the monster. So with, in that regard, I just think Glenn Strange did a great job of picking up what had come before him and making it work moving forward. Anyway, a couple other ones I wanna just hit on very quickly. Brian asked me to watch Dracula in Istanbul. Under the circumstances, a fairly straightforward retelling of the Dracula story. I would recommend it--it is on YouTube--for a couple of reasons. One, I believe it's the first time that Dracula has actual canine teeth. Brian: Yes. John: Which is important. But the other is there's the scene where he's talking to Harker about, I want [00:51:00] you to write three letters. And I want you to post date the letters. It's so convoluted, because he goes into explaining how the Turkish post office system works in such a way that the letters aren't gonna get there. It's just this long scene of explaining why he needs to write these three letters, and poor Harker's doing his best to keep up with that. That was the only reason I recommend it. Brian: That movie is based on a book called Kazıklı Voyvoda, which means The Warrior Prince and it was written in, I wanna say the 1920s or thirties, I wanna say thirties. It's the first book to equate Dracula and Vlad the Impaler, which I've come back to a couple times now, but that's significant because it was a Turkish book and the Turks got that right away. They immediately saw the name Dracula like, oh, we know who we're talking about. We're talking about that a-hole. It was not until the seventies, both the [00:52:00] fifties and the seventies, that Western critics and scholars started to equate the two. And then later when other scholars said, no, there, there's not really a connection there, but it's a fun story. And it's part of cannon now, so we can all play around with it. John: But that wasn't what Bram Stoker was thinking of? Is that what you're saying? Brian: No. No, he, he wasn't, he wasn't making Dracula into Vlad the Impaler. He got the name from Vlad the Impaler surely, but not the deeds. He wasn't supposed to be Vlad the Impaler brought back to life. John: All right. I'm going to ask you both to do one final thing and then we'll wrap it up for today. Although I could talk to you about monsters all day long, and the fact that I'd forgotten Dawn, that you were back on the Universal lot makes this even more perfect. If listeners are going to watch one Dracula movie and one Frankenstein movie, what do you recommend? Dawn, you go first. Dawn: They're only watching one, then it's gotta be the 1931 Frankenstein, with Boris. Karloff, of course. I think it has captured [00:53:00] the story of Frankenstein that keeps one toe sort of beautifully over the novel and the kind of original source material that I am so in love with, but also keeps the other foot firmly in a great film tradition. It is genuinely spooky and it holds so much of the imagery of any of the subsequent movies that you're only watching one, so that's the one you get. But if you do watch any more, you've got this fantastic foundation for what is this story and who is this creature? John: Got it. And Brian, for Dracula? Brian: I was tossing around in my head here, whether to recommend Nosferatu or the 1931 Dracula. And I think I'm going to have to agree with Dawn and say the 1931 for both of them, because it would help a viewer who was new to the monsters, understand where we got the archetypes we have. Now, why, when you type an emoji into your phone for Vampire, you get someone with a tuxedo in the slick back hair or, I think, is there a Frankenstein emoji? Dawn: There is, and he's green with bolts in his neck. [00:54:00] Brian: Yeah, it would. It will help you understand why we have that image permanently implanted in our heads, even though maybe that's not the source material. We now understand the origins of it. Dawn: And if I may too, there's, there's something about having the lore as founded in these movies is necessary, frankly, to almost understand what happens later. I mean, I get very frustrated in 2022, if there is a movie about vampires that takes any time at all to explain to me what a vampire is, unless you're breaking the rules of the vampire. For example, you know, like in Twilight the vampire sparkles, like a diamond when it's out in the sunshine and is the hottest thing ever. That's really great to know. I didn't know that about vampires. That wasn't necessarily true before, you know, but you don't need to take a lot of time. In fact, when you do read Dracula, one of the things for me that I found very frustrating was the suspense of what is it with this guy? They were like: He said we couldn't bring [00:55:00] garlic and they take all this time. And you're kind of as a modern reader being like, cuz he is a fucking vampire. Move on. Like we know this, we got this one. It's shorthand Brian: That's one snide thing I could say about the book is that there are times where Dracula's powers seem to be whatever his powers need to be to make this next scene creepy and move on to the next chapter. John: He was making it up as he went along. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

god love jesus christ university halloween english hollywood bible los angeles house ghosts young spanish western putting minnesota revelation blog horror dead harry potter monster vampires universal period falling in love mcu renaissance trailer tom cruise ip walking dead frankenstein dracula twilight jurassic park turkish boris istanbul earl mummy woodstock robert de niro gremlins heights abbott fritz vlog warner brothers universal studios primo vlad invisible man gothic virtually nosferatu ds twin cities francis ford coppola bram stoker wolfman mel brooks mary shelley costello versus gary oldman ritz bela coppola turks steve carell kenneth branagh winona ryder renfield transylvania american werewolf in london gene wilder abbot van helsing chaney universal monsters kaz young frankenstein stoker ed wood bela lugosi boris karloff hg wells dark shadows peter cushing famously lon impaler inhouse harker hilf condensed james whale victor frankenstein martin landau blacula frankenweenie karloff branagh lugosi costello meet frankenstein mary shelly lon chaney jr lou costello mad monster party frankenstein meets william marshall dan curtis columbia heights ygor john it orlok colin clive jack pierce kenneth brannagh john well brian it john so dwight frye john there john let brian yeah barnabas collins john oh john right john yes todd browning john all john is brian there brian well brian no brian oh spanish dracula dawn brodey brian yes john not brian close dawn it

From The Back Seat: Thunderweld and Kilometrage! Time To Get Schooled

Get Out N Drive Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 10, 2022 12:03

John: Hey, is this thing on?? Jason: It is. So, I recently found out that our Recording Engineer and Editor, Paul, has a secret file of recordings that he calls From The Back Seat. John: Wait…what? So when we are just rambling on about car stuff, he's recording?Jason: Yep.John: Well, that can't be good.Jason: Turns out, it's not too bad. What you are about to hear are some of those recordings. Disclaimer: No car guys were hurt during the making of this episode. Put on your seatbelt. Here we go! Speed over to our friends at RacingJunk.comBe sure to follow Get Out and Drive Podcast on social media!GOND WebsiteIG: Get_Out_N_DriveTwitter GetOutNDrivePodFB Get.Out.N.Drive.PodcastYouTube https://tinyurl.com/GONDYouTubeJoin our fb group to share pics of how you Get Out N DriveFollow Jason on IGIG @oldecarrguyFollow Jason on fbfb @oldecarrguySubscribe To the Olde Carr Guy YouTube ChannelFollow John on IGIG @customcarnerdFriend John on fbRecording Engineer, Paul MeyerSign Up and Learn more about National Get Out N Drive Day.Grab your Official Decals, Apparel and other cool shirts at GetDriveGear.com Subscribe to the Str8SixFan YouTube Channel.Be sure to join the coolest place on YouTube on Thursday nights at 7pm CST, The CarrGuy & SixFan Show, powered by the Get Out N Drive Podcast.Music Credit:Licensor's Author Username:LoopsLabLicensee:Get Out N Drive PodcastItem Title:The RockabillyItem URL:https://audiojungle.net/item/the-rockabilly/25802696Item ID:25802696Purchase Date:2022-09-07 22:37:20 UTCSupport the show

drive speed get out apparel backseat combe recording engineer get schooled drive podcast john well jason it john hey racingjunk

From The Back Seat: Buying Toy Cars and Adventures That Led To Scars

Get Out N Drive Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 10, 2022 11:56

John: Hey, is this thing on?? Jason: It is. So, I recently found out that our Recording Engineer and Editor, Paul, has a secret file of recordings that he calls From The Back Seat. John: Wait…what? So when we are just rambling on about car stuff, he's recording?Jason: Yep.John: Well, that can't be good.Jason: Turns out, it's not too bad. What you are about to hear are some of those recordings. Disclaimer: No car guys were hurt during the making of this episode. Put on your seatbelt. Here we go! Speed over to our friends at RacingJunk.comBe sure to follow Get Out and Drive Podcast on social media!GOND WebsiteIG: Get_Out_N_DriveTwitter GetOutNDrivePodFB Get.Out.N.Drive.PodcastYouTube https://tinyurl.com/GONDYouTubeJoin our fb group to share pics of how you Get Out N DriveFollow Jason on IGIG @oldecarrguyFollow Jason on fbfb @oldecarrguySubscribe To the Olde Carr Guy YouTube ChannelFollow John on IGIG @customcarnerdFriend John on fbRecording Engineer, Paul MeyerSign Up and Learn more about National Get Out N Drive Day.Grab your Official Decals, Apparel and other cool shirts at GetDriveGear.com Subscribe to the Str8SixFan YouTube Channel.Be sure to join the coolest place on YouTube on Thursday nights at 7pm CST, The CarrGuy & SixFan Show, powered by the Get Out N Drive Podcast.Music Credit:Licensor's Author Username:LoopsLabLicensee:Get Out N Drive PodcastItem Title:The RockabillyItem URL:https://audiojungle.net/item/the-rockabilly/25802696Item ID:25802696Purchase Date:2022-09-07 22:37:20 UTCSupport the show

drive adventures speed get out scars apparel backseat combe recording engineer drive podcast john well jason it john hey racingjunk

Episode #67: Religious/Church Trauma, How Sermons Are Put Together & Toxic Positivity, With John Verner, Author & Host Of The Cult Of Christianity Podcast

Going Rogue With Caitlin Johnstone

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 8, 2022 79:17

INTRODUCTION: I hold a Bachelor of Arts in Biblical Exposition, with an interdisciplinary in Literature, from Moody Bible Institute. I was one of two recipients of the MBI Homiletical Jury Award for outstanding preaching in 2016. I have experience as a youth pastor, pastoral intern, academic journal editor, and guest speaker. I used to be a part of the largest cult in the United States. In 2019, I published my first book as a first step in addressing the subtle issues of this complex system. In 2021, I continued my work with this podcast! INCLUDED IN THIS EPISODE (But not limited to): · The Cult That Is Christianity · Control – Containment - Conversion· How Sermons Are Put Together· Toxic Positivity · Churches' Role In Divorce· Religious/Church Trauma· How The Church Likes To Be Like The World· Different Rules For Leaders Vs. Followers In Church· Why We Have Trust Issues With The Church· Where Did All These Rules Come From?· An Interesting Explanation Of Narcissism · Religious Discrimination CONNECT WITH JOHN: Website, Social Media & Books: https://linktr.ee/thecultofchristianity CONNECT WITH DE'VANNON: Website: https://www.SexDrugsAndJesus.comWebsite: https://www.DownUnderApparel.comYouTube: https://bit.ly/3daTqCMFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/SexDrugsAndJesus/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sexdrugsandjesuspodcast/Twitter: https://twitter.com/TabooTopixLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/devannonPinterest: https://www.pinterest.es/SexDrugsAndJesus/_saved/Email: DeVannon@SexDrugsAndJesus.com DE'VANNON'S RECOMMENDATIONS: · Pray Away Documentary (NETFLIX)o https://www.netflix.com/title/81040370o TRAILER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk_CqGVfxEs · OverviewBible (Jeffrey Kranz)o https://overviewbible.como https://www.youtube.com/c/OverviewBible · Hillsong: A Megachurch Exposed (Documentary)o https://press.discoveryplus.com/lifestyle/discovery-announces-key-participants-featured-in-upcoming-expose-of-the-hillsong-church-controversy-hillsong-a-megachurch-exposed/ · Leaving Hillsong Podcast With Tanya Levino https://leavinghillsong.podbean.com · Upwork: https://www.upwork.com· FreeUp: https://freeup.net VETERAN'S SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS · Disabled American Veterans (DAV): https://www.dav.org· American Legion: https://www.legion.org · What The World Needs Now (Dionne Warwick): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHAs9cdTqg INTERESTED IN PODCASTING OR BEING A GUEST?: · PodMatch is awesome! This application streamlines the process of finding guests for your show and also helps you find shows to be a guest on. The PodMatch Community is a part of this and that is where you can ask questions and get help from an entire network of people so that you save both money and time on your podcasting journey.https://podmatch.com/signup/devannon TRANSCRIPT: [00:00:00] You're listening to the sex drugs and Jesus podcast, where we discuss whatever the fuck we want to! And yes, we can put sex and drugs and Jesus all in the same bed and still be all right at the end of the day. My name is De'Vannon and I'll be interviewing guests from every corner of this world as we dig into topics that are too risqué for the morning show, as we strive to help you understand what's really going on in your life.There is nothing off the table and we've got a lot to talk about. So let's dive right into this episode.De'Vannon: Hey, y'all and welcome back to the sex drugs in Jesus podcast. I love having you every week. I, so look forward to it and this week is no different and we're coming in hot and heavy with episode 67. As we talk about some religious and church trauma. Y'all John Verner is my guess. And this man is a smart motherfucker.He is well educated. He is well learned, well traveled and well studied. He's the author of the book [00:01:00] called the cult of Christianity. He hosts a podcast after the same title. And in the days episode, we're discussing his very hurtful history with churches as he opens up about his very, very, very personal experiences while he's giving us at the same time, a very inside look at how churches work, because he's been on staff at churches and things like that before.I hope you're delighted about everything. John has to say take a listen.Hello? Are you beautiful bitches? I would like to welcome you right back here to the sex drugs and motherfucking Jesus podcast. I have with me a delicious that nutritious man by the name of John M I'm gonna pronounce his name as VAE because John: VAE, I love that.That's so no one's ever done that. That's good. That's my name from now on. I love that De'Vannon: he is the host of the coat of Christie Andy podcast, and he is [00:02:00] a, the author of a delicious and nutritious book titled the same. And everyone knows my history, my chaotic and turbulent history with the church. And so when I discovered this son of a bitch, I decided, Hey, John: hi.Hi. Hi, how you doing today? I am doing great. Thank you so much for having me on I love the, the title of your pod. I was laughing cuz haven't had a ton of sex. I've only done a little bit of drugs, but boy, I've done a lot of Jesus. So I'm, I'm happy to be on. De'Vannon: Oh, the way Jesus is packaged by these churches makes him just as much of a narcotic as anything.John: absolutely. Absolutely. De'Vannon: So you've had all the drugs and so. In your own words, tell us your history and everything. Before I open my cock holster and do it for you. John: all right. Sounds great. Yeah. So I grew up very religious [00:03:00] very Christian. I had what you might call like a, a reformed upbringing, which is kind of a more conservative and formal version of evangelicalism.And my dad was in leadership in the church. Church was a part of life. We went to Sunday morning and evening service. We went, you know, a couple times during the week. And so all my social life was at church. I was homeschooled. So church was kind of the world to me. But I was always a pretty skeptical child.Things didn't quite add up to me. So it wasn't until age 11, where I officially converted after asking a lot of questions about how we could trust the Bible and what if we're all questions? And so I was really good. Other than that, though, I was a goody two shoes, you know, never did nothing [00:04:00]wrong.But then after I converted to Christianity officially, I yeah. Decided to take it very seriously to the point where at 17 years old, I felt the call to be a pastor. And so started looking at college options and. There weren't a ton for undergrad. And so I was like, well, I want to, I wanna get going now I'm on fire now.Praise Jesus. So wanted to, I wanted to go be a pastor and I didn't want to have to wait eight years to do it. And so I found a good at the time reputable college where I could study biblical exposition. So I went and got that degree. I have a bachelor of arts and biblical exposition with an interdisciplinary literature and got that, got married, got hitched.And by the time I graduated, [00:05:00] I was a little burned out. I thought it was just normal ministry burn. And so I figured I'll take a little time off from this church stuff. I'll still go to church regularly. I was still a youth pastor. That's what taking it taking time off. Looks like when you're a Christian is just doing less, but still being very active.And so. Then I went through a very, very messy divorce that kind of drove me into a downward spiral. Had a bit of a, a flirtatious dance with alcoholism. I like to say where you know, I, and nothing really mattered anymore. And I was trying to reconcile all the problems I had had with Christianity my whole life that I just kept kind of putting on the back burner.And I got burned by the church. My ex-spouse got burned by the church as well through the process of our divorce. And I was like, you know, I'm not sure, I'm not sure if all of this [00:06:00] is true. Fast forwarding through a lot of funny stories. You get to me living in a van, traveling with my cat across the country where I started to write my book, the cult of Christianity, how church's control, contain, and convert.So I wrote that book was expecting a lot of backlash, got some . But not as much as I was expecting, I suppose. So that was nice and refreshing. And then in early 20, 21 I was thinking of different ways to promote the book. And I was like, oh, a lot of authors have podcasts to promote their books.So let me do it that way. And I was like, but you know, probably only six people will listen or whatever, it'll be nothing. And then the podcast did way better than the book did and so I got to start interviewing people. I was very interested in interviewing, including Christians that's. Some of my favorite stuff to do is get into interviews with [00:07:00] Christians.And so that's kind of what I do now. And currently I'm between seasons, but it's really been rewarding to be able to talk about from both my experience and my expertise. How Christianity, especially white American evangelicalism functions as a cult. That's me. De'Vannon: Hallelujah, tabernacle and praiseSo we're gonna dig deep into everything that you just said. I wanted to get into your podcast artwork though. Mm-hmm cause it there's this huge guy standing on a pedestal platform or a chair or something like that. And then three minions surrounding him and bowing. And I couldn't tell, is that supposed to be God or is that supposed to be the church or a preacher?What does that, what does this artwork mean John: to you? Wow, this is FA nobody's ever asked me this. This is a great question. So I've gone through different iterations of artwork have even consulted with other people to update the artwork, cuz it's pretty [00:08:00] old at this point and I haven't been able to get away from it.And one of the main reasons is I love the non-descript nature of it. There it's it's for, for your audience, it's basically clip art and it looks you can't tell if it's. The gender, the race you can't tell if it's God or if it's a preacher. And I like that because I think that's a lot of what goes on at church who, who is being worshiped.Who's the one bowing, the knee, who's the one on the pedestal. So every time I've tried to make the artwork more grabby or more interesting, I end up saying more with it than I mean to but the, the, the, the way I interpret it and other people can interpret it. Other ways is cults have hierarchies.There's always leaders and followers. There's always one person or several people on pedestals, and then other people just basically having to [00:09:00] submit to their authority and in any environment where that is demanded, I think it can qualify as a cult. My three alliterative words are control containment, conversion.And so I hope that the art communicates like that's, if you were able to zoom out and take away all the social constructs, that's kind of what Christianity actually is concur. De'Vannon: Yeah. I appreciate the, I appreciate the the ambiguity of the huge figure. And I I've said the same thing myself and I've, and I've been, I've done this in the past, you know, worship to pastors without really realizing it.I worship the building, the worship leaders you know, anybody up on a stage and yeah. And, you know, so, and I learned in, in my hypnotherapy training, you know, when a person is on a stage, we subconsciously bow them in a way, you know, before we even realize that just by virtue of them being on a stage.And [00:10:00] we're not really as critical of people as we should be, just because they're on a stage. So you said your Bible college was credible at the time. Did they fall into some scandal or anything since you grew? Oh John: A handful it's moody Bible Institute. You can just Google moody Bible Institute, controversy, moody Bible Institute, title nine moody Bible Institute you know abuse, whatever while, while I was there, I mean about just while I was a student there were about.I would say at least two or three, pretty like nationally recognizable scandals. The thing is, it's such a small school that people forget about it very quickly. The campus I went to doesn't even exist anymore. It's it's shut down. They only have one campus now in Chicago and I believe they're struggling pretty hard.But yeah, the, the [00:11:00] what's funny though, is the education I received at the secondary campus, I would say was, was shockingly solid. It was, it was pretty good. But the culture was brutal. It was bad toxic from the top down. De'Vannon: Lie, scandals and John: deceptions. Yeah, the fun. So De'Vannon: a gondola , but you were pretty good.I read where you, you were one of two recipients of the, the moody Bible Institute, home tical jury award for outstanding ING in the year 20 scene. So does that mean you can hoop and holler or John: what? Yeah, I, I won preaching. So yeah, it was silly. It's it's so every graduating senior at moody Bible Institute, I believe on both campuses faces a Holi jury homily, just meaning sermons a jury, meaning people who judge youAnd so [00:12:00] you stand before, it's usually a panel. I think it's four judges, usually a preacher from the local community, the preaching prof. An administrator and another professor and yeah, scored almost perfect on my sermon. So it was fun. But can you imagine anything more boring than a bunch of 22 year olds preaching 30 minutes sermons for three to five hours over two days and sitting through them and marking them on how good their gestures are, their use of visual aids.Did I get the big idea of their sermon? That kind of thing. But I'm apparently I was really good at it, so I don't know what that says about me, but you, De'Vannon: you preached for three or to five hours straight for three John: days. Oh, I just preached 30 minutes, but there was the students rotate through. Okay.For hours. Yeah. Okay. So what De'Vannon: I'm curious about. You, you, you, you, you just said like a few of the things that they critique you on. [00:13:00] I wanna know exactly how they analyze a sermon for quality, because this is my gripe I have with, with this new culture where these churches, the, they pre-write the sermon, they gotta get previewed by the board or whatever, you know, before it's put out to the church, I feel like they're doing that so they can be sure they have certain keywords and phrases and everything.So they can effectively, still mind fuck the congregation. to me, it feels like it's not as authentic. You know, it as how, when you read, like, you know, the Hebrew Bible and everything like that, when those people preach, they just got up and spoke. It was the same thing were the preachers who raised me.There was none of this. I need to write it down shit. And so, yeah. What, what rubric, what are they checking for? John: Wow. This is a huge, I mean, this is worth a whole episode. I, I, I particularly enjoy deconstructing how servants work, because I think a lot of people don't [00:14:00] even know the process and there are a million different styles.So the camp I was trained in would be called big idea, preach. There are literally books about different styles and structures of sermons. But the I guess philosophy or, or ministry style I, I was trained in is called big idea preaching. Big idea. Preaching just means there's one big idea you're trying to get across throughout the whole sermon.It's you repeat one phrase? The sermon I won on the big idea was God lets us be lonely so that we will know he is our only which boy, is that a problematic statement? But, but it won. And so, so, so many things, one in, in the camp I'm trained in, you memorize your sermon, meaning you manuscript it, you type every single word you're going to [00:15:00] say, and you memorize it.You have no notes. And I'm very thankful for that, cuz it makes you an effective speaker. But when. I'm most cynical about my degree. I joke that I have a degree in Ted talks because that's kind of what sermons, at least in the more trendy churches are now. Some of the more old school, if you're in a traditional Protestant church, you might hear three point sermons that was very common.They'll usually have an alliteration or something like that, you know, three CS or, you know, four DS or whatever. Mm-hmm, kind of a point by point sermon that's pretty common. Most sermons are gonna have a, basically like a, a three part structure, a hook, you know, where you get people interested in listening to you.It could be a personal story or an anecdote from history or something like that. Then it's got the meat of the content that can look like reading through the Bible and commentary style, you know, where you're just commenting on the verses as you're going through, or it can [00:16:00] be principles you've drawn out.You might, this is where you would do word studies or talk about the original context and then application, or what, why is this relevant? Is usually the third part in the style I was trained in. And that third part is where you relate it back to Jesus and the gospel story. So sermons are very ordered and structured now in different eras of history, they have been different things.And even in the us, I mean, during the great awakening, they were very you know, fire in brimstone. We joke about that, but, but they were oftentimes off the top of the head and very impassioned different cultures worldwide have viewed sermons very differently. Sermons, in my opinion, didn't even really exist back in ancient Judaism they, they were more storytellers and, and so there might have been parables, but what we would think of [00:17:00] now as a sermon, I, I don't think quite existed until probably the apostolic era.Probably I don't even personally think Jesus preached sermons which is not a popular belief, but I think he was just speaking and people were following him. And some of it got written down. So, so sermons mean different things to different people. But if we're talking about the word preach and Greek, I mean, it really just means proclaiming or talking.It, it's not a thing that a special person ordained by a committee reviewed by peers is supposed to speak about, it's not an academic thing or at least it wasn't originally. So it's definitely turned into something quite different than it used to be.What do De'Vannon: you think about Joel Ostein? John: I love him. De'Vannon: wait. I bring him up. I know. I, I get to sarcasm in your toes. Yeah. I, I [00:18:00] bring him up because that's the church that I was at before I got kicked out. And mm-hmm, I talk about, I talk about Lakewood church a lot because that's where my greatest church trauma happened at.Had it been at beque church of God in Christ or Sally's church, or the way that I would talking about beque or Sally and not Joe Ostein, but that's just where the shit went down. And it just happens to be the largest church in America. And but it's convenient for my task. Since he is, since he does own the largest church in America, other churches look up to him and they try to emulate the things that they do.And so, and that's why I like to dissect them all the time, because you have a lot of people, there's people who even like stream and broadcast their service into like their gym auditorium. And that is their service. Right. At least the case when I still went there. So their influences is global mm-hmm what, what do you, what, what, just tell me what you think [00:19:00] about them.John: So I have a, probably the strangest X evangelical non-Christian anymore relationship with Joel Ostein in that everyone wants to talk about him. And they did when I was at Bible college too, like in, in a negative light. And he deserves a lot of it. Don't get me wrong. I mean, he is, he is very like outwardly Almost unapologetically in it for the money.I mean, you don't have to be a super like analytical person to just look at his church and go something doesn't add up here. The problem with him is he is a great scapegoat for more local churches and people who think they're better than Joel Ostein. And they're not doing the exact same things that Joel Ostein does.He's a great scapegoat for them to say, yeah, you gotta watch out for wolves and sheeps closing, like Joel Ostein instead of facing how they operate Colts in very similar ways. So [00:20:00] that's kind of the angle I come at it from don't get me wrong. Everything negative anyone's ever said about Joel Ostein is probably true.But he does not scare me as much as the local churches do. Primarily because local churches don't have a national audience. They're not under the same kind of microscope. They can get away with a lot more. So those are just my initial thoughts, but I'm happy to dig into more De'Vannon: dissect the preaching style.So when I was there, people used to, you know, criticize him for being too happy. They would say people would jump up in the middle of a sermon and holler and stuff before security and their asses out of the building and stuff like that. I'd show up the church and there'd be protestors and everything like that.I thought all of that was a bit extreme. Mm-hmm but, but I don't know. I mean, on the one hand, I [00:21:00] was like, I'm happy to hear something happy instead of the fire in the Bri me Stoney. But since after I got kicked out of there, I went through so much bad stuff. The person I am now like a message, like his would be too, like Milky, like it wouldn't sustain.Like it, it doesn't really speak to deep shit. John: Yeah. Well, so the it's kind of like the concept of toxic positivity, right. He, and, and in Christian circles, they'll call it the prosperity gospel. So yeah, I think that's bad. I think it's bad not to be able to admit that life is tough and hard and like has bad things in it.And when you're unable to articulate that it's suspicious. I because the background I came from was never positive and toxically cynical. Again, Joel Ostein doesn't trigger me as much. I'm like, oh look, someone being a nice person. Who's a Christian. That's refreshing. [00:22:00] So, so that's kind of what I, I think, but I will say, so I read, I read your best life now.And I, you know, I was in a culture that thought Joel Ostein was the devil. And so I always kind of was more charitable towards him than a lot of other people. But as far as the preaching style, he's a great speaker and people who emulate him are gonna be great speakers. Why? Because it's the same formula Ted talks do.You can watch a Ted talk and think it's the most amazing thing you've ever heard. And then you sit back for another five minutes and you're like, I have no idea what they actually. Like, I, I don't, I don't know if they said anything of value at all, or if they just have such a good speaking style that it was engaging, regardless of whether the material was actually relevant to anythingSo I think the same thing goes on with Joel Ostein. I think it's nice to listen to 'em it feels good. And then you sit back and you go, you didn't really say anything like nothing, [00:23:00] nothing profound was said, I De'Vannon: concur. And y'all when he says your best life. Now he's talking about Joel's first book. And I read that one too.And I agree with you. I was like, and even as I was going to church there for all those years, it got to a point, well, the sermons started being repeated from time to right. And then I would kind of be like and especially now that I'm away from it, I'm like the fuck that you really just say , but you know, that's a part of the whole.Hypnosis aspect of it, you know, by the time you're done with all the laser lights and the worship and the smoke fog and everything like that, your critical mind is blasted. Like you don't have any yeah. You're just open to whatever the fuck is going to be said. And and what you said about it being a formula, it's true.Like I see the same shit replicated in all the OST stings, the way they preach. Mm-hmm, be it, the ones there at Lakewood or their extended family to have other churches in Texas and stuff like that. [00:24:00] And the way they all crank out these books and everything, you know, it finally collected me when, like, this is not it's like, so like rare and special.This is not necessarily God saying thou shall preach this. Or thou she write this book, right. Bitch has got an ABC 1 23 algorithm. And you're just repeating the same shit over again. Mm-hmm and then my problem is with that is that they don't share it to the whole world. Like they're only giving it to like their select few people.Yeah, John: well, any good business model, you don't give away all your content for free, right? And churches are no different. You know, they, they claim everything is free. But it's not, it's, it's a, it's an MLM. It's you know, the, and, and that comes in my opinion, from their theological perspective, that all you need to have a good life is to just believe Jesus was God.I mean, that's a crazy formula to assume, and it comes with a million asterisk because you can [00:25:00] believe Jesus is God, but then all of a sudden you have to serve in the church. You have to have these kind of sexual practices. You have to raise this kind of family. You there's a lot of strings attached the further in you goDe'Vannon: hallelujah, tabernacle and praise. So I wanna go back to this divorce, so sure. How do you identify sexually? John: I don't no, I I I, for, for the sake of my queer friends, I will say that I am SISs head to society. SISs head SISs head SISs head as I'm a cisgender man heterosexual. Sure. Yeah, we'll just go with that.Personally. My, my personal feelings about sexuality is everybody's on a spectrum. The labels are helpful sometimes, but for broad stroke purposes, but if [00:26:00] you actually wanted to get to know me, a simple conversation with a simple label will never do the trick. Oh. De'Vannon: So I might get to have my way with you yet.John: gotta keep the hope alive. De'Vannon: Hercules Hercules. And so, yeah, so, so. I wanna know just how nasty it got with this divorce. Cause I've talked to people like I was kicked out cause they found out I wasn't straight. And they were like, basically you're pedophile will give you conversion therapy if you want it.Other than that, you can't stay. Yeah. So when, and I, but I I've heard of churches treating people who get divorced the same way. Like I don't think getting divorced is I have a lot of opinions on that, but just tell me what happened. I wanna know just, just how nasty did they get? John: Yeah. So I I'll mention, you know, there's obviously parts that I'll omit just outta respect for my expo.But what I will say is it, it came about suddenly it wasn't directly related to any [00:27:00] spiritual issues. We were both, I mean we met at Bible college. So, you know, there, there were expectations that went along with that that I think. Both of us had expectations that changed as we got older, but had no tools to communicate them because we were so indoctrinated to do it a Christian way, but the Christian way did not fit what we wanted to be in our life.So and I wish I was as mature as I am now to, I, I would never have been able to articulate that while it was happening. And, and I was a pretty bad husband. I, I do take 99, if not a hundred percent of the responsibility for that marriage ending. But as far as how it related to the church, they wanted to be so involved and basically micromanage the process of us getting [00:28:00] back together, which initially was both of our goals.When we first separated, we did, we didn't do a clean break. You know, we were. She they had moved out and we were trying to you know, figure out if there was a path forward. And we were, you know, seeing a relationship coach we were actually communicating better than we ever had, but the church was concerned that our relationship coach wasn't, you know, a biblical counselor or whatever.And every time they would meet with us, which we met with them a lot both the head pastor and associate pastor it was like a very mob like, or mafia, like where, you know, well, what are you, are you doing it this way? You know, what, what kind of do, are you interested in our community? I, we would sometimes skip church, right?Because we were exhausted cuz it was an exhausting time and every time we skip church, they would say, even if it's too triggering for y'all to come to ours, you'd need to be going somewhere. [00:29:00]You should never skip church basically. And so it, it, it. It really hurt because by this point I had been burned by churches in big ways, at least two times prior.And so this was definitely a final straw moment for me because I knew what to expect and it happened. And it was just kind of like the, the two previous experiences had really led me to believe that churches can be really toxic, but they're not supposed to be. And the third one was kind of the, the, you know, what do they say in comedy?Two is a suggestion, three confirms the pattern. It was a confirming the pattern that, oh, this is what churches do. This isn't like exception to the rule anymore. They make people feel like crap if they don't do things their way. And it hurt really bad. So that was all kind of vague. I can get [00:30:00]into some more of the details, but, but in general, the idea was.If I did not follow a very specific pass path, I was not going to be welcome regardless of the fact that I had more religious education than most of the congregation, regardless of the fact that I had been a pastoral intern and youth pastor with them, regardless of the fact that I had written some of their policies to protect their children because they had none, regardless of all this effort I had put in, it didn't matter.I was still under their control. De'Vannon: What do you think gives churches the this, this notion that they can poke their nose and the people's personalized? Why do John: they're they're divinely appointed to do so in their head? I mean, that's, that's why they're there. God has put them there to watch over the F.I mean, this is, it is it's from top to bottom, their mentality. [00:31:00] There's there's leaders and followers at church. There always will be because that's, that's the structure that has, has come about. And Catholicism it's stark, right? Like it's, it's obvious, like you have the Pope, you have priests. It's a very, like, you know, they'll even be like you know what clergy is supposed to be abstinent depending on who you ask, but most would say are supposed to be abstinent.I mean, there's like these hu and dressed differently. I mean, these are huge markers, the same things present in evangelicalism and Protestantism. It's just more secretive. It's not as out to the public. They dress different, they talk different, they look different, they eat different. They have different schedules.Everything is different between leaders and follow. Because De'Vannon: when I was and all, all of those activities reinforces the hypnosis and the mind. Fuck. Yeah. Cause it was, I was at Lakewood. They would bring me into the office and ask me if I had a girlfriend. Yeah. You know, see what I'm John: like. It [00:32:00] matters like yeah.De'Vannon: You know, like and that's a huge problem I have with Joel because when he gets on camera, he's all like, everyone's welcome, you know, case sirrah. Yeah. But then he has these policies going on behind closed door that are very discriminatory. Some people have even alleged, possibly legal, you know, and stuff like that.And and so it's just really like a trip. And so you said that you wrote policies to protect children, protect them from. John: Well, just like with any church, you should have policies about you know, relationships with youth ministers and, and kids and, and policies about you know, if, if you're gonna do like any kind of field trips with kids, that kind of stuff, you should just have policies things for parents to sign, just to protect you legally.It's, it's honestly as much to protect the church as anything else from, from lawsuits. But in my opinion, you should also just wanna protect kids from [00:33:00] abuse. And they just didn't have, I mean, they were a pretty young church plant and they just didn't have any after I was pretty much shown the door at that church, I learned they, the policies, they said they weren't gonna use that.I had written, they ended up using them anyways and plagiarizing and saying someone else had written them, not my biggest the biggest crime anyone's ever done against me. So I'm like, I'm happy those policies are there. so it's fine. But yeah, I mean, it's, it's just, it was kind of the, the toxicity of that environment, De'Vannon: because I was wondering.Like when I signed up the volunteering in the kids department at Lakewood, they had like a clause on their saying specifically that they did not want any homosexual serving around their children. Wow. John: That's specific. Dang, because De'Vannon: they hold a they're, they're the type of people who are like, you're either straight or a pedophile and that's wild and that's just where they're at on that.There is no spectrum for them. And so and so when you said you wrote policies to protect children, I was wondering if it was that same sort of anti LGBTQ thing? No, [00:34:00]John: no, I I've I at my most evangelical and at my most bigoted, which I, I would say I was still bigoted. I still never believed in othering.Queer people. It just never, it never got in at that indoctrination. She never sat in there. it just didn't work. My best friend she's trans and we grew up in the same church together. Same churches actually, when I switched changed churches in high school her family did as well. And so when, when sh I, I, even before she came out, like, I, I wasn't super gung-ho about being bigoted.I always thought Westboro was evil, even at my most evangelical, like, you know, that kind of vitriol hate. I never understood, but I would still say, you know, the bigoted things of like, it's not the best way to please God or some bullshit like that. But but yeah, a after she came out and I started reading [00:35:00] more I kind of took the opinion.I was like, even if it is a sin, which I probably did still think it was. I just was like, it just doesn't seem like that big of a deal. like, I, and it's also someone else's business and it probably didn't help at the time that I had my own hatred towards my own sexuality. You know, even just like masturbating felt like, you know, very shameful to me.So I probably thought it was all garbage. So like who cares which is not necessarily the health healthiest mindset. So no, by the time I was, I was writing church policy. I was not I was not like, yeah. And make sure they're not gay, that, that wasn't in my head at all.Hallelujah. De'Vannon: Tabernacle and praise. What, what for you, do you feel like is the deepest, the deepest [00:36:00] religious or church trauma that you received from your time? I agree with you. It really, really sucks when you've served at a church for a while and you have this history and stuff like that, and it all gets discarded right along with you, because in their opinion, you have fallen from grace.You've done any, you know, you've, you've, you know, none of it, none of it matters. You know, the years that I was at Lakewood and the, the 10, the 10, 12 hours you know, the 10 to 12 hours that I was there every week and stuff like that, you know, it's all great. And we can't replace you. We can't do it without you, until they find the blemish.Then suddenly, you know what, we have a new person coming in today and your services are like, you know, no longer need you're fired from everything. Goodbye. Unless of course you do our conversion therapy package. For me it felt like a [00:37:00] bad breakup. It can, yeah, terrible breakup and It was like the end of a relationship.And, and that is my deepest church or religious trauma that I have ever experienced anywhere. So I'm wondering what it is for you. John: Yeah, it's really hard to rank trauma because it all kind of compounds and turns into the same, cuz you know, even if it's not religious trauma, even if it's any kind of trauma, typically you're going to experience similar kinds of trauma throughout your life.Just based on your personality type, your ways of thinking, how you develop as a child, those kind of factors. So it's hard for me to just like pick a, like a silo, like, oh, this one is the, is the kick. I like to talk about my first one, which is it's a very first chapter in my book. I talk about [00:38:00] being I had written a letter to the pastor and elders at 16 years old at the church I was attending. And I I felt that they were not treating the, the youth, the young, young adults and teenagers very well at that church. They weren't being very respectful towards youth and they had different problematic teachings that I was identifying at 16 years old.And so when I'd written this letter, they said, well, let's talk about it. And so they called me into the church into this horrible, like boardroom meeting. And it really did, like, I don't know if you ever watched the apprentice I did. And like that kind of boardroom, it was just very daunting.And they, they, it was three, the three elders I knew the best. And my parents and I and [00:39:00] I actually asked to do it alone. I was like, this is my deal. I wrote the letter. My parents don't need to be here. And so my parents asked if they'd be comfortable with that. So so they asked, they asked my parents, if it was okay, if I faced them alone, they said, yes. And They just ripped into me for like two to three hours. They called my long hair sinful. That was the big, the big thing I took with me, which is why to this day I still have long hair.And they, you know, said the way we dressed was like the world. They said we hugged the female youth too long, me and my, my best friend and just all this crazy stuff. And it was the first time. And, and what was so crazy about it? They were using scripture so wrongly to justify all their shitty opinions, like clearly like no sane person knowing the context or what the [00:40:00] verses even said themselves would use it.There's that verse that says, let no one despise you for your youth. They use that to say, and that means you shouldn't be worthy of SPR of despise. like, it literally communicates the opposite of that. And so that was the first moment. So I think. I obviously experienced in my opinion, probably worse trauma later related to churches.But I think that was of the aha moment of, oh, even if I'm gonna remain a Christian, I really need to pay attention to what they're actually saying and why they're saying it. So that's the one that sticks with me and probably is responsible for some of my current trust issues. My current anxieties that kind of thing.De'Vannon: It's funny to me how, when it's convenient, these preachers wanna be like, Hey, don't be like the world. Don't, don't fuck with be Zub, you know, and don't [00:41:00] do all that. But when it comes time, you know, time for something that is going to to benefit them, Then they want to be like the world. And so I see this when it comes time to the way they structure the church business models.Yeah. When they pay out salaries and shit like that when they organize the churches behind the scenes and form them mezz like LLCs and shit like that, you know, they don't pay taxes and stuff like that. That's one of my biggest gripes against Lakewood because my friend Barry Bowen, who works with the Trinity foundation in Texas, which investigates churches and stuff like that did, did, did some digging and found out that Lakewood church only has like one actual member on file.You know, it's run by the whole, the whole family is on the board. It's just a bunch of, EENs making all the decisions, but, you know, Which is a very like worldwide thing, you know, there's no voting happening. There's no [00:42:00] congregation, no involvement in decisions and stuff like that. So on the one hand, it's like, Hey, you all are a member, but not really.you know, it's just like in word indeed. So we're gonna pay everyone at church corporate salaries, like the world, we're gonna go business model, like the world, we in a structure, our goddamn sermons, like the motherfucking world, but we don't want y'all to hug too much cuz that would be too worldly and don't drink and for God's sake, cause don't go to a gay bar cause we can't have you looking like the world?No, can we John: yeah. Well and, and again, no notice that pattern. Who can look like the world and who can't, the leaders can look like the world, the followers cannot. The leaders, the, the same rules do not apply to both leaders and followers in church. And what's funny is they would teach with, with their words.They would say, because leaders are held to a higher standard, but time and time. And again, we find they're held to a much lower standard than [00:43:00] followers are. De'Vannon: These are the hypocrites that Jesus warned us about. John: Yeah, Jesus doesn't seem like he was that big of a fan of religious leaders. So no, De'Vannon: he really wasn't though.And, and I wanna give a shout out to my homeboy, Steven, from the book of acts who also threw all the shade at the religious leaders too. He got his ass stoned for it, but you know what? A great honor that Jesus stood up from his position, seated at the right hand of God to receive him at his death. So I'm hashtag team Steven all the way.Fuck the preachers. Fuck the Pope. Fuck every goddamn damn body, but yay God. And so, so I'm gonna switch gears now to your, particularly to your podcast up until now. We just kind of like been talking yeah. About you. So your podcast are called Christianity. I wanna read just some of the titles. I think the titles are just like really titillating [00:44:00] mm-hmm Conversion therapy, Catholicism and Protestant Protestantism.There's so much history between Catholicism and protest Protestantism because my friend Jeffrey Crans runs a website called overview bible.com and he get, he has these really colorful pictures that breaks down like the Bible and shit like that, and is really super fantastic. And I cannot wait to have them on my show, but, you know, from him, I learned, you know, originally like the Catholics had like said like 73 books of the Bible and the Protestants had like 66 and it was like this whole thing and shit like that.And I really don't like the Catholic church. Let's see mental health too narcissism marketing divorce, faith versus works afterlife. And then religious freedom, which is one that I pulled a few questions from. Okay. So [00:45:00] So you talk about like what, what, what, what we've been lied to about. And I was happy to listen to your podcast and hear your own words, echo some of my greatest gripes bitches, moans legitimate complaints against the church.And I don't know if they all meant well, if they were just trying to give us their versions of the truth. So they didn't trust us to make up our own damn minds. But I think about how, like when I was raised and they told me don't drink any alcohol at all, because it's all terrible and bad, don't do any drugs at all because they're all terrible and bad.Don't masturbate. Don't look at porn, don't dance, secular music. Don't go to the bar. And as I've gotten older, now, I realize there's actually therapeutic uses for drugs. And the Lord said not to get drunk, but not to have it, you know, not to not have any of it at all. So if you lied about this, then now I don't trust anything else you have to say.Mm-hmm . And so what do you think about that? John: Yeah, well, alcohol is the drug I have the most experience with. So [00:46:00] you know, and so Christianity, especially the American variety has a really strange relationship with alcohol. There's certainly like subcultures kind of like Baptist are, are the ones that come to mind that take a very anti alcohol stance which is odd since if what's reported about Jesus is to be believed.He definitely drank and enabled people to drink. So it's weird to be a complete tea total, but I would also guess that among Christian cultures, alcohol's probably the most abused drug among them because they're, it's not seen as taboo in the us as some of the other drugs. So, so either way, in my opinion, with alcohol, it's kind of one of those things where if they're prohibiting it it's for the sake of their control, if they're abusing it, it's for the sake of control or containment or coping with [00:47:00]what they're dealing with, you know, so to me, it, it always will just go back to the controlling containment and conversion.So yeah, as far as like how they present that and lie and, and make it, you know, either add rules that aren't present in, in scripture or early Christianity. So my perspective probably goes like this, I think. I think Jesus was the first to reduce a lot of rules. And then ever since him, every Christian has added rules, I think Paul added rules, I think actually most of the apostles added rules personally.I think that a lot of the early church was trying to figure out what it was like to not have as many rules as the previous versions of Judaism. I think that Constantine made all these religious rules now have a relationship with [00:48:00] the, the state and with governments, you know, I think after the east west schism, there were, you.At the, the east Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church had arguments about how you interpreted the nice creed and, and created more rules out of one creed. I mean, it just, it, it snowballs to the point where you're in the United States and your average church is just going to say things that are, that don't have a source in the Bible that don't have a source in historical understandings of Judaism that don't have historical understandings of what's reported about Jesus.So the lies, whether they're intentional or not don't really matter. It's just, it's so distant. It's hard to even comprehend or trust much of any of it, in my opinion. Mm-hmm De'Vannon: and you were saying like on this particular episode about religious freedoms, how [00:49:00] you feel like the religious freedoms most often protect.Like already established religions. Yeah. As opposed to individual people's religious freedoms. And you give a really nice history of how there used to be all these Christian mandates at different states. And they used to have to recite belief in the Trinity or stuff like that. I think like in Massachusetts.So speak to us about how the religious freedom in this country is really more for organized religion and not John: the person. Well, it's, it's, it's not very much freedom or religion, right? Like it's, , it's it's it's politics more or less. I mean, freedom. The word freedom means very little in Christianity across the board.In my opinion, I the only freedom that I ever resonated with was this idea of freedom in Christ. And now looking back, I'm not sure how much I even resonated with that idea. There's this whole problem of free will of like, does God control everything or are we. Just kind of robots following a script [00:50:00] or are we just doing whatever we want and God judges us based on it.I mean, it's, it's very confusing when you start getting into the idea of freedom and Christianity specifically, but true religious freedom would look like I can practice my religion in any way that doesn't harm others or myself. That's, that's pretty simple. I don't know what that has to do with abortion.I don't know what that has to do with marriage. I don't, I, I don't understand what the disconnect is there. From a rational perspective, I really didn't understand it that much when I was a Christian, even when I thought that gay marriage was sinful, whatever, I thought that meant, I thought it should be legal, cuz it didn't make any sense.Right? It's like, well, marriage is a legal process in the country. It's it's the same word. Clearly means something different to Christians than it does to non-Christian. So why should we be regulating what other people do? Again, that, that [00:51:00] controlling that cult-like mentality of thing, everyone needs to do it our way or get out.That's present in this, this idea of religious freedom which really, again, it's just a, it's just, , it's just a lie. I mean, it, it really just means Christian exceptionalism. I mean, that's probably the, the best term for what it's actually describing De'Vannon: hall, tabernacle and praise. And you also were saying like how the religious rules, the people, and now this is all.White men making up all these rules and shit like that. One of my biggest gripes is that when all this shit was done, when king James, who, according to the book of queer documentary on the discovery channel king, James himself, the author of the king James Bible was a big old queer honey, if you haven't seen it, you need to watch it.You know, all these people, these are all just like white homies. [00:52:00] They didn't have women at the table. They didn't have indigenous people at the table. They didn't have other racists. And certainly not black people, not in this country. We were only three fourths of a person for fuck's sake, you know, for so long, they didn't give a shit about what any of us had to say.And so, so it is impossible that the Bible was interpreted, translated and put together and all of this with everybody in mind, this was written white perspective, you know, Sounds about white. Let me see here. Mm-hmm so, so you said that, you know, religious, the religious rules were designed though by some white man who had some God sense because not every white, white boy is a fucking fool.You actually have some John: good one. We mostly are though. just to be very clear. We're mostly fools. I was gonna say De'Vannon: it. And so if you were saying like the, the few good white men actually put these religious rules in place to protect the church from hurting people, you were saying really didn't originate from within the church.The church had their own way. They would've spun out all [00:53:00] Willy nilly. So talk about how the, the rules are really designed to, to, to stop the church from becoming a monster, even though it did anyway. John: Yes. You're talking about some of the founding fathers at the beginning of the, yeah, so, so the, so first of all, not only were they white guys, they were white young guys, the worst kind you know, at the, at the founding of our country and like.It's there's there was so much religious tension at the founding of our, you almost never hear this, but like it's, you don't have to look far. You can just read what these guys wrote. They like, some of them thought Christianity was the worst thing that has ever happened in history and wrote explicitly saying that, I mean, I'm paraphrasing slightly.I might be paraphrasing in a nicer way than what they were saying. And then there were some who thought it should be a theocracy straight. Puritans very much had this mentality that we just need to be [00:54:00] completely different from the church of England. That's what we need to be. Then you had you know, like you had clashing of cultures at the beginning that state to state the religious culture was different in the original 13 colonies.You know, the north was much more well, I'll start with the south. The south was much more like Calvinist and like formal. The, the middle colonies had much more of this kind of quakes, like approach to spirituality. And then the north was creating something new entirely. I mean, it was, we've always been divided.There's never been like a Christian nationalist foundation. There's never been a Christian nation in that sense. And there's also never been like a completely anti-religion vein through what was written. History's complicated. and sometimes we're just too dumb or too lazy to actually take a look and read about all the different things that are going on in an era and just read what the winners said.And that's really [00:55:00] irresponsible in my opinion. So yes, there were some rules that were trying to protect people. The first amendment was supposed, was never supposed to be. Churches can do whatever they want. It was always supposed to be we'll keep the church under the law. As long as the church understands, they are not above the law, they can do whatever they want.That was what the first amendment was supposed to be. Now it means churches are above the law. They can have those tax exemptions. They can abuse people and deal with it internally, unlike businesses or other organizations, they can exempt themselves from title IX stuff, which is what protects people from being sexually abused on college campuses.They can exempt themselves from that. This is the kind of craziness we're dealing with now. And you can only do that if you're master manipulators, who are the, the largest cult that's ever existed, goddamn. De'Vannon: Okay. [00:56:00] So John: In my opinion, I should always say that just after everything, say De'Vannon: child, it is what it is.You know, I pray for people to take their own look at stuff. And it's hard cause you know, people are raised as kids into this cult, you know? And so trying to unwind, fuck somebody, you know, as bad as it is. I thank God for all of the knowledge that's also available. Yeah. Because it's not like you have to go dig up a, a thick ass concordance.Like what I had when I was in, you know, learning and shit, right. That you can like Google shit. You can watch documentaries. You can listen to podcasts. There's so many books about the fuckery of the church. And so a person is only going to stay ignorant if they kinda wanna stay ignorant in this day time.So it's like the worst it gets. I feel like God is also still giving us a way out of it or a reprieve, you know, to some people. John: Yeah. Well, I, I agree. I would say the unfortunate thing about the information age. It is great. It is great that you can [00:57:00] access. I, I I'm partial to books. I think articles are fine, but really to get to know history, especially read a whole book.But I will say what's unfortunate about that is as equal to the truth as we have in the information age, just as much propaganda is out there and Christians are propaganda making machines. They've been doing it for a long time. They're better at it than anybody. So I, I want to hope, oh, with all this information, a kid who's struggling with church will be able to, you know, watch a TikTok video, go down an internet rabbit hole and find out all this good stuff.The problem is they can also go down a rabbit hole and become a school shooter. They can go down a rabbit hole and become a Christian nationalist just as easy. So that's quite frightening to me.So true. So true. De'Vannon: Well, well, people better get close to God and gain spiritual understanding, you know? Yeah. That way you can have some discernment about what it is that's [00:58:00] being presented to you and be able to detect whether or not it's good or bad. John: Discernment's very important spiritual or not, but yes, having a discerning mind and, and I'm not anti spiritual personally.So I think there's definitely a a route that, of spirituality that can be very positive and good for both your own soul and for other people.De'Vannon: Should I throw a touch of shade? Do it. I'm just going to say, say, and I'm talking about Paula white mm-hmm and again, Jolo thing just because why not? I just think it's really, really fucked up when as separated church and state is supposed to be, you see people like Paul White.Hanging out with Donald Trump, you know, of course he was surrounded by evangelicals anyway. And I just, I really, it just really bugs me. You know, I got kicked out of Lakewood for hanging out in S in the gay district, you know, when I wasn't at church. And then Joe [00:59:00] Osen was on stage with Kanye west, you know, who is the last time I checked.Isn't exactly like, you want your kids to grow up and be like that guy, you know, John: he went off the rails. Holy cow. Which time . Yeah, exactly. De'Vannon: do you mean when he was on stage with Joel or some? Just in general. John: Oh, he is just author. Yeah. I mean, just post-Trump era, just post Trump, era Kanye. I mean, he's always been a little bit narcissistic and crazy, but like, man, he really took it to 11 after, after that.And De'Vannon: so it just, it just baffles me, but I guess it doesn't. We don't really know these preachers. We just know the face that put on. When they're in front of the camera, we don't really know them motherfuckers, you know, for you to think that it is a high moral ground to break bread with Kanye west on stage.You know, [01:00:00] I don't get that, you know, and then to be like, Donald Trump is the greatest person. He's the savior of God he's sent, I don't get this. So John: yeah. Unfortunately I feel like I do get it. I feel like it fits perfectly only because from my understanding of the development of Christianity it narcissists are rewarded.I mean, that's just what it does. It rewards an narcissism. And so yes, I, I think it's very sad and upsetting when yeah. Jesus who might have been, I'm really gonna say something controversial. Jesus, who was probably queer himself. Would've definitely Spent more time with, in a, in a gay community than he would've with a, a president.I mean that, I think that's a it's it would be crazy to characterize Jesus any other way. That De'Vannon: do be facts though, because when he was here, he did hang [01:01:00] out with the unpopular people. You know, it was him who defended the, the town who, you know, with him hanging out the John: ma the majority of Christians, even after Jesus died for the first hundred years, war prostitutes, criminals and tax collectors, the outcast of society, those for the first hundred years.And, and probably a little bit after that, but definitely those first a hundred that's who wanted to be Christians, there was a version of Judaism that now accepted those people. Whereas before there was a version of Judaism that would never accept those kinds of people.De'Vannon: So you're saying you believe like Paula white, Joel Ostein, and a lot of these religious people are straight up narcissists. John: Well, you have to be to being right. I mean, to, to do, to have the kind of image they do. I mean, I find, I have to fight narcissism with a small podcast, right? Like, I can't imagine having that many people looking at you.You said something earlier where you said we, we see these preachers, but we [01:02:00] don't really know who they are. I don't think they know who they are because the the religion messes with your head when I was just preaching to a youth group or getting paid to, you know, go across state lines to give a sermon or whatever.I, I didn't have time for introspection. I was a narcissist as much as anyone. It's part of why I was such a bad husband. I, I, you get in your head about these things automatically. It's a, it's a toxic system from the top down and no one is exempt from the, the horrible mindsets it can instill in you. De'Vannon: Give me more of this.Give me an example of a narcissistic thought, a narcissistic thing that you did than you feel like is common among preachers. John: Well, yeah, it's hard for, it's harder to think. It's not like a thought it's like your, okay, so this is gonna, might be long winded. So I apologize if it [01:03:00] is. If you narcissism is primarily bred when it's not like an actual mental disorder, but when it comes about later in life, it's primarily bred from an apathetic mindset, meaning you don't care about anything when you don't care about anything.The only thing that grounds you to reality is yourself. That's it. That's all you've got because you have to live in your body. You have to wake up, you have to go to sleep, you have to eat, you have to do these things. So the only real reality is yourself. So. It rather than having thoughts people treat the word narcissism, like it just means like abusing people or something.Narcissism is unfortunately way deeper rooted than that. It's an inability to get outside yourself in the way it ends up coming out in a more so sociopathic way, meaning you don't care about right or wrong, you [01:04:00] end up just living your life, devoid of taking into account other people's feelings. So for me, one of the biggest regrets of my life is how, when I was married, I just did not give a shit about my spouse's feelings.I just didn't care. My feelings mattered more than theirs. It wasn't like a conscious decision where I was like, woke up and was like, well, what I want matters and what they want. Doesn't that wasn't my mentality. It was bred in, it was a state of mind where I would want to do something that they, and they would want to do something else.And I won because I cared more about what I wanted to do than what they wanted to do. It applies in church culture, too. Pastors, you see it all the time as a pastoral intern, I, I had another pastoral intern with me. We had a great, I idea for a homeless ministry that would've been so great. It was basically like make a little, I, I lived in Spokane Washington at the time, huge homeless community.I was like, [01:05:00] why don't we make little kits? Like just, you know, protein bars, socks, like, you know, just, just something to lift their day. We can get the whole church together to put the together these boxes and then distribute them. Then we're meeting people and we're serving people and it's great. And everyone's involved and it's cool.The pastor was resistant to it for bullshit reasons. What size socks is would we get, would we be competing with other homeless ministries in the area? What are we talking about? at this point? And so it ended up not coming to fruition because I think two things, one, I think he thought his thoughts were more valuable than ours.And two, I think he was scared because if I'm able to do ministry better than he is, that's a threat, you know? And, and, and I don't think he was like the most narcissistic person I've ever met in my life. I just think it's bred into the culture. A preacher is gonna be either De'Vannon: really, really, really strong or really, [01:06:00] really, really, really weak mm-hmm okay.And that's just the way it is that the problem is you can't just look at them and tell on which side of the fence they're falling. Right. You will rarely ever hear a preacher say, they're sorry. About anything. John: And when they, without a million caveats, at least at least a De'Vannon: million, and when they change their, I hear them say some shit like this.When they, when they find out they've been wrong about something, they'll say like a, I don't preach that the way I used to, or my, my thinking is evolving. So basically bitch, you're saying you were wrong. And then, so you're not gonna apologize to the people who you misinformed for the past years before your mind changed.Nope. John: Well, and even if they do, this is where the narcissism comes in. Even if there's apology, the apology, isn't about the people hurt. The apology is about them and their growth. And you know how, oh, I, you know, when I was a young preacher, when I was preaching at 24, I was wrong about this, this and this, but now listen to how great I am.Like you're saying, who cares about all those people? He hurt [01:07:00] it's about him or, or she now be progressive there's evil women pastors now too. Gotta be, gotta be progressive progress at that. De'Vannon: Yeah, you're right. They have a lot of eye statements and stuff like that, and they don't care. And, and it's in the book of Jeremiah, I think 21 where the Lord has a gripe against these preachers who, who scatter his sheep and is flock and they don't turn around and go and look for them.And you know, all of us who've been kicked out discarded and everything like that. Like when I got kicked out, no one called no one wrote, no one did anything. Right. You know, I don't know if I was just classified as a heretic and just, just gone. But I mean, the PA the priest, the priest was supposed to put a concerted effort into getting anybody who they lose instead of just charging along trucking along and just writing more books and selling out more arenas and filling, you know, getting more money, you know, you know, fuck a next book, bitch.You lost a member. You're supposed to stop everything to go and find them. [01:08:00]John: Yeah, that that mentality has honestly never been a as, as long as churches have existed. That's never been the attitude of church leadership. Even if it was supposedly commanded by Jesus it's it's, it's never been present in history.Oh, well, De'Vannon: shit. So then the last thing that we're going to talk about and we're gonna have to have you back on and really dig into your book. Mm-hmm ca

united states america god jesus christ american history texas tiktok social media donald trump church chicago lord google bible marriage england books christians christianity trauma german lgbtq arts holy lies satan bachelor kanye west jewish greek abc divorce toxic massachusetts jews hebrews catholic democrats scandals cult positivity alliance pope gotta religious queer fuck trailer literature ted talks conversion hebrew churches deception preaching hanging preachers personally bitch baptist fa kindle pastors judaism colts idols book of acts goodbye spent catholics decided catholicism hypnosis cs hallelujah testament narcissism sermons mm spr digest protestant freedom in christ bri socrates assuming ing ds dang mlm state of mind orthodox ost roman catholic osen ix trust issues upwork protestants joel osteen hebrew bible puritans lakewood llcs aramaic protestantism calvinists holi chruch american legion eens freeup stoney bible college religious trauma milky put together moody bible institute paul white podmatch lakewood church spokane washington idol worship verner praise jesus youand vae westboro bible institute jolo church trauma zub john yeah siss john well john so biblical exposition john oh john yes de'vannon

"I'm Worried We're Becoming A Thought-Controlled Dystopia, Like China!"

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 20, 2022 2:42

John: I'm worried about China. Jane: Oh yeah? What about it? John: Well more I'm worried about the example they're setting, and that western governments will start implementing their technocratic oppression style to turn us all into a bunch of brainwashed, homogeneous obedience machines. Jane: What makes you think Chinese people are all brainwashed and homogeneous? John: Oh my God, don't you watch the news? Have you not heard of their social credit score system? The state censorship and propaganda those people are subjected to? The CCP literally doesn't let them have access to western social media platforms because our free thought and democratic values might interfere with their conformity policing. How have you not heard about this? It's in the news constantly. Jane: Constantly? John: Oh yeah, it's like a major news story all the time. All across the political spectrum, too. Fox News, CNN, The Washington Post. Alternative media too like Infowars and The Epoch Times; even lefty YouTubers like Vaush talk all the time about how bad it is in China. Jane: So because you're being given the same message by all the western media you consume, you're worried about the enforcement of thought conformity in... China? John: Yeah. Of course. Jane: And this is why you're worried that, at some point in the future, that kind of brainwashing and homogeneity might someday be inflicted upon us by powerful people in the west? John: I mean yeah, if the CCP doesn't do it to us first. Did you know they're trying to take over the world? Jane: They are? John: Oh yeah! The Chinese want to take over the world and give us all a social credit score so we'll all think the same. How do you not know about this? Don't you ever watch TV? Jane: How do you know it's true though? John: That they want to conquer us and give us a social credit score? Come on! Open your eyes! Have you seen how they treat their own population? They're genociding the Uyghurs as we speak! Millions and millions of them in Nazi-style extermination camps! Plus they deliberately released the Covid virus to hurt us after cooking it up in a lab, they're taking over Hollywood and infiltrating our political and academic institutions, and they've colonized the entire continent of Africa! Of course the CCP wants to rule us! Don't you ever watch Tucker Carlson? They're truly, deeply evil, and we've got to do something to stop them. Jane: Sounds like you've got this China thing all figured out. You're right, that sounds really scary. I can't imagine what it would be like, living in a thought-controlled dystopia where your rulers are brainwashing everyone into obedience and making sure everybody thinks the same way about stuff. John: Yeah! Finally you get it! I'm glad you've come around. Honestly you're the first person I know who didn't already understand these things about China. Jane: I'll bet. John: So do you think it will happen? Do you think our government will implement a social credit score system to make us all believe lies and propaganda, like the Chinese? Jane: You know, I wouldn't worry about it. ___________ Reading by Tim Foley and Caitlin Johnstone.

Episode 163 Part 2: Unusual Path, Unusual Materials: How 2Roses' Unique Art Jewelry Came About

Jewelry Journey Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 21, 2022 25:17

What you'll learn in this episode: Why every art student should have business classes as part of their curriculum How the American mythology of the starving artist is more harmful than helpful Why it's important to expand a creative business beyond just making How polymer clay went from craft supply to respected artistic medium Tips for entering jewelry and art exhibitions About John Rose and Corliss Rose 2Roses is a collaboration of t Corliss Rose and John Lemieux Rose. The studio, located in Southern California, is focused on producing one-of-a-kind and limited-edition adornment and objects d'art, and is well known for its use of a wide range of highly unorthodox materials. The studio output is eclectic by design and often blended with an irreverent sense of humor. 2Roses designs are sold in 42 countries worldwide and are exhibited in major art institutions in the US, Europe, and China. Photos Available on TheJewelryJourney.com Additional Resources: Website Etsy Transcript: For John and Corliss Rose, business and artistic expression don't have to be in conflict. Entering the art world through apprenticeships, they learned early on that with a little business sense, they didn't need to be starving artists. Now as the collaborators behind the design studio 2Roses (one of several creative businesses they share), John and Corliss produce one-of-a-kind art jewelry made of polymer clay, computer chips, and other odd material. They joined the Jewelry Journey Podcast to talk about their efforts to get business classes included in art school curriculum; why polymer clay jewelry has grown in popularity; and how they balance business with their artistic vision. Read the episode transcript here. Sharon: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Jewelry Journey Podcast. This is the second part of a two-part episode. Today, my guests are designers John and Corliss of the eclectic design firm 2Roses. Located in Southern California, they sell worldwide. 2Roses in an award-winning design recognized for their use of unusual materials. Welcome back. When you look at these things, do you have visions right away? Does something jump out at you that says, “Oh, there's a pair of earrings,” or “There's a pendant. I can do something with this”? John: Sometimes. Corliss: Sometimes. With the way I personally work, I have a table full of all sorts of things. I'll take a certain amount of time and just look and pick and group and put this away. It's almost like a cat playing with a couple of little toys. You put it over here and you scoot it over there. Then we'll have dialogue about it, and we'll talk about things. Then it'll rest, and it'll come back. Sometimes the decision is immediate; sometimes it takes a little while. It's just the process. It's the same thing when John works. He's a little more direct than I am. I've learned from a couple of other peers that it's very helpful to have many, many things at the table at the time, because you can look at a variety of things and the mind just flows. It's like automatic writing. But John's very direct. He'll go through a process and then say, “Come here. Let's talk about this,” and we'll talk about something. Sharon: What's the division of responsibility between the two of you? Does one person do the back-office stuff and the other person makes? Do both of you do the creative aspect? How does that work? John: We're very collaborative. It's a very fluid process. I always refer it to as improvisational jewelry design. We don't set out with a plan to make a series of things, although themes and series have evolved organically through the process. We see these themes—moral themes, humor, political or social statements—just keep cropping up on their own to our particular point of view. But within the jewelry production design, it's really— Corliss: It's fluid. Depending on the task that needs to be done, some things I will be better at soldering. There are some things that John does. He does a lot of— John: Welding. Corliss: Machinery and welding and things of that sort, engraving. That's where things maybe get a little compartmentalized. Not in the creative thinking process, but in the actual, physical production stages. “O.K., I'll take this stage. You do that better, so you do that and we'll talk about it.” That's what happens. John: We don't want to get too far away from our business sides, like, “O.K., who's more efficient for the task?” But we do have certain divisions of tasks. On the back end, when it comes to the hard business stuff, Corliss tends to be the accountant. I'm the sales and marketing guy. She does all the web work. I do social media. I'll do photography and she'll do inventory. We do have certain tasks we fall into, but it tends to be more business operations than the creative work or production. Sharon: Interesting. How many other businesses do you have? John, you have a multi-media empire it seems. What do you have here? John: The main corporation is called Mindsparq. That's really an umbrella corporation. Underneath that, we have a variety of different business entities. There's the marketing company. There's 2Roses Jewelry. We have an education arm, a publishing arm, photography. I do a lot of restoration work. Sharon: Restoration? I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. John: Of jewelry antiquities. Sharon: Oh, really. Interesting, O.K. John: We're working with a lot of museums, auction houses, things like that, movie studios. That's turned into a whole thing unto itself. Then we do light manufacturing. There are a lot of different business entities. Some are intertwined with the jewelry; some are not. Sharon: Corliss, you're doing the teaching on the educational videos or the educational aspect. How does that work? Corliss: Yes, a lot more video now. I found that Zoom has opened up a whole wonderful world for expanding education, where I used to have to rely on being someplace in person, and the students had to rely on airfare, hotel rooms, that sort of thing. I have a very international following with online instruction in all different variants. It has proven to be not only lucrative, but very rewarding personally. John has been very instrumental in helping get the lighting and the connectivity set up and teaching me about different cameras and how to adjust them while I'm doing my instruction, that sort of thing. It's worked out very well. John: I keep her on her marks. Corliss: Oh, yes. Sharon: It's so meticulous when you're trying to demonstrate something like jewelry making, metalsmithing, how to weld something, how to incorporate metal into this or that, because you're so close. It's like a cooking class in a sense. How do you show how to do it? John: Yeah. Actually, the things we were doing with cooking demonstrations when Corliss was more involved in that helped us a lot when we started doing jewelry demonstrations and workshops. Basically, the videography and the whole setup is very, very similar. Sharon: So, you were ready when Covid came around. When everybody was on lockdown, you were already up and running. John: We were. Corliss: Yeah. John: Actually, what you're seeing behind us, we're in our broadcast studio now. Corliss: With some of the equipment behind us. John: Yeah, when Covid hit, we made the investment to set up a complete streaming broadcast studio because it was obvious that this was going to be the transitional network. It wasn't going to just be for the next six months. Corliss: We've always been very pragmatic about trends and where everything is going. During the pandemic, we saw Zoom as something that was going to outlast the pandemic. It was going to cause a shift in education and a lot of other things, business meetings. So, we took the time to invest in learning the software and watching all the how-to videos and getting questions answered. We wanted to be able to hit the ground running with a certain amount of knowledge and have things work correctly, have that person's first impression be a good one, whether it was a student or I was doing a board meeting or whatever. We just saw that as the right thing to do. Sharon: Do you see trends both with jewelry and with this? Zoom will continue, but do you see more polymer clay? Maybe it's me. It seems to have subsided. Maybe it was a big thing when it came out. I heard more about it, and now it's—not run of the mill; that's too much—but it's more widespread, so people aren't talking about it as much. What are your thoughts about that? Corliss: You're talking about the polymer clay, correct? Sharon: Yes. Corliss: There have been advancements made within the community, but I actually see the most innovative work coming out of Eastern Europe. There's a design aesthetic there that is very traditional and very guild-oriented. There's a different appreciation of fine art over there, where in America this is a craft media; it's something to introduce young children to. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it's just a different perspective on it. John: I was just going to add that what you see in Europe is more professional artists. Corliss: Yes. John: Mature, professional studio practices incorporating very sophisticated raw material. Right now, the more innovative stuff is coming out of Europe. How that plays out, that's not to say there's nobody in America. I mean, obviously there are. Corliss: There's more happening now. We're seeing more and more of our contemporaries getting into the large exhibitions, the large shows with very wonderful work. It's very satisfying to see that, but it's been a slow growth, mainly because this particular medium was introduced as something crafty and not something to really be explored as an art form. That came from within when polymer clay was first manufactured from a very small group of people who saw the potential of it. They set the foundation of pursuing polymer clay as an art form. It's taken a while to grow, but it is starting to get a little bit sweet now. John: And that's not really different from other mediums. Look at it: it's just a medium. If you look at the introduction of acrylic paints into the painting world, it took 75 years for those to eclipse other things. Polymers are on that path. Corliss: They were first invented, I think, in the 70s and 80s as a— John: Well, they were invented of course. Corliss: Yes, that is absolutely correct, but as an art supply. They were made in the 1980s. That's when they started being discovered. John: Do you know how polymer clay was invented? Do you know the story? Sharon: No. John: It was invented by the Nazis. Sharon: Was it? For what? John: During World War II, for the leadup to World War II, it was an industrial material that was invented as a substitute for hard-to-find steel and things like that. It was used in manufacturing leading up to the war. It's an incredibly versatile and really durable product, and it's very plastic. It can be used for a lot of different things. So consequently, it was sitting on the shelf for many years, many decades, until around the 1980s when somebody somewhere discovered this stuff and said, “Hey, look at this. We can throw some color into it and do all sorts of crazy, artistic stuff with it.” That's where it took off. Corliss: That was the start of Premo, and now you have countless brands of polymer clay that are being manufactured. Just about every country on earth has its own brand of polymer clay, including Russia and Japan. Polymer clay is very big in Japan. Sharon: That's interesting. John: Including us. We have it as well. Sharon: You are early adopters, then. It sounds like very early adopters. Corliss: Back in that particular time, the internet was just getting started. There wasn't a big outlet like there is today with social media for polymer clay enthusiasts or groups or fellow artists to get together. I learned everything online. There were one or two websites that acted as portals with links to different tutorials and other web pages with information about products, manufacturers' pages, that sort of thing. I learned polymer clay online. Sharon: Wow, online. John: There were no instructions. Corliss: No, there was nothing. Sharon: Wow! I give you a lot of credit, the stick-to-itiveness and determination to say, “I'm going to learn this.” Polymer clay, I took a class decades ago where they used some—is it baked? Corliss: Yes, we prefer to call it cured. Sharon: Cured, O.K. Corliss: And some of the terminology that's been developed recently is to give a little more sophistication to the product so it isn't so crafty. So yes, it's cured. Most of it is cured around 275º Fahrenheit. There are brands that are cured a little bit higher and maybe slightly lower, but a lot of the brands are interchangeable, intermixable. You can have polymer clay look like a gemstone. You can have it look like old, weathered wood. It's very adaptable. It's a perfect mimic. It supplants the use of other materials in different jewelry compositions. It's a very interesting material to work with. Sharon: It sounds like it. Corliss: You can paint it. You can rough it up. You can use alcohol on it, just about anything. Sharon: Recently you mentioned competition. You enter your work into competitions—I call them competitions. I don't know what you call them, where they give an award for best— John: Yeah, exhibitions. That's something we do. It's part of the promotion of your work. It's about getting your name and your work out there in front of as large an audience as possible. It's one way to approach it. We've used that in a lot of cases, and these things are building blocks to how you build a sustainable practice. Being in an exhibition—for example, we've been in the Beijing Biennial for three years running. We've won numerous prizes for that, and we're representing the United States. We're one of six artists that have been chosen to represent the U.S. and one of the only clay artists outside the U.K. That'll pick up a lot of opportunities for us and allow us to make connections in China, particularly within the arts community in China. Just that one event has caromed off into, I don't how many years now it's been playing out, and it has continued to provide opportunities for us to do different things. So, yeah, they can be very, very useful, but you have to also recognize that the opportunities are there only if you recognize them and then take action. Sharon: Would you recommend it to people in earlier stages of their careers, just for validation, to be able to say, “I won this”? Or would you say don't do it until you're ready? What's your advice? John: I don't think we advocate one way or another. All I can speak to is this is what works for us. Results can vary. It depends on how you approach it. We had a discussion about this in one of the arts groups recently, and I was surprised that one of themes that emerged out of that was a lot of artists' discomfort with competition. If that's the case, then that's probably not going to be good advice for you. When you do exhibitions and competitions, you'd better have a thick skin because you need to be able to say, “It's not personal; they didn't like my jewelry.” Corliss: I think one area where we have been a bit instrumental is with younger people who want to enter that first competition for the first time. It's more of an instructional thing. The technology no longer does slides; you do images. It's little things like making sure your images all have pretty much the same backdrop, that they're easy for the jury to look at. Out of the 12 or 15 things that we made, we pick the five or three strongest that we feel would be looked at in front of the jury. When you fill out your questionnaire, if it's anything you have to hand write, please print legibly. It's surprising how careless people can be. Just things like that. Don't be disappointed if you don't get in. You go through the experience of having a binder three inches thick of, “Thank you very much, but no thank you,” before someone comes in saying, “Congratulations.” Then that new little binder starts growing and growing and growing. It's more of a basic instruction, hand-holding, a little bit of counseling and, “Here, go on your way. Just give it a try.” John: For a long time, we confronted ourselves with that kind of thing. We have what we call the “wall of shame.” We post all our rejection letters and say, “O.K., we really suck. Look at this is a massive array of rejection letters.” But I think most professional artists that do exhibitions and things will tell you it's a numbers game. You just keep submitting and eventually you'll get into some, and you won't get into others; that's all there is to it. Sharon: Yeah, I can see how thick skin comes in handy. Corliss: I was just going to say I run to the bathroom and cry. Sharon: No, but you have to have thick skin to do what you do in terms of putting your work out there. You see people looking at it. They walk to the next table. They walk to the next booth. I was talking to a jeweler about this the other day. It's challenging right there. Corliss: I go back again to the early days of the apprenticeship. Speaking for myself, I had some hard masters. I remember one class—I will never forget this guy, Salvatore Solomon. He was a fabulous artist, a very good, well-respected artist, and I'm in class and he comes around. He didn't say a word, just took the piece I was working on, ripped it up. He said, “Start over.” Oh no, that didn't sit well with me, but that was his technique. He was very hard on his students, but he was teaching you a number of things. One, thick skin. Two, perseverance. The experience I came out of that with has benefitted me for the rest of my life. Now, I understand what he was trying to do. Sharon: That would be hard thing to go through. John and Corliss, thank you so much for taking the time to talk with us today. I give you a lot of credit for everything you've built, not just the jewelry, but everything around it. Thank you so much for taking the time. John: Sharon, thank you very much for the opportunity and for taking the time to do this. It's been a real honor and a pleasure. Corliss: Yes, it's been nice. Thank you so much. Thank you again for listening. Please leave us a rating and review so we can help others start their own jewelry journey.

Episode 163 Part 1: Unusual Path, Unusual Materials: How 2Roses' Unique Art Jewelry Came About

Jewelry Journey Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 19, 2022 27:19

What you'll learn in this episode: Why every art student should have business classes as part of their curriculum How the American mythology of the starving artist is more harmful than helpful Why it's important to expand a creative business beyond just making How polymer clay went from craft supply to respected artistic medium Tips for entering jewelry and art exhibitions About John Rose and Corliss Rose 2Roses is a collaboration of t Corliss Rose and John Lemieux Rose. The studio, located in Southern California, is focused on producing one-of-a-kind and limited-edition adornment and objects d'art, and is well known for its use of a wide range of highly unorthodox materials. The studio output is eclectic by design and often blended with an irreverent sense of humor. 2Roses designs are sold in 42 countries worldwide and are exhibited in major art institutions in the US, Europe, and China. Photos Available on TheJewelryJourney.com Additional Resources: Website Etsy Transcript: For John and Corliss Rose, business and artistic expression don't have to be in conflict. Entering the art world through apprenticeships, they learned early on that with a little business sense, they didn't need to be starving artists. Now as the collaborators behind the design studio 2Roses (one of several creative businesses they share), John and Corliss produce one-of-a-kind art jewelry made of polymer clay, computer chips, and other odd material. They joined the Jewelry Journey Podcast to talk about their efforts to get business classes included in art school curriculum; why polymer clay jewelry has grown in popularity; and how they balance business with their artistic vision. Read the episode transcript here. Sharon: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Jewelry Journey Podcast. This is a two-part Jewelry Journey Podcast. Please make sure you subscribe so you can hear part two as soon as it comes out later this week. Today my guests are designers John and Corliss Rose of the eclectic design firm 2Roses, located in Southern California. They sell worldwide. 2Roses is an award-winning design firm recognized for their use of unusual materials. Today we'll hear more about their jewelry journey. Corliss and John, welcome to the program. John: Thank you. It's a delight to be here. Thank you very much. Sharon: So glad to have you. Tell us about your jewelry journey. Were you designers first? How did that work? John: Actually, we both started rather early in life. Corliss started as an apprentice in her father's floral store when she was 10, and I was apprenticed into design and graphic arts at age 12. We both came up in the old-school apprentice system and were working professionally by our early teen. It wasn't until later, in our late teens, that we both started professional or, I should say, a traditional academic trend. So, we've always been in the arts, both of us, very early. Sharon: Were you both attracted to jewelry early as part of this? Where did that come in? Corliss: We met at art school, and our backgrounds and our career focus on developing a creative career were almost identical, so we hit it off right from the get-go. For the first 10 years of our relationship, we focused on our own individual creative paths, but we kept intersecting with each other. Eventually we made the decision to work together full time collaboratively for a creative endeavor. Jewelry, at that moment in time, was the highlight of where we wanted to focus our energies. Sharon: Is that when you met, when you were both part of the apprenticeship, or when you were in college? Where did you meet? Corliss: We met in art school in Chicago. John: Prior to that, we had quite a bit of time to develop different practices and careers. So, we met midway, I suppose, in our journey. Sharon: When you say you were apprenticed, was the idea that you would learn how to be a designer, how to be a florist, and that's what you were going to do? Corliss: At that time, I was being groomed to take over my father's business. I learned not only the design aspect, but at a very early age, I learned cost accounting. I was learning the business aspect of it. I was pretty much indoctrinated from the very beginning that you're going to be an artist, but you're not going to be a starving artist. You need to make a profit out of this so you can flourish. Later on in my career, I had one gallery owner tell me that the work was wonderful, but price it this way because it's one thing to make your bread; it's another thing to put butter on it. So, it was something that I had gotten all along. Sharon: Wow! Most people don't get that so early, so that's great. John: All of the apprenticeships I did, it was all about how this is a business first, and we do creative things like manufacturing a product. So by the time we hit formal arts school, when we first met, we very quickly realized that we had a mutual experience of understanding of the art world and our career path. That's what was a very strong attraction; that we both looked at this as a business career. This isn't about abstract ideas of, “Let's be creative,” and all the mythologies that artists are inculcated with. We didn't seem to have that kind of thinking. Sharon: Were you ahead of your peers in that respect? Were you ahead of your peers because you recognized the business aspect? John: Oh my god, yes. Yeah, it was really like that. By the time we hit college, most of our peers were just starting out. They were just starting to learn their career paths and trying to figure out what they were doing. We already had several businesses going. For us, the academic training was more of a cherry on the cake and polishing skills. By that time, we were working professionals and had been for quite some time. Sharon: Wow! Tell us about the jewelry you make. We'll have pictures when we post the podcast, but it's so unusual. Corliss: We've always been driven by exploration and experimentation with what we call odd media. This is what drew us to art jewelry in the early days. It was like the wild west. Anything went, and we just threw out all the rules of traditional jewelry. Fashion and adornment were being challenged at that time. It was almost like a golden age, where there was a lot of free-flowing ideas, a lot of collaboration with John and me, and a lot of fluid dialogue creatively between the both of us. John: You asked about jewelry, and one of the things is we didn't start out as jewelers. Both of us came to it through a lot of other mediums. Myself, I started out as a painter, illustrator, furniture maker, gem cutter, sign maker, designer of one thing or another, machinery. Corliss went through all sorts of other endeavors herself. Corliss: It was basically when we had been together for 10 years, plus doing all of these interesting things, that we made the decision, “Jewelry would be a great direction to go into.” And just to pull the curtain back a little bit and give a peak, I think one of the nicest things that happened to me at that time was that as an anniversary gift, I received lessons for metalsmithing. I learned how to solder, and that was the beginning of it. What I learned, I taught John. We experimented with a lot of different processes and a lot of different materials, and it just started to take off from there. Sharon: When you say metalsmithing, I would think you would go in the traditional direction, whereas you took the metalsmithing and combined it with polymer clay, it seems, which people don't do. I'm looking at what your website has, and that's unusual. How did you reverse course in a sense? Corliss: We were very much interested in color. At that time, we were following the traditional path of experimenting with color and its relationship to metals: patinas,P Prismacolor pencils, enamels and things like that. Polymer clay was such a versatile material. It could mimic just about anything. At the time, the product was being developed in Europe, where it was originally manufactured, and there was a small group of people using the product and doing some pretty innovative things with it. I latched onto that train very, very quickly and took myself through the learning curve of how to work with it, and I got involved with that particular community for quite a while to absorb everything I could, like a big, old sponge. To this day, it plays a very vital role in a lot of work we do. Because we have been metalsmiths and I teach, I have been able to actually teach the incorporation of some of the simpler metalsmithing techniques with polymer to people who have only worked with polymer and opened up that door to them. It's been very rewarding in that respect. John: You made a good observation about that crossover because as Corliss mentions, it's really a two-way street. What we recognized after a while is that introducing polymer clay to the metal world was one side of the sword, and then it was basically introducing metals into the polymer world. Corliss has developed a whole range of courses, workshops, if you will, going in both directions, and that's become a business unto itself. Sharon: You seem very entrepreneurial. You seem to go on and on. Corliss: As John would say, there are many paths to the artist's income. John: Yeah, entrepreneurialism is really baked into the DNA. I have to go back to the apprenticeships that we both did that gave us a foundation in—I always express it as art as a business and business as an art. Corliss: It was a work ethic, too. John: Yeah. So, we tend to always look at what the business opportunities are, how to make money doing this. That's always an issue for anybody in the arts, and that's also part of what we have advocated for for the last 40 years. I have worked with the California University system for decades trying to introduce a business curriculum into the arts, and it's taken 40 years to actually get that message across. It's only been in the last 10 years that we've started getting any kind of acceptance. We've developed many programs for various universities to teach the business side of art, and it's been an obstacle course to get that through. It runs counter—or at least it used to run much more counter to the academic approach to teaching arts, which focuses more on technique than actually earning a living. Corliss: I've had quite a few experiences with individuals who were poised for graduation in the next six months or so. We would have conversations about, “I don't know what I'm going to do next. I'm going to graduate, but I don't know how to start a business. I was never taught how to make this a practice.” That's where everything started. It started by recognizing that there is a need for it within the education system. It led to developing more and more sophisticated ways of instructing people and getting them a little more prepared for what comes after graduation. John: The thing we found, though, is that this is a uniquely American perspective. We've developed programs for Canada, for Mexico, South America, and they embraced them. To them it's a no-brainer. It's only America where we've encountered any resistance to it. Sharon: Interesting. Why do you think that is? John: I think a lot of it is the mythology of art. I want to be specific about this. We are focusing on metals programs and jewelry design programs for this kind of thing. When I was involved in SNAG, we got into this quite in-depth. One of the biggest impediments is that the instructor basically had never operated a business himself, so to them, they were being asked to teach something they had no experience in. Basically, they got their master's degree, and they went from being students to teachers. That's it. The idea that there was another world out there, they would say, “Yeah, that's great. That would be wonderful, but that's not something I have any experience with.” Sharon: That's interesting, the idea that art should be pure and sell itself. John: That's one of the mythologies, so Puritan. It's your labor, I guess. One of the things that occurs to me: many people in the arts define themselves by what they do with their hands, and we have never done that. We conceive the opportunities of who we are by what we do with our minds and how we harness our creativity and create opportunities for ourselves to express that creativity. Jewelry is just one of those things. We have a long history in developing businesses, which goes back to the apprenticeships. From our perspective, it's all creative endeavor. Corliss: I was a pastry chef. Sharon: Wow! John: A television pastry chef, no less Corliss: Yes. John: And she basically made formulations for a lot of very famous restaurants and product lines that you would know of. Corliss: Making the croissants for Marie Callender's. Looked up the recipe for that. Sharon: Wow! John: That's Marie right there. Sharon: How did all this meld into jewelry? I know you through Art Jewelry Forum. I know you do art jewelry, but how did everything you're talking about meld, at one point, into art jewelry? I know you do a lot of other different things, but in terms of the product, let's say. John: We were both active artists in various spheres. One of the things we were doing a lot was running mining and prospecting operations. We were accumulating massive amounts of gem material, and it came to the point where we had to make a decision of what the hell we were going to do with all this stuff. That's when we came upon jewelry. We could either sell the material wholesale, which we were doing, but really the profitability in jewelry is that we had to finish the faceted stone and polish the rough material. You get the material by the pound, but you sell it by the carat. Corliss: It was lapidary skills that was the predecessor to this. We were making cabochons. John was faceting and we were also carving. We were carving a lot of natural materials, like bone and wood. The jewelry morphed from that, and it started selling. I was actually schlepping things in a big case, and we found that our work was being very well received. It grew and built from that. Soon enough, we were incorporating precious metal into our pieces. John: We started doing more of what I would call conventional jewelry, and we had quite a success doing that. Early on, we got contracts with Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom and some larger chains, and very quickly we found out that doing that kind of work is not what we wanted to do. Corliss: Yes, multiples. John: Like doing 5,000 of something. You can make money, but the toll that takes on your body—I know a lot of people that do that, and all of them have wrist problems. It leads to health problems. So, that kind of jewelry was when we were getting started and taking off. When we discovered art jewelry, we lost our minds. It was the wild west. It was all of our art training, all of the things we thought of ourselves as, what we wanted to do in terms of unfettered creativity and experimentation, pushing the boundaries and the edge. That's what was happening in art jewelry. So, we said, “Yeah, that's where we want to go. If we're going to do jewelry, that's the kind of stuff we're going to do.” That's basically how we backed into this world. Corliss: That's how it opened us up to a lot of different materials. We were in the frame of mind of purposely going out and looking for materials in a lot of different places, everything from upcycling to computer boards and things of that sort, a whole variety of things. We had friends who would tease us and bring us little offerings we could use in the studio and comment, “You two can make something out of anything.” We took that as a wonderful compliment and put ourselves in a position to receive a lot of very interesting material we could use. John: Well, we had good circumstances and still do because of all these other businesses we were involved with. We had connections within the military, NASA, foreign governments, lights and heavy manufacturing, the medical industry. We were getting access to this insane array of stuff and materials. I've got stuff from someone's space capsule, a jet fighter, fossils of every kind, medical devices you wouldn't normally get your hands on. All of this became fodder for “Let's make jewelry out of it.” One example: I have what we call the world's most expensive pair of earrings. One of my contacts ran a medical manufacturing business, and they spent something like $35 million developing these little— Corliss: Chips. John: Yeah, for CAT scanners, and they failed. They didn't work as intended. So we stocked six of these prototypes, which literally cost $35 million, and they were like, “Well, we can't use them. Here, make some jewelry out of them,” which we did. We made earrings out of them, and I love that particular piece. It has a story because they went from being extravagantly expensive to being completely worthless, and now they're a pair of earrings. Somebody put some sort of value on it, I guess. Sharon: It sounds like people who know you just ship you boxes and bones and screws and whatever they have. John: We receive regular offerings from friends, which is a delight; it really is. Over the years, we've developed a solid foundation of collectors. We get a steady stream of commissions, and it's very typical to hear, “I have this thing. Can it be—” I mean, we've gotten everything from antiquities— Corliss: We have Roman coins and special pottery shards. John: And crazy stuff that people say. “Here, use this as the starting point and make me something.” We actually got a guy's pacemaker one time. “I've had this inside of me for the last six years, and now I'm going to wear it on the outside.” Sharon: That's an interesting idea. John: It was quite an interesting piece.

Cool Science Radio | June 30, 2022

KPCW Cool Science Radio

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2022 50:23

On today's Cool Science Radio, Lynn Ware Peek and John Well's guests include:(01:02) National Geographic explorer, TED talker, and award-winning documentarian Lucy Cooke who explores a fierce, funny, and revolutionary look at the queens of the animal kingdom in her new book: Bitch: On The Female of The Species. Then, (25:39) Senior Editor at Scientific American Magazine, Tanya Lewis, who will discuss how an advisory committee voted unanimously to recommend authorizing the Moderna and Pfizer shots for the youngest children. What does this mean for summer, the upcoming school year, and how parents, in general, make their decisions surrounding the vaccine.

pfizer national geographic moderna species senior editor lucy cooke john well science radio tanya lewis

Cool Science Radio | 06-23-22

KPCW Cool Science Radio

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 23, 2022 52:16

On today's Cool Science Radio, Lynn Ware Peek and John Well's guests include:(01:13) Dr. James Garvin, NASA Goddard Chief Scientist and Principal Investigator for the upcoming DAVINCI mission. DAVINCI will explore the evolutionary histories of Venus versus Earth by measuring the detailed chemistry of the atmosphere and local surface using both spacecraft flybys and a descent probe.Then (27:41), NASA's Dr. Compton Tucker joins the show. Dr. Tucker specializes in studying the earth with satellite data. Among other things Dr. Tucker studies global photosynthesis on land, determining land cover, monitoring droughts, providing famine early warning, and predicting ecologically-coupled disease outbreaks.

earth nasa da vinci principal investigators john well science radio

Cool Science Radio | Jun. 16, 2022

KPCW Cool Science Radio

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 16, 2022 52:56

On today's Cool Science Radio, Lynn Ware Peek and John Well's guests include:(1:12) Dr. Atul Malhotra, a professor in the Department of Medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine and Laurent Martinot, CEO and co-founder of Sunrise, have teamed up to revolutionize the way we detect sleep apnea and other sleeping challenges.Then (30:33), Dr. Morgan Levine, assistant professor of pathology at Yale University, who tackles the science of aging and longevity in her book, True Age: Cutting-Edge Research to Help Turn Back the Clock.

ceo medicine clock yale university sunrise uc san diego school john well science radio morgan levine

Tip John Well

Beer Belly Sports

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 1, 2022 73:48

This week we went to Hard Times here in Bemidji, took shots and had a VERY enjoyable time!

nfl sports nba minnesota funny mlb beer bar vikings drinks shots hard times downtown minnesota twins bemidji john well

159: For an Interesting Conversation Listen to a Missionary

You Were Made for This

Play Episode Listen Later May 25, 2022 38:43

When we listen to a missionary it often causes us to reflect. Does my life have a larger meaning like there's? Do I see God at work as they do? Listen in to today's show where we hear the story of a couple who changed the trajectory of their lives by leaving the business world to become missionaries. Why this topic at this time? Today's episode is in response to a podcast listener by the name of Patty who said she'd like to hear more interviews with missionaries. I can see why. They are some of the most interesting people around. To talk with a missionary is almost always an interesting conversation. And more than interesting, whenever we truly hear the story of another person, whether they're a missionary or not, it can't help but cause us to reflect upon our own story. For today's show, I interviewed two of my friends, Billy and Laura Borkenhagen, to learn from them and their life-changing missionary story. One thing that's different about today's episode is that I have a word-for-word transcript of my interview in the show notes. It was done using AI - artificial intelligence software. I have been wanting to experiment with this for a while. And if actual transcripts are something you'd like to see more of, please let me know. Okay. Let's get on with it. Interview transcript John: So Laura and Billy, tell us a little bit about your journey to becoming missionaries. I mean, you both had pretty great careers and you left all of that to become missionaries in a camping ministry. Laura, why don't we start with you first? Laura: Sure. So yeah, Billy and I met in college and Billy became an architect and I began working in marketing. We both worked at the Kohler Company for our careers. I even traveled internationally for, a bit of time, which was really fun and fixed up a house. And I, I ran, I started my own photo business and Billy started working downtown in Milwaukee. We had three kids and life was, you know, kind of how I had it planned in my Excel spreadsheet of how I wanted my life to be. Yeah. And so we had taken our family with our three kids up to camp just to attend a winter camp and, just really had a great time. And so the next year we decided to go back and while we were there, I was reading in the dining hall. They have all the missionaries, like a little bio about each one of them and I was reading them. And at the end there was a job posting. I wasn't looking for a job, but I just, in that moment, I knew that that was my job. And that kind of just started a journey of us asking questions. And yeah, it was a bit of a story, but we, we ended up both joining as missionaries at, at Fort wilderness. And now we're here in the north woods. John: Well, tell us a little bit about what camping is at Fort wilderness and what your role is there. Laura: Sure. Fort wilderness is a camping ministry it's in Northern Wisconsin and it really aims to do, do four things. They get people out in God's creation in the outdoors just immersed, in what God's created, gives people God's word. So at all the different camps and retreats, there's always a speaker or, or way for you to hear, hear God's word. And then they use adventure programming. So things like horses and water slides and tubing Hills, and swimming and all sorts of adventure things. And then the fourth one is community. And so, so you're, you're always in Christian community. So it uses those four things and it's year round, summer, winter fall. And then there's camps for families. There are things just for youth where they get dropped off for, for a week or so there's a college age program. And then there's adult programs where it's like, just adults, like a men's retreat or women's retreat. John: So you're doing, you're doing your marketing thing, part-time from your home and Billy's still working in the Milwaukee area as an architect, correct? Laura: Yeah. That's how it started. I, I saw this job posting and I said, Hey, would you consider someone working part-time remote because I'm not moving that was my quote. And funny how, how God, every time I've said I would not do something, I feel like I've done it. John: Yeah. Laura: Yeah. So the, they were like, well, maybe like why? And I was like, well, I'm not interested in moving, but oh, I'd love to like work for Fort. And so they entertained the idea. They're like, sure, like think about it, pray about it. So I applied, I interviewed and I became the first ever remote employee. Working from the Milwaukee area while Billy was working in Milwaukee and the plan, I was willing to raise support as a missionary, but they said, well, we've never had anyone working remotely. So they offered me a six month contract where they paid me and they said at six months, if it works out, then we'll talk about raising support said, okay. So the six month mark comes and, and COVID had hit. And so I, I was not the only remote employee anymore cuz lots of people were working remote at that point. Laura: But the six month mark came and we were up at camp helping out and I was supposed to have this meeting about raising support. But before that meeting Billy's boss approached him and said, Hey,, there's really no job available, but I really need an architect. And you're married to Laura. Like, would you guys consider moving up here and, joining staff. And we were like, um maybe I'm not sure. And so the short story, they sent us home and said pray about it for the next 30 days. And we said yes, after that 30 days, cuz we really felt, felt the Lord every, there was a hundred instances where we felt like, wow, the Lord is just really showing us and opening this door. John: Yeah. And Billy, that was quite a, I mean it was big change for Laura, but, but you actually gave up a pretty great job as an architect. How did, how did that, how did God work in your life to, to do such a thing? Billy: Yeah. I really thought that I would retire at HGA cuz it was a really good firm and my opportunity to work there was pretty unique and through one of my college professors, so I had a good job and I liked it. I think the shortest way I can answer that. The short story is that by a combination of the opportunities at Fort wilderness, the special needs that they had and then some things that God was doing, not only in my life, but in Laura's life, separately, but at the same time. And each of us made it pretty clear to us that this is something that, we should step into. And that was kind of the answer to the prayer that we got. So that's the very short version of that story. I think the longer version is that God had showed me very clearly that we weren't in total control of our lives. Billy: As much as you think you are, as much as you think the way you live or the job you have or the community you're in is giving you some sense of control God had shown us in personal ways that we're actually not in control. And so that put our minds in a place where I think we were willing to consider leaving all of the stuff that we've built up over the years and taking a risk of stepping in, into sort of this unknown role and fulfilling this, what was a, a clear need, but an unknown role for us. And so the timing of that sensation with the open doors and the opportunities and all of that is really what compelled us to seriously pray about it and determined this is where God was leading us. John: Mm yeah. So it's not like you were, you were running away from something that, you know, things are going along pretty well. And, but here is something that was better that God was leading you to. Billy: Yeah,Absolutely. I mean, it's still to be honest, you know, sometimes at our worst we're tempted to think like, man, did we, you know, you get to this point where can't go back and you're like, did we make a mistake? You know, going forward. And yeah. And I think a lot of that is just the enemy tempting us and trying to, you know, keep us from what God's called us into. But yeah, absolutely. It wasn't certainly wasn't running away. In fact it was quite when we came to Fort wilderness, for me personally, I had a lot of support and encouragement from peers and coworkers and even my own supervisor when I left and broke the news to him that I was, you know, gonna be resigning in the next month and talked to him. He this was God's grace. Billy: He had offered that, you know, he is like, he's like, I, I'm not gonna ask you to stay and offer you more money cuz I understand why you're doing this, he's like, but if things don't work out in spring and your support raising, isn't going well, he's like just call me, you know, I could throw some work your way and you could work remotely. Everybody was working remotely at that time. Anyway. So things like that were super helpful and leaving on leaving with good rapport and on good terms is, you know, something you still think about, especially in those moments when you're doubting and you know, wondering, and life is seeming more complicated than it probably should be. John: Yeah. Yeah. Interesting, you know, one definition of a missionary is someone who goes from one culture to another culture to, in some ways spread the good news of Jesus Christ. Now you move from one part of Wisconsin to another part of Wisconsin, but did you notice any cultural differences between where you were living in, in an urban setting compared to ....your smiling ... Um compared to living in the north woods? Tell us about the change in culture. Laura: Yeah, yeah. That's such a good, good question. You know, I think, I think I know that I downplayed this. I was like, and we've, we've had this whole discussion of what is the definition of a missionary and, and there's different ones. You know, at Fort we raise, we raise our support, meaning that our salaries paid to us. We had to talk to our church and friends and family and they support us monthly and that money pays our salary. So you know, that, that was one thought I had and because we were doing that support raising, I was like, yeah, I'm mean, and there isn't really the cultural thing because we're in Wisconsin and we're still gonna be in Wisconsin. And I, I should have, have thought about that more. It's been a drastic cultural change, both from just living in the city to living in the north woods, but also just not being on the corporate world schedule economy. Laura.: It's been challenging. I think mainly because I downplayed it. It was like, it's no, no big deal. We're just moving four hours away. It's no big deal.... And it, it has been a big deal. Mm. And I, you know, John, you told us, you have a lot of people that listen to your podcasts that are missionaries. And so I don't want that to come across as we did something as, as hard as moving to another country. In fact, I'm saying, wow, this has been a struggle. And we moved four hours and I can't imagine someone moved actually to a different our country. Yeah. we, you know didn't have language barriers or, or any of, of those things. So I don't, I don't wanna diminish, I mean yeah. Mm-Hmm, even more strength it must take to, to go to another country. John: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. How about for you, Billy? What, how has the cultural change, affected you or did it,? Billy: Yeah, certainly I think, especially cuz we moved from a pretty tight knit community and we had a lot of overlap between our church community and our living community mm-hmm . And so the people that we'd see and bump into at church on Sunday were also people that we'd see and bump into, you know, walking around sidewalks and we're just kind of doing life together. And that's, so it's a little, it's much more spread out up here just physically and logistically to overlap and to kind of get insights into people's lives or invite people into your lives is just logistically more challenging. So that was a, that's a big thing. I think that just drives sort of a different culture in the way. Probably that people are just and this is, I don't like to make general statements, but are just less accustomed to always being around mm-hmm you and other of people, you know, it's just, it's just kind of, there's a different vibe to it. Billy: But I think to add to what Laura was saying one of the challenges, and maybe this is less about culture is just being, feeling unestablished. I think when you go from a place where you feel established or you built a home and a life and you go to another place, whether that's 30 minutes away or on the other side of the world, there's a part of you. I think that I felt that where we feel like foreigners a little bit, like we're not, we, we didn't grow up here. You know, we haven't, our kids weren't raised here. We don't have the history, we don't know the places. We don't know the landmarks, all the, all the things that make you kind of have this sense of home and establishment, we're trying to piece together and, you know, get a grip on a little bit. So in that sense, maybe that amplifies the, what we perceive as like a difference in cultures from one to the other. But I think, that's a big part of it. John: Mm. Yeah. You know, one of those things that, we talk a lot about on the podcast is relationships. Have you noticed any differences in relationships where you're living now compared to where you were living, where you came from? Are they, are they different? Are they the same? How has your move affected the relationship between the two of you and, you know, your children, your parents? Has that been affected in any way? Billy: Yeah, I think , sometimes there might be the sense that if God's calling you to something and you understand that call and you accept that call, that you've arrived and you've, you've kind of done it and accomplished, you know, like the rest of this story is, and they lived happily ever after, you know, and I think that one of the things I've come to recognize, especially with relationships is that God doesn't, you know, call the equipped, but that he calls everybody, especially us to come here to grow. And so we've, I think that Laura and I, you know, between the two of us have had growth in our relationship, even in the past weeks. And some of that, I contribute to God, specifically pushing us and growing us in areas together as a married couple. And a lot of it has to do with, you know, that whole being established thing. I think that maybe he hasn't let us get too established yet because he does want us to not be too dependent on things. He loves us too much to let us get established in maybe bad routines or things like that. Mm-Hmm so he's working on us and you know, would he have done that? Had we not slipped into this fall? I don't probably, I don't know, but it seems like as we're here specifically, you know, making our work, his work, he's been pretty intentional in growing us as a married couple. John: Mm-Hmm. Yeah. Laura: I think yeah, our relationships have, have definitely every single one has changed. One thing we were talking about just tonight was so we had this great community where we lived and with our church and our neighborhood and Bible studies, we were in, like, we just, we had this great, great community. Right. And like, lots of people knew we were Christians, but yet we become a missionary. Right. And, so now all these friends know that we did this big thing and moved, right. And like Billy said, like, somehow you can feel like you've arrived. And, and cuz people would say that to you like, oh, I could never do that, but I'm so glad you're doing it. Like as if we're all of sudden somehow elevated, which is just not true, God comes to us in our brokenness. But, the really surprising, you know, the sad change is like, of course, like you don't keep in touch as much as you want because we're here now. Laura: And a lot of our relationships where we lived, like everyone walked places, we only had one car and we almost never used it. Like, so you would just run into people and connect with them. And so that's gone, like, you know, you still can text people and call people, but like that daily interaction it's not there. And so that, that was a great, great loss, but this beautiful thing that's come is people, whether they support us financially or not, we'll text us prayer requests. And it's like, I used to talk to you every day and you never asked me to pray for you. but now I'm a missionary. And like, I get the honor of people reaching out and being like, Hey, this is going on. I know you said that we could reach out for prayer you prayed for this. And I was like, wow, like, so that's been a beautiful change in, in the relationship. Mm-Hmm. That I wasn't expecting to be honest, like I was not expecting that at all. So, yeah. John: Cool. And, tell us about your, kids. You got three young kids. What about your relationship with them and their own individual relationships? Can you comment on that? Laura: You know, it was, it was a really big change for them too. And, and for context, our kids, when we moved were, seven, five and three, when we moved and, and I thought, you know, yeah, they've got friends, but they're super young. You know, they're not gonna, I, I didn't think it would be a huge deal, but there was a lot of factors. They were in public school, COVID hit. Then they were home. Then we decided to homeschool. Then we decided to become missionaries. And so they had like major change after major change, after, or major change. So I, I think there's been highs and lows mm-hmm and I think, I think something God's taught me in it is you can plan all you want and pick out, oh, this community is gonna be best for my kids, or this school is gonna be best, or this church home is gonna be best. But at the end of the day, there's not one perfect place to raise kids. And it's gonna be hard whether we're missionaries in the Northwood of Wisconsin or we're in this perfect picked out community. Mm-Hmm because we had picked out, you know, where we lived was because of the schools and the church and the community and, and there's pros and cons to any place you live. And at the end of the day, you have to put the time into parenting and you've got to rely on the Lord. John: Mm-Hmm Laura: I think the Lord's for sure. Been teaching me that since we've been here. John: Yeah. Yeah. Were there any surprises when you started, when you moved? Laura: Was that a yes, no question? The answer is yes. John: . Can you share one ? Billy: Yeah, I don't want, I don't mean this to sound critical or anything. But I think that for some reason, I thought that I worked in the secular world and that the secular world was very secular. And then you come and where I was going to work , you know, is kind of the church and the ministry. And so I had sort of this ideal in my mind about how that would look and function, and honestly you get into it and you start to discover like, oh, wait a minute. There's actually like, people are still people even here. And there's brokenness mm-hmm and there's challenges. And there's, you know, places where maturity is needed or places where maturity is really strong. And so one surprises that I found myself in moments, like looking back and thinking like, wow, actually in some ways I found my, my company that I worked for to be, you know, in moments could be more empathetic and in moments could be more concerning about, you know, like work life balance or stuff like that. Billy: And, again, I don't mean that to sound like a criticism, especially Fort wilderness is an amazing organization. And, you know, I think we're super blessed and impressed with it, but there's just a, you know, a reckoning of the ideals that we sometimes falsely build up in our mind about how, how ministry is gonna be this perfect place. Everyone's gonna be working hand in hand in community. But like, in fact it is work and , it's called work for a reason because it is difficult and people aren't perfect and we aren't perfect. And, but yet by God's grace we all, you know, so somehow come together and do something. John: Yeah. Yeah. Cool. For each of you, what have you found to be some of the more rewarding things about what you do? Billy: Do you wanna go, Laura: You can go first. Billy: Well, I think it's really cool being like I'm, so I'm a registered architect and I'm an architect by trade and been doing that for years. And I came from a firm of, you know, there are 110 people in it and like 80 architects, people who think and work like I do. And we, you know, we understand the craft that we come together around to do. So being, being the only architect now has on one hand challenges, because you don't have the depth of resources you had and you know, you're always kind of comparing yourself to your, your past or your peers, in the industry. But on the other hand it's really cool cuz you feel like, man, I really matter here. Like I really like I'm bringing the skillset that's unique and prepared us for it. And I matter in this role and I, I really feel like I belong here. And so I think that's been rewarding as we've seen projects come together and as we kind of solidify with our teams and you know, work together really well and actually see stuff get done, it's, it's kind of a cool feeling. You feel like you really had a big impact on it. John: Mm-hmm great. Laura: Yeah. And I'd, I'd say I think our unique area of ministry of, what Fort does, family camps in general, the people coming are all Christians to the family camp. Like you come to family camp to have a certain experience and you likely wouldn't sign up to attend a Christian family camp if you're not Christian in general. Right. So, so that part of the ministry people come and they are expecting and willing to talk about deep things because you're the missionary staff. And so, you know, I worked years at the Kohler company and had maybe one spiritual top discussion with a colleague because it's like taboo in the workplace to talk about anything. Right. Spiritual. Yeah. Yeah. And so if to get on that level with someone took years of working with them and it's like, we're up here at camp. And like our first summer I'm like, I just had this incredible conversation and this camper was talking to me about that. Laura: Right. And it's just like happening all over. And so that was like super encouraging. And then the youth camps and all winter, the youth groups come up all winter and, and so that you've got just all sorts of people. Like they're not, not all Christians and they're seeking and so yeah, I've just been, just touched the whole, the whole year. And I, I guess maybe it, it, after working corporate world for a long time, I hope that I never lose that this first year joy that every time campers are there, there's an opportunity for an incredible conversation. Yeah. yeah. Yeah. You know, and, and the flip side of that, honestly, though, John is like, there are days when I'm doing my marketing stuff that I just feel like I'm doing marketing stuff. Right. And, and I think as someone who, this is our first time working in ministry and I, I cringe at that term because you work as a Christian, I think you're always working in ministry. You're just not always being paid. Right. Like, yeah. So I guess I think, you know, we're one year in living up here and, and I'm still, I'm still wrestling through, I think a lot of that of am I, am I doing ministry when I'm plugging away at my computer? Mm-Hmm you know, or is it only when I'm talking with campers? Billy: Yeah. Laura: And there's a guilt in that right. Of like, and then you have camp is fun. So it's like, I never wanna leave because I might miss out on some incredible conversation. And then I'm like, but wait, like this isn't about me. Like God is actually doing the work. So I can go home like, , I can go rest. Right. Billy: It's a bit of an identity crisis at times, because it's like on one hand, I'm, I'm a professional who came from the corporate world and I'm, for me, I'm an architect and I do architect and we drive projects and I know what to do as an architect. So I've got that title. But on the other hand, I'm sort of this, I guess, cliche, missionary title too, you know, it's like, and so I feel like, like you're saying, if I'm doing my architecture stuff really well, it takes a lot of, you know, time and dedication. And I feel like, okay, I'm, I'm being a good architect, but now I'm not being a good mission area because I'm not doing ministry with people and you know, and so then it's like, all right, now, what is mission? What is ministry then? Billy: Is it designing the projects and, you know, making them successful or is it serving lunch with a camper or having the spiritual conversation or preaching, or, you know, where, when I'm an architect one minute, and the next minute i'm a missionary and, you know, maybe, you know, why doe it gotta be so complicated? but, but there's a bit of that where you feel like you're doing one well, and you're neglecting the other, or you're doing the other well, and you're neglecting the first and mm. It's kind of a strange gray area. Cause you're, yeah. You know, you're compared to professionals on one hand, but also this definition of a missionary on the other hand. John: Yeah. That was interesting. What have you learned about yourself? You've been there now? What a year and a half, two years, is it Billy: Deep questions. You know, I think, I think one thing that I've learned is I didn't think that where I lived and the house I had mattered to me as much as it apparently did. I Billy: Hmm. You know, and I think that we were talking a little bit earlier about, you know, this idea of being established and all that, and it's, it's more uncomfortable than I probably thought it would be. You know, I kind of had this idea that I could live. We could live anywhere. You know, we're pretty flexible. We're nimble all this stuff, but it's just weird how these silly thoughts come to you. You like the neighborhood we live in now, demographically is, is much poor, very different, mostly all rentals. Like, so you have, you know, it's, it's not hard to see that there's like a lot of brokenness and the families and things around here. And, you know, in Wauwatosa I think we lived across the street where our next neighbor's house was a $600,000 house. And now , I think the house across the street from us is probably worth $60,000, you know? Billy: So it's like Uh, starkly different. And so you have these dumb thoughts of like, man, my kids, like, what are they gonna grow up understanding of it? You know, like how is this gonna affect them and all this stuff. So I think God has used our living situation to expose idols in our hearts and in his grace has pushed us to deal with those things and to really understand what, you know, what is, what is important. And so I think that's a way that I've seen, I know I've been growing in that. I think we've both been growing in that. Mm. Laura: Yeah. I think the biggest thing I've learned about myself is that I had a lot of deep rooted pride in, in money and my own achievements. Like, like I went to college and, you know, I was a straight A student. And so then you, you get the job and your paycheck comes and you're like, yeah, I deserve that money. In fact, I probably should be paid more because mm-hmm. , I've worked for this and I'm a hard worker and right. Like it, you can just, I mean, I never said those words out loud, but I definitely thought them in my head. And then the Lord leads us to this thing that we have to raise support. Right. And every time, so how it works when we get a paycheck, every paycheck there, we get a sheet in it with all these names and the amount that that person gave in that two week pay period. Laura: Mm. And it's really hard to be prideful when you get a sheet like that every week. And you're like, no, like the reason I get to do this work is because all these people believed that this ministry was worth it and believed that Billy and I were being called to it and are willing to give the funds so that, so I can get paid. And every time I open those little envelopes, I'm like, oh, it's not about me. Like it, like, I just it's. I mean, we've been getting them for a year. Like, and I still can just feel like I need that reminder every two weeks to not be prideful. And I'm like, wow, I had a way bigger pride issue than I thought I had. John: Mm-Hmm. Laura: Like, like, okay, like, you know, and so it gets back to this like dual purpose. It's like, has the Lord called us here because we're, we have skill sets and we have something to offer that Fort needs. Yes. But has he equally called us here because he's working in us and, and through us, like, because we're broken sinful people, like yes. Like both those things are true. Billy: Yeah. Laura: And, I think that's a good place to be, to have both those being true. John: Yeah. What advice would you have for someone who is where you were a year and a half, two years ago? What advice would you have for someone who would be considering leaving a secular job to be, to become a missionary? Billy: I would say that if, if God is really calling you to that, then you can't go wrong and he, he's not calling you because you're equipped and you may, and you may be, and maybe you have a skillset to offer, but it's like, Laura was just saying, he's calling you to equip you. He will equip you. And in ways that are far reaching beyond the actual work that he's calling you to do, mm-hmm,, he's deeply concerned with you. He's deeply concerned with the condition of your heart and he loves you. And that's why he's calling you into it. So if he's, yeah, if you, if he's calling you then do it, but it doesn't mean that the rest of the story is, and they lived happily ever after mm-hmm John: Yes. Billy: He calls us to grow us. Laura: Yeah. I'd echo that. And, and I would also say if you feel the Lord's leading, you, you know, you need to get on your hands and knees and, and make sure that he's, he's the one leading that it's not something in your own mind. And, and I think you do that in prayer. I think you do that in, in his word, you do that by reaching out to, to some really trusted friends, which, you know, John, that, we did that when we were in our, our discernment time period. And for us, all three of those areas in our individual prayer in our time spent in the word and the trusted friends we met with all three pointed to, to going. And at that point we said, yes, we didn't, we didn't ask about the money. Or we were like, well, we can't say no. Now, like, if God has said yes, in all three of those areas, like, I mean, that that's, I that's how we discerned our decision. And so I, I put that time in that discernment process, for sure. John: Yeah. Yeah. Well, this has been great. It's getting going longer than I told you it would go. So I appreciate your appreciate your time. If people wanted to find out more about Fort wilderness, how could they do that? What's the website and all of that. And I'll have it in the show notes too. Laura: Yeah. So it's, it's fortwilderness.com. It's a new website that I had the privilege of working on. So thanks for asking about that, John. John: That's right. I forgot. Yeah. That's a great website. Laura: That's been my big work for the last like eight months. It's not perfect, but, but we did launch the new website and you can find out about the ministry there. You can see the missionaries that are serving there and many are still raising support. Yeah. And you can, you can get in touch with us. We love praying for people and getting to know people so, yeah, that'd be great. John: Mm-Hmm. Good. Well, thanks again. We love you guys and we, we miss you, but we're just really, really excited to see how God is using you for his glory in Northern Wisconsin and all the people that come from all over to learn more about Jesus and you are important parts of that ministry, important parts of facilitating that kind of activity and advancing God's kingdom. So we applaud what you do, that's for sure. So again, thanks for your time. And we will stay in touch. So what does all this mean for YOU? Some of the questions I asked Billy and Laura I found helpful for all of us to ask ourselves How has God led us to what we are doing now? How are relationships impacting our lives? What are the rewarding things about our jobs, or if we're not employed, what's rewarding in the ways we spend our time? What have we learned about ourselves in the last year or two? Here's the main takeaway I hope you remember from today's episode Taking the time to listen to a missionary, to hear their story of how God has led them and is growing them, can inspire us to listen more deeply to God so that we can grow too. I'd love to hear any thoughts you have about today's episode. Closing In closing, I hope your thinking was stimulated by today's show to think about how you can listen to a missionary, or even your friends, to hear their story of how they got to where they are today. For when you do, it will help you experience the joy of relationships God intends for you. Because after all, You Were Made for This. Well, that's it for today. In the meantime, create a little joy for the people you meet this week. Spread some relational sunshine. And I'll see you next time. To check out Fort Wilderness, go to fortwilderness.com Related episodes you may want to listen to 139: Why Should I Listen to This Podcast? 143: Initiate with People to Enrich Our Life - Part 1 144: Initiate with People to Enrich Our Life - Part 2 Our Sponsor You Were Made for This is sponsored by Caring for Others, a missionary care ministry. We are supported by the generosity of people like you to continue this weekly podcast and other services we provide to missionaries around the world.

State of the real estate market 2022 with Gary Beasley and John Burns

The Remote Real Estate Investor

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 31, 2022 49:43

John Burns co-authored Big Shifts Ahead: Demographic Clarity for Businesses, a book written to help make demographic trends easier to understand, quantify, and anticipate. Before founding John Burns Real Estate Consulting in 2001, John worked for 10 years at KPMG Peat Marwick—2 as a CPA and 8 in their Real Estate Consulting practice. John Burns founded the company to help business executives make informed housing industry investment decisions. The company's research subscribers receive the most accurate analysis possible to inform their macro investment decisions, the company's consulting clients receive specific property and portfolio investment advice designed to maximize profits. Gary Beasley is CEO and Co-Founder of Roofstock, the leading online marketplace for buying, selling and owning single-family rental investment homes. Recognized as a leader in the future of real estate, Roofstock was featured on Forbes' 2019 Fintech 50 list. Gary has spent most of his career building businesses in the real estate, hospitality and tech sectors. After earning his BA in economics from Northwestern, Gary ventured west to earn his MBA from Stanford, where he caught the entrepreneurial bug and still serves as a regular guest lecturer. Immediately before starting Roofstock, Gary led one of the largest single-family rental platforms in the U.S. through its IPO as co-CEO of Starwood Waypoint Residential Trust, now part of Colony Starwood Homes. In this episode, we discuss the current state of the real estate market and the economy more broadly. Gary and John share their thoughts on what has been happening year over year in the housing market; what 40-year highs of inflation, rising interest rates, and geopolitical unrest mean for real estate investors; and highlight some of the risks that investors are faced with today. Episode Links: https://www.realestateconsulting.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/john-burns-real-estate-consulting/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/gary-beasley-956647/ https://www.roofstock.com/ --- Transcript Before we jump into the episode, here's a quick disclaimer about our content. The Remote Real Estate Investor podcast is for informational purposes only, and is not intended as investment advice. The views, opinions and strategies of both the hosts and the guests are their own and should not be considered as guidance from Roofstock. Make sure to always run your own numbers, make your own independent decisions and seek investment advice from licensed professionals. Michael: Hey, everyone, welcome to another episode of the Remote Real Estate Investor. I'm Michael Albaum and today with me I have two very heavy hitters in the real estate space. John Burns, CEO of John Burn's real estate consulting, and Gary Beasley, co-founder and CEO of Roofstock. So without further ado, let's jump into hearing their thoughts and opinions around what's been going on in today's real estate market. John Burns and Gary Beasley so happy and excited to have you both back on the podcast. Thank you for taking the time to hang out with me today. John: You bet. Gary: Hey, Michael, great to see you. Michael: So I of course, know a little bit about both of your backgrounds and who you are. But for those of our listeners that might not be familiar with who you both are, if you could give us a quick two minute, two second intro of who you are, where you come from, and what it is you're doing in real estate and John, if you want to go ahead and start, that'd be great. John: Okay, I'm the CEO of John Burn's real estate consulting, I founded it back in 2001, to figure out what's going on the housing market for a lot of people, mostly big companies and that's what we do. Michael: Love it and Gary? Gary: Sure, I am Gary Beasley, I'm the co-founder and CEO of Roofstock and we've been at this for about six and a half years now. Building out really the complete ecosystem for single family rental investors and I've known John now, I think, John, since about when you started the company, it feels like we've known each other for a while we when we I think when we met we we both had dark hair. Remember that? John: It's been a very long time. Michael: That's great. Well, I wanted to chat with you both around a lot of things that I've been getting questions about, and I'm sure that the two of you have as well and that's just kind of what's been going on with the housing, market and economy over the last couple years since the pandemic started. So I would love to just jump into things get into the meat and potatoes and get both of your thoughts on really year over year, what's been going on at the macro level in the housing market. John: Well, I guess I go first, if you let me go back maybe three years, so but pre the pandemic because I think it's relevant. The housing market was extremely hot. We have a different view than a lot of people on on how undersupplied the market was, we don't think it was I just applied at all actually until about 2019, then it started to be under supplied and with interest rates. So damn low everywhere in the world, people had figured out that single family rental housing was a great investment just to get some yield and we were seeing a lot of investors come in to the market, then COVID hit so you know investors are very volatile. They stopped for a few months, and then they came back very strong and probably the biggest difference in the last year is the fear of inflation has piled in on top of the need for yield and it's double the reason to invest in rental homes. So we're seeing money from all over the world focused on housing in America. Gary: I would agree that clearly the residential market has been booming and I would say despite a number of factors that you would have thought might have slowed it down. We went through a global pandemic, and housing chugged right on through and we could talk later perhaps about why some of those things happen. But the reality is really kind of across price points and geographies. You've seen robust demand for housing and if you look at price increases year over year, John, I know you track the SFR space really closely and it kind of mirrors what's been going on even if you look at owner occupied sales, but home prices have been going up call it 15 plus percent, year over year, pretty consistently. That's a big number, when you think about historically, it's been about 4%. If you go back 40 years on a compounded basis. That's how it had been up until fairly recently. So a lot of you know in rents have lagged that a bit but you've seen high single digit to low double digit rent increases as well in a lot of these markets and so in oftentimes, I feel rents are a little bit of a lagging metric because especially a lot of the mom and pop owners don't raise rents every year don't raise them, really even to market so we're seeing a lot of homes come to market today that have rents that are 10 or 20%, below where the markets are today. So, so you've got just a lot of demand for the product and, you know, we're at an interesting time now, and I'm sure we'll talk about, you know, some of the current dynamics in the market, interest rates have moved up quite a bit in the last, you know, month to six weeks, we've got a lot of interesting things going on geopolitically, we're not yet seeing that impact, demand or pricing. One would think that those factors should that have an impact over time. But for now, I think just the supply demand dynamics very, very much in the favor of demand over supply. Michael: Okay. Interesting and I'm curious to get both of your opinions on this, I mean, we are at such a unique time, kind of in history and curious to know your guys's thoughts on do you think that real estate investing fundamentals have it all shifted because of where we find ourselves today? John, I'll let you go first on this one. John: I don't know if the fundamentals have shifted, because I've seen this game before. But what is different is that by investing in rental homes has become a very easy thing to do, thanks to Roofstock and others. I mean, prior to 2012, you couldn't get on your computer and figure out exactly how much a home was worth and how much it could rent it for in about five minutes, you can now there's all sorts of vehicles where you can invest in funds and completely passively invest in housing and I think it's become an asset class that really was very illiquid, and pretty lumpy before that now has become more liquid and I think that is a permanent change in the market, doesn't mean things can't go down. But I think it's actually had a permanent positive increase permanently on home prices. Gary: I would agree with John, I don't think the fundamentals, I don't think the fundamentals of real estate investing have changed. But I would say perhaps some of our maybe preconceptions or assumptions about how it would perform is I kind of mentioned earlier, or maybe a little bit challenged, and that there's just so much demand for the product and in the pandemic. You know, it was almost counterintuitive that home prices would go up and rents would go up. But when you think about the fact that people really demanded shelter, safe shelter, and there was an exodus of from a lot of the coastal cities to secondary and tertiary markets drove a lot of that demand. So but I think still, the fundamentals of real estate are very much about location and supply and demand. Those things, those fundamentals I think are true. I think one of the things we're seeing though is perhaps there are different things get that can drive, demand and pricing for different types of real estate assets. So if you look at for example, housing, and industrial, which have done quite well, throughout the throughout the pandemic and the aftermath, and then you had some real estate asset classes that really suffered, because you look at office and retail and and REIT in hotels, things like that. So it's it. I think real estate broadly can be influenced by different things. The fundamentals of each have to be examined, but certainly for housing. It's been it's been very strong, despite what might you might have considered some some headwinds. Michael: Okay, interesting and you both touched on inflation in the conversation thus far and so I'm curious to know, how much of the demand do you think is being really driven by inflation? And do you think that folks are right or wrong to be considering real estate investing as a hedge or as a defense against inflation? John: People's expenses are going up and your investments should beat inflation and nothing in the treasury market does it in fact, nothing in the high yield bond market pretty much does it now too, I don't know how you earn returns. But this was going on pre COVID and that's why I mean that there was a surge of money coming into the market pre COVID. We at our conference at the end of 2019, we had Bruce flat, the CEO of Brookfield asset management, who at the time manage more than $500 billion was fundraising all over the world and he literally said that this is the most significant thing he seen in the last 15 years, is everything that produces cash is gonna go up in value, and that was pre COVID and so that this this has just got even more accelerated because inflation wasn't even part of the equation. Now if you're now if you need to beat inflation in your return and inflation is right now the latest print is seven 8% where you're going to get seven or 8%? And so housing, if wages go up which they are, you can raise rents, if the cost of the structure going up is going up, which it definitely is, every single component in the house has gone up, their cost of construction has gone up at least 10% in the last year. That's an inflation hedge too, because nobody's gonna replicate what you own for the same amount of money. It's very much an inflation hedge. Gary: Everything points toward continued inflation, in my view in the housing market. Now, that being said, interest rates going up, you would think should moderate that. That's an offsetting influence, but the cost of the inputs, the labor and the materials, clearly upward pressure, everything that's going on in the world, disrupting the global supply chain, and the cost of transport and all that putting upward pressure, Pete wage inflation to keep people in their seats, and to hire people. That's allowing people to have more and more money to spend on housing that's also pulling pricing up. It's hard to see how much that's going to, in an absolute basis reduce the price of housing, I do think that we will see some moderating of the rate of inflation of homes over the upcoming quarters and years, I think that 15% is gonna come down naturally. But I don't see, I don't see it coming down to the point where it actually reverses and you see absolute price declines, like we saw in that really unusual time in the Great Recession, which was, arguably a once in a generation adjustment to housing prices there. I think, a lot of fundamental differences between what we're seeing today and and what we saw back then this is not a credit bubble. John: So I agree with everything you said until this is not a credit bubble. I mean, maybe you meant a credit bubble on housing, because I agree with you. Gary: That's what I mean, I mean that there's a lot of embedded equity, as opposed to people, you know, having 3% or less equity in their homes, they've got 20 plus percent equity. Now, you can talk about the I wasn't speaking to the global kind of free money, credit bubble, but… John: Well, that's a I think there's a credit bubble going on in the world on pretty much everything else. I mean, Dodd Frank, made it impossible to do it on a mortgage going through a bank. But people are lending against crypto, it's the highest borrowing and stock prices ever. We're seeing deals even in single family rental that well, I would say are being done with pretty much no due diligence, because it's a mess piece. So there's a little bit of equity in front of me and what I worry about is a recession caused by a credit bubble outside of the housing market, which impacts housing demand and you know, that's when housing was struggle, but I think everything else in the world would struggle at the same time, maybe even more, so. So I'm not, I'm not saying get into stocks or bonds, because it's just that, that that's what caused the great financial crisis, and it was housing last time. I think it's other stuff this time. We were seeing flip flipper loans are being securitized on Wall Street. I mean, there's, you know, I see that in my business, one of my clients is lending against crypto balances. You know, I think another famous person just came out and said, if you've got if you can put up crypto, I'll give you the value of your crypto to make a down payment for a house, that there's some different stuff going on. That concerns me but not on buying rental homes or Roofstock more concerning on the economy. Michael: Okay and so curious, John, just, you know, personal thoughts. What's a good defense? John: You know, normally it would be cash, but holding on to cash it goes down 7% in a year. So I think Howard Marks who's a famous investors calls this an everything bubble. We're in an everything bubble right now and how do you invest in an everything bubble? I have no idea. That's why I run it… Gary: Maybe maybe negative interest rate German bonds don't seem so crazy. Michael: Yeah. John: Well, no, exactly. So, so if you're, if you know, in the coming world, losing 3% is probably a good deal relative to everybody else if that's if that's how that plays out. Michael: All right, well, keep both you keeping your eyes and ears peeled and let me know if you hear something great for hedge against the everything bubble, I'd appreciate it. John: Well, it's it's still specific. I mean, that that's what the smart people aren't doing. They're just, they aren't going to do just a sector. They're looking at everything carefully and in this industry, if you don't have a lot of competition going around where you're making investments, that's a far safer place to be if there's some great job growth in your conference. In a job growth because those employers are profitable and making money and going to be there all the time, that's a different story than the job growth being in a sector that's currently losing money, for example. Michael: That makes total sense, that makes total sense. I'm curious if we could take a step back and understanding that neither of you work for the Federal Reserve, but I'm curious to know your thoughts and kind of get some insight into? I mean, you talked about the wage growth going up, and then the cost of goods and services going up? How do we not get into this upward death spiral? And I know, Gary, you mentioned, you know, raising interest rates could curtail that, but it seems like there's just so much money out there how to, how do we kind of ease down from this? Gary: Yeah, well, I think there's it I don't know, if there's been a tougher, it's never easy being involved with setting Fed policy, but you have a lot of things to balance here. This is a tightrope act. So you want to slow the economy here, enough to curtail inflation, yet, not necessarily throw it into a big recession, you've got a lot of things going on overseas, that should you could argue are already going to cause things maybe to slow a bit because of what's going on over there. So do they need to pump the brakes as much here. So maybe that means that the Fed doesn't raise as aggressively here and what that may mean is, you know, rates grow a little bit more slowly and maybe the economy tends to overheat despite the global weakness. So it's a really, really challenging balancing act, I think that the Fed is under enormous pressure to curtail inflation and so I think, despite that, we'll probably err on the side of pumping the brakes a little bit heavier, even though that may mean we're risking recession. That would be I'd be curious, John, if you have a view. But if I had to, like on the continuum of what they're more worried about right now, normally, they're, you know, I would say that they've been historically more worried about not wanting to put us in the recession. But we've never, in a long time had these sort of inflationary pressures and in particular, where I think people feel it, it seems to be at the gas pump, right? We're always talking about fuel prices people feel that very deeply and there's a lot of political pressure, even though the feds, in theory, a political, political pressures tend to work their way into those decisions. John: Yeah and my 30 plus years of paying attention to this, I've never seen the Fed more politically tied than they are right now. They frankly, they seem to me to be puppets of elected officials. I mean, the fact that Powell had to announce for months and months and months, they were going to raise rates, but never raised them once until he got reappointed will tell you something. So I mean, I always honestly think it seems to me like elected officials are calling the shots right now and I think the ultimate fear is a recession or we want to get inflation down, because inflation isn't good either and then, you know, the way I think about this, too, is there's, if you really talk about people's true costs, there's a huge variation in inflation. So if you're a homeowner who owns your car, you know, your your housing costs haven't gone up at all, maybe you got a little bit of a property tax reassessment, you haven't had to go back and purchase a car or release a car and if you are close to work or working from home, frankly, your cost of living might be down over the last year or two. If you're somebody who's commuting to work, Rance had to you know, really your lease was up had to get another car. I mean, your cost of living can be up to 15 to 20% and the Fed seems to be focused on those people, rightly or wrongly. But that that's how I'm thinking about this is it's a huge difference in what's actually happening depending on what you are, and then the wage growth. You know, if you're in the hospitality sector, you haven't seen anything. But if you're a construction worker or a truck driver, your wages are up dramatically. So and those are the ones I that we're seeing that are buying homes, renting homes, people that are affluent, able to work from home, hey, I can I can now go out to the suburbs and rent a really nice house and my housing costs are gonna go down, not up because my boss says I only need to come into work twice a week. So it's it's very complicated story on picture painting here, but that's exactly I think how the Fed is looking at it. Gary: Yeah. And then you also have, obviously those who own assets versus not I mean, this is similar to what John was talking about, but not only can you have the cost of living impacted a lot, a lot less if you own your assets. But in fact, John, you may know this figure I read it, I think last week, some fairly sizable percentage of the US population made more off of their homes this year than they did from their jobs. The power, the power in an inflationary environment of owning assets, it's kind of hard to overstate it. That I think one of the reasons, I think we're seeing more and more kind of first timers wanting to own their first investment property, even if they aren't in a position to own the home they're living in right now. Going to some of these lower price markets, and getting on the ownership bandwagon and just writing that asset appreciation. It's, you know, it's a powerful force. Michael: Yeah, absolutely. John: I think you were going to say, it's a powerful drug. Gary: Well, some people do become addicted to it… John: We're starting to see that. So people are taking the $200,000 in price appreciation of their house with a refi out of their investment, and then using it to buy three or four more homes, right, that that's what's going on right now. So it is it is addictive. Michael: Yeah. That makes total sense. Gary: Yeah. Well, it's been it's been a, a tried and true, a tried and true way for real estate investors to make money, right is to buy that first property, refinance it, take that money, buy more properties and build. But I think, John, to your point, what's happening is, a lot of people are doing that with their primary home equity to get started, as opposed to being more of the intentional investor who just started to do that, I think more and more people are doing it with, you know, equity in their homes, which I think in many ways makes a lot of sense from a diversification standpoint, rather than having so much of your wealth, personally tied up in a single property address, where you happen to live, where you're really subject to the vagaries of your local real estate market, local job market, all that kind of stuff, because that's where you tend to work to diversify into other markets and other assets, I think does make a lot of sense. Michael: John, would you agree? John: Yeah, no, diversification makes a lot of sense. I just, I also think it makes a lot of sense to watch how much leverage you've got and to make sure you've got the cash flow, you know, just in case something bad goes wrong. And I think people that are investing like that, and doing exactly what you're saying, are going to be great. But last time, what we saw was, people just were ignoring that and then you lose your job, and then you lose your tenant, and you're your host. So you got you got to be careful here and I think the more I'm a generalized a little bit here, but the more mature people that have seen this before doing that, and I'm sensing the younger people only think home prices only go up and I are more willing to take more risk than I would recommend. Michael: John, kind of to that point. I'm curious to get both your guys' thoughts if someone is taking out equity their home, because interest rates are so low, and they've seen the value go through the roof and they're going to go buy investment properties. What's the harm? What's the risk there? I mean, and how does someone know if they are over leveraged? If their cash flow is covering their mortgage payments? I mean, if the value dips, nothing really changes for them from a payment standpoint. So how should people think be thinking about being over leveraged or how much risk is too much? John: I mean, that's a very personal decision for folks. You know, confidence in your employment situation is probably the most important thing and depends on what you do. Gary: Yeah, I think, Michael, I mean, to your point, as long as they think it is an important point, in a rental home portfolio. Yeah, even if prices drop of that home and you've got a fixed mortgage, your payments don't change, right and unless rents come down, which they traditionally have not, they tend to be more sticky in single family rentals than say in apartments. We followed a lot of that data over time. So you should be okay. Even if on paper, the value of your home, your rental home has gone down. But I think in the primary residence, which is where John I think was going is if you let's say you have you know, 60% equity in your home and you lever it up to 90 through various means, then all of a sudden, you may be at a point where if you lose your job, and you don't have the reserves, you may be in a little bit of a tougher spot because you don't have that home equity to tap, which historically has just been a really nice thing to have as as a safety net and so when that if that were to happen you might have to sell some of your other properties or you have your equity elsewhere and it's not like you can't necessarily get at it. But I do think in times where you do have some uncertainty, some global uncertainty and some things like that, having some reserves, make sense, not being over levered, make sense, play the long game, I think that's one of the things that we talk to people a lot about is, this is not a, you know, get rich, quick fix and flip, you know, strategy when you're buying investment properties? Michael: Are you serious? Gary: So over the long run, Michael, you're going to do just fine. But you have to be patient. So no, but there's plenty of there's plenty of ways you could make bats to win quickly win or lose quickly. But that's generally not what people are doing with us and I think there's times when people are more risk on is a lot of confidence to maybe lever up and things like that, I think this is a time to be more a little bit more thoughtful about all about leverage ratios and so yes, you give up some levered return, potentially. But if you're in a, I would argue if you're in a place where home prices are going up at such an extraordinary rate, you don't need as much leverage to get a phenomenal return. Even if you're only 50% levered, and your home's going up seven or 8% a year, that asset level, you know, obviously, you're doing much better than that, and the return on equity level, so I would say just don't get greedy. It's a long game and you know, make sure you're, you're around to, you know, fight another day, in case there's any sort of corrections. Michael: To play the end of the game. John: I mean, that that's the perfect, that's how I see it, too, is cut the long game. And that's how everybody who's been doing this for decades will all tell you that that's exactly the way to play it. I am I am seeing and hearing and running into 20 somethings who aren't listening to Gary's advice and I have no idea if that's 1% of the market or 40. But they're out there and fortunately, they're not getting loans from banks that 90% LTV, at least that I can find, so that's, that's good. Gary: I mean, Michael, you talk to a lot of people all the time, what is what is your assessment are people do you think people are thoughtful about this? Do you think that is? Do you agree with John, that people who might not have seen a down cycle might be overly optimistic or do you think that they're better informed? Michael: Yeah, you know, I think it's really a mix of the two, I think that there are two big camps. One camp says this is going to go on forever and that tends to be the folks that haven't seen a recession before and then there's the folks that say, you know, we're it's got to come down at some point and so let's just kind of see what happens and those tend to be the more seasoned folks. So I'm curious, I'm curious to get your guys's thoughts on for those two camps and someone who's just trying to get started trying to get their foot in the door? How should they be thinking about that, is this something that they can kind of catch on the upswing or is do they really need to be a bit more timid and reserved and say things are maybe a little bit too hot right, now let me let me just take a seat on the sidelines and see how this all plays out? John: So we've been calling this the high risk high reward the part of the cycle now for 13 months. So I would have told you 13 months ago to be cautious and the person who would have taken a lot of risk what I made far more money than the person who listened to me so but that's how these things play out at the end at the end of the cycle. When you take a lot of risk you should make a lot of reward right? But you know, you also need to know when to take some chips off the table you know, unless you believe we're never going to have a recession again which I don't believe that and then also what Gary said has been very true for single family rental rents. The rents have been very stable over time compared to apartments because there's basically been very little construction of rental homes forever and there's always been a ton of construction in apartments and that's when you get hurt killed is when you know three huge apartment complexes open up down the store down the street totally empty and have to lease up 500 units you're done that even though billed for rent is growing pretty significantly in Phoenix right now it's still a lot smaller level of supply than apartments. So this is a more stable investment than comparative some other rental classes for sure. Gary: Yeah, it's it's really we like to say it's a lot easier to go up then sideways because if you could you go vertical with apartments and it takes a lot more land and it's typically much more difficult to add the single family rental supply and then over time, you also have more than one on exit on the on the rental homes because you could you could exit to a yield investor or ultimately, an owner occupant. So that's I think one of the things that I've always liked about single family rentals is you've got built in optionality. It's very rare in a real estate investment, to have two very distinct buyer sets on the back end, right. You have an office building, you're going to sell it to an office investor. Same with a hotel, they would, but so this is, you know, I think a unique aspect of single family rentals, which gives, you know, it kind of gives investors a bit of a of a hedge. Michael: Yeah, that makes total sense. Curious, what do you tell investors who come to you and say, John, Gary, you know, I can't seem to break in, all my offers are getting outbid by all cash offers that are 10 to 15% above asking, I can't go that hi, how can I get my foot in the door? What should I be doing? What tactics should I be using? John: I mean, I might be the wrong person to ask because my clients tend to be very large companies, and this is for their capital partners, this is less than 10%, or maybe of what they're investing in the spectrum of certainly less than 20%. So they may be all in in this industry. But it's it's not, what you're alluding to, is maybe somebody with 100% of their net worth or 80% of their net worth getting in. That's, I don't advise on that, I mean, people are building rental homes, with the appropriate amount of leverage in good locations. That's where we're coaching people to go, there's also people building rental homes, with a lot of leverage in tertiary locations, right, where there's a lot of other construction going on and that that would be to me a higher risk scenario. I think I think there's room for 100 unit rental community, brand new built in every city in America of size, because you can pull it there's 1000s of people that rent ratty old homes with lousy landlords, and there's a percentage of them that would really love to rent something new. Well, and what's your biggest fear is the tenant that said, they're going to sell the house you live in it, you're gonna have to move out? Well, you know, if you're in a rental community that's owned by a public REIT, they're not selling the house, you know that that fear is gone. They may charge you a little more, because it comes with better service and other things. But I think that's a tremendous long term opportunities to build rental homes. Michael: Interesting perspective, Gary? Gary: Yeah, well, I would say, people should do their research, and be patient, be opportunistic, but but not be afraid to act with conviction when they find things that make sense for them and so I think, what we find is, on Roofstock, a lot of times people will come and they will look at properties for months and months and months and talk to people and kind of develop their strategy and eventually, something is going to hit your radar, that's going to check most of the boxes and in this market when that happens, as long as you've done enough work to kind of know this, then be ready to act, you know, I wouldn't recommend somebody come and buy the first home they see because then you're not you just don't have enough data. But when you see where these things are trading and all that, and so that's why I say you know, be disciplined, but also act with conviction, when you find something that does work if you do want to get exposure. Otherwise, you could sit back and just sort of watch things. But you can also wait a lot of times with stock market, also people want to buy on a dip and just wait, maybe there is a little bit of a correction and that could be a time for people to want to wade back in. The challenge with waiting for a dip is, as John pointed out, there just hasn't been even throughout COVID there's been no dip, it's just, you know, been up into the right and, and so, you know, I don't recommend people just, you just buy because of the momentum, right? You want to, again, you want to feel good about the markets you're buying in and the home that you're buying. But also, it's really hard to time a market. It's just it's almost impossible. So heard that that's why overtime, we recommend people not, you know, even if you're only in a position to buy a home now once but, you know, have a design to own a portfolio of them over time and buy them at different points in the cycle and over time you get that market exposure. It's just, it's hard to time your ins and outs perfectly. Michael: Yeah, yeah. Okay, cool. Well, I'm curious now to get your guys' thoughts and opinions looking forward, which I know is always a dangerous thing to do, but I'm going to ask you both take out your crystal ball and in talking, John, you mentioned about new newly built homes built to rent communities and so I'm curious to hear your opinions around, if the housing starts that we're seeing, since COVID, are going to have an impact, you know, several years down the road 8-10, you know, 5-10, eight years down the road, kind of like we're seeing now, as a result from the 2008, lack of home starts. John: Yeah, we've done more research on that than anybody else. There's a couple people with some very simple analysis that says we're short, about five to 6 million homes. I think we're short about 1,000,007, which is still a lot of homes and that's not the same shortage in Buffalo as it is in Dallas. So you know, this is we've got the numbers by market. But at a high level, if we're short, 1,000,007 homes, there's 1,000,007 homes that have brand new homes that have paid for our permit that haven't been finished yet. So we've got all of that under construction and it's taking about nine weeks longer to build a house for the best production builders in the country. So this is taking a very long time, so it's going to be at least a year before we satisfy that, because there will be some growth along the way, too. So I'm not what is different about this cycle is the lack of construction. But what I want to point out is there's this notion that the low level of supply just means that this is almost a sure thing and I think the most important thing for housing has always been job growth always, even rates can go up dramatically. But if everybody's got their job, okay, we're, you know, maybe prices will be flat for a while, but we'll be fine. It's when you see massive job losses that we cycle down hard. So that's why I was I was bringing up earlier the whole credit cycle issues. You know, know, if we if we knew exactly how much debt every company had in every industry had and how much they could cover their cash flow, I think I'd have more certainty. Some analysis I've seen is there's quite a few publicly traded companies that aren't currently generating enough cash to pay their debt service. That makes me concern they're not in the housing industry. In fact, the homebuilders have never been better capitalized like, they're amazing. They have the lowest debt levels ever and the bonds that oh, yeah, and the bonds they borrowed, they don't mature for like four or five or six years. So I mean, the homebuilt talk about a safe play, in terms of going through the cycle, I think it's the builders. I'm not recommending stocks, because I don't do that for a living, because I think all of this is priced in. But I'm telling you, publicly traded home builders are very, very strong, right now. Gary: Yeah. You know, it's interesting, because John does such good research. So I have no reason to doubt the million seven. But I have seen, you know, estimates between four and 6 million homes deficit in in. So I don't know what the right number is and I'm sure that the method, there's methodologies that but but it's still, it's a couple of at least a couple million homes. The question is what, you know, what does that mean, going forward? Do we catch up as quickly? Can we catch up in a year or two? That's, I think, optimistic. I think it'll be interesting to see if we do. One of the things that John mentioned was job growth, and that historically has been a real driver. What I think is so interesting now is jobs are so distributed and because companies are adding jobs doesn't mean the jobs are going to be where the companies are located and that kind of makes everyone's head explode. If you're trying to forecast, what's the impact of job growth, it really comes down, arguably, more to population growth. So local jobs are one thing and some things have to be localized, right? If you're going to work at a hotel, the hotel is in a particular place, if you're going to be a software engineer, working for Apple, you know, maybe you could be anywhere or any of these other places and so it's a it's a different calculus than I think it was 10 years ago of treatment, trying to forecast job growth from companies and then okay, well, people are going to need to live within a 30 minute commute or 45 minute commute it that's all upside down. So I think it does bode well for some of these secondary and tertiary places that have seen disproportionate growth. But then you also have these places like in Austin that continue to explode and arguably housings no longer very affordable but they keep building more houses and people keep buying them and keep renting them and there's plenty of land in a place like Austin and so I think almost looking at where taxes are low, and people can still get relatively affordable housing almost seems to be more powerful than local job growth. But I'd be curious about, you know, John's view of that. John: No, he's right. There's a there's a large sector of the economy where you can live wherever you want and I mean, we, we've been doing this since before COVID, as I was never, never believed that all the best people to hire on the world, we're always within commuting distance in my office. So we've been hiring in good locations, and but you got to get the right person who can do that and companies have figured that out now. So your it is about a great location, it is about where I can get a lot of house for my money if I'm a tenant, or if I'm a homebuyer or I can pay lower income taxes, or I can have better weather. So it's really the same place as people were moving pre COVID. It's just more people have been given the permission to move. So you're right, the job growth. It's pretty correlated to the metro area. But I would say the more outlying areas should see more price appreciation, and they are seeing more price appreciation right now, because more people are being allowed to go there. Michael: Okay. Gary: Yeah and it's almost interesting. It's a little bit like the job, the jobs are almost coming with the people. So you think of a place like Boise, Idaho, where people move there not for jobs, necessarily, but because they could bring their jobs with them and they all had all this embedded equity in their homes for more expensive markets. So now you have all these people moving into a market like Boise, and you get incredible growth in the prices of homes in Boise. But now people are working from Boise. So are those jobs created in Boise are there jobs that now exist in Boise because it was inexpensive, and it's a nice place to live? Michael: Yeah, I was gonna ask John, does that make it kind of squirrely to nail down that job growth metric because of this new phenomenon? John: Yes and no, so there's two jobs surveys, there's one where they call the employer and said, how many people did you hire this month? That's based on where the employer is located. But the one where they call people and say, are you looking for work or not, that comes up with the unemployment number, that's where you live. So actually, we always triangulate the two. So I'll use my example. So we perfect example, I'm in Orange County, California, we hired somebody in Boise, but she could live anywhere. She's showing up on my here in Orange County on one survey, and she's showing up in Boise and the other, so you just you need to look at both the sample size on where the company's located is higher and better and the unemployment number at the Metro levels more volatile. So you got to look at a trend over time and not just overreact to a month or two. Michael: That's super interesting. Okay, and great to know, too. So, the last question I have for you both, and I think I already know the answer. But for everyone listening, I'm gonna ask on their behalf and your guys' opinions, have there been asset classes that have become more valuable and less valuable as a result of the pandemic and if so, what, in your opinion, are they? John: You can handle crypto, Gary. I am not going to touch that one. Gary: Why don't you start then? John: As I as I said earlier, I think new technology which was not around prior to 2012, has allowed the single family rental business to just blossom permanently And it's, it's now gonna be a permanent part of people's portfolio passively investing in real estate And that has already pushed up prices more than it would have been going forward. Whatever price appreciation would have been otherwise, it'll probably push it up a little bit more. The only thing you have to concern to certain yourself where there is, you know, the government doesn't like that And they tend to be pro homeownership. So you gotta watch regulation. I am seeing a lot of our clients tend to avoid California because they're afraid of rent control. So and there was just a Bloomberg article that 12 Different states have had rent control proposed because of all of this. So you just got to keep your antenna up on on that side. But the rent control is being proposed seems to be more reasonable. It's at the rate of inflation or maybe 1% higher than that, that you can raise rents. It's not, you know, zero or something ridiculous. Michael: Okay and what in your opinion has been devalued or become less valuable, if anything? John: Um, I can't think of anything that's become a …Cash! Gary: It's it makes sense, right? I mean, you're you're losing. I mean, John, John mentioned, if you're literally if you have money sitting in your checking account, right now it's point 001% and we've got 678 percent inflation, that's how much you're losing by sitting in cash and so that does create a risk incentive to put it somewhere. And you know, I would say, Michael, I mentioned this earlier, but I think housing and industrial, which is driven a lot by distribution for E commerce, a lot of those have been really darlings of, of, for investors, they've become very much in favor and I do think you're still seeing some challenges with in some questions about office space demand and you know, not that there aren't always office investors, and there are always going to be people in offices, but there's probably structurally some percentage of less space that companies are going to utilize and so that puts maybe some uncertainty into the minds of investors, if there's another I think, I think a lens people investors are looking at today is okay, there's going to be another pandemic someday, what are the likely implications of this and, you know, office, retail, traditional retail was hurt by the pandemic, but it was also being crushed just by Amazon, right, and so you, so that's, I think, got its own challenges. And then hospitalities is very cyclical anyway, if people stopped traveling, you know, they didn't travel for a while. So those those I think are, you know, maybe a little slightly more challenged than housing, which is, which has proven to be much more resilient than, than I think most people thought and, as a consequence, you have a lot of a lot of investors, not just, you know, traditional or not just individual investors or institutions from here. But yet people from all over the world saying, well, US housing looks pretty interesting, relative to other places that they could invest. Michael: Yeah. John: There's something we take for granted here called Title laws that don't exist in other countries. I mean, people in other countries don't want to buy real estate there, because the government could take it away from them. You know, and I hear that from foreign investors. That's one of the things that they love about investing in America. Michael: Pretty scary notion if you had to be overseas John: …Or get I should have mentioned everything that Gary said to I mean, there's a lot of huge funds, pension funds, who like to put a percentage of their assets a 10% in real estate all the time, and it would traditionally go into retail and office and hotel. Do you think they're ever going to go back to the same percentage of retail hotel and office? Probably not, it's going to be far more in this business. Because retail is now industrial. I mean, it's a warehouse and in line, you know, the best retail centers are all going to be fine in the best locations, but they're in line space is dead. So, so you're right, that's gonna push more money into our business. Michael: Okay, well, guys, this was super informative. I know I had a lot of fun. Hopefully our listeners did, too. If people want to learn a little bit more about each of you, where's the best place for them to do that? John: Oh, we've got a website https://www.realestateconsulting.com/ I post pretty regularly on LinkedIn. So you can look up John Burns on LinkedIn and get some free stuff every day. Gary: I love the free hoodie that you got right there, Michael. John, I know you've got a Roofstock hoodie as well. I don't know if you ever wear it. John: I do, I should have bought it today, I'm sorry about that I should. Gary: So yeah, I think I would just encourage people, if they want to learn more about what we're doing at Roofstock just come to https://www.roofstock.com/ you could also follow me or hit me up on LinkedIn, I post pretty regularly there as well. But yeah, and keep checking out the podcast I know Michael's been doing a great job along with Pierre and the rest of the team here trying to get they couldn't get any interesting guests this this time so they got John and me but I know they've been otherwise doing getting some pretty interesting folks and doing a great job. John: Well I saw that you're then the one of the top 1% of podcasters in the world. Hopefully we didn't push it down to 2%. Michael: A filler episode though this this was great you guys. Thank you so much for taking the time and I very much looking forward to chatting again as we continue along this crazy trajectory that we're on. Alright, everyone that was our episode, a big thank you to John and Gary for taking the time out of their extremely busy schedules to hang out with me and chat about what's been going on in the real estate market and where we might be headed going forward. As always, if you liked the episode, feel free to leave us a rating or review wherever it is you get your podcast, and we look forward to seeing on the next one. Happy investing…

covid-19 america ceo amazon california apple building co founders german forbes mba wall street businesses buffalo curious stanford idaho pierre bloomberg cpa fed powell metro ipo fintech orange county federal reserve northwestern recognized boise real estate markets great recession reit rance ltv brookfield dodd frank sfr howard marks john burns johnno michael john roofstock john you john it john yeah john well michael yeah john so michael love john burns real estate consulting john there john oh john yes gary beasley kpmg peat marwick michael okay michael all michael hey gary it gary well remote real estate investor

Episode #43: Leaving God, Suffering Caused by Churches and why Religious Persecution of People is Not of God with John Follis, Writer, Director and Filmmaker

Simple Success With John Brandy

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 24, 2022 75:32

INTRODUCTION: About John Follis / "LEAVING GOD” John Follis is the award-winning writer/director of the documentary "LEAVING GOD” (2017). Winner of a Hollywood International Documentary Film award the film explores a major cultural shift happening in America -- a shift away from religion and God. Paralleling this trend it also shares John's fascinating personal story. Described as “Compelling” by the BBC, "LEAVING GOD” has been seen by over 36,000 people from 98 countries via Vimeo, YouTube, and TopDocumentaryFilms.com. Before becoming a filmmaker John was an award-winning Madison Ave ad man who actually helped sell God. His 16-year ad campaign for New York's Marble Church received national attention via The New York Times, USAToday and TIME magazine. That story is included in the film. INCLUDED IN THIS EPISODE (But not limited to): · A Documentary About People Leaving God· Preachers Coming Out!!!· Separation Of Church and State· Radical Republicans· The Ways Churches Hurt People· Why Religious Persecution of People Is Wrong· The Differences Between God And The Church· Tribalism Defined· The Importance Of Obtaining Discernment· Catholic Shade CONNECT WITH JOHN: Website & Film: https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/leaving-god/YouTube: https://bit.ly/3IvRjH0Facebook: https://bit.ly/357oAuAInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/johnfollis/Twitter: https://twitter.com/JohnFollisLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnfollis/ CONNECT WITH DE'VANNON: Website: https://www.SexDrugsAndJesus.comYouTube: https://bit.ly/3daTqCMFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/SexDrugsAndJesus/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sexdrugsandjesuspodcast/Twitter: https://twitter.com/TabooTopixLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/devannonEmail: DeVannon@SexDrugsAndJesus.com DE'VANNON'S RECOMMENDATIONS: · Pray Away Documentary (NETFLIX)o https://www.netflix.com/title/81040370o TRAILER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk_CqGVfxEs · Upwork: https://www.upwork.com· FreeUp: https://freeup.net· Disabled American Veterans (DAV): https://www.dav.org· American Legion: https://www.legion.org INTERESTED IN PODCASTING OR BEING A GUEST?: · PodMatch is awesome! This application streamlines the process of finding guests for your show and also helps you find shows to be a guest on. The PodMatch Community is a part of this and that is where you can ask questions and get help from an entire network of people so that you save both money and time on your podcasting journey.https://podmatch.com/signup/devannon TRANSCRIPT: [00:00:00]You're listening to the sex drugs and Jesus podcast, where we discuss whatever the fuck we want to! And yes, we can put sex and drugs and Jesus all in the same bed and still be all right at the end of the day. My name is De'Vannon and I'll be interviewing guests from every corner of this world as we dig into topics that are too risqué for the morning show, as we strive to help you understand what's really going on in your life.There is nothing off the table and we've got a lot to talk about. So let's dive right into this episode.De'Vannon: Hello? Hello. Hello. Are you beautiful people out there in the world? I am so fucking happy and excited to have you with me again. One more week today, I'm talking with a man by the name of John Follas. His man is an award winning creative director, writer, and filmmaker. Now he didn't made a documentary called leaving God.And in this film, he's talking about the ways church has hurt people in this mass Exodus of people away from Christianity and religion. [00:01:00] It's not very often. Did I hear people's story about the ways that, that they were hurt by the church? Like how I was? So this was a particularly close to home.So in this show, we're going to talk about preaches coming out and we're not talking about coming out gay honey. They coming out another way and talking about why religious persecution of people is wrong and the differences between God and the church. Take a listen, baby. Hello, John. Hey, Davanon Mr. John. Fallas welcome to the sex drugs in Jesus podcast. How are you today? I am John: awesome. Awesome. Thanks for having me on your show. De'Vannon: Thank you for stopping by and thank you for creating the film you have. Today we're gonna be talking a lot about it and the things that are in it.The title of it is leaving God. And it's a free video's out there for all to see through your YouTube channel and [00:02:00] different things like that. I'll let you tell people exactly how to find it and everything. I was impressed with how, how personal you got in the documentary because usually whenever I watch a documentary.The, the emphasis it's like the lenses turn on whatever the subject matter is, or, or whoever the, the documentary is about. But you you, I think you tow the line well in between covering the subject matter and, and talking a lot about yourself and a lot about your personal life. And that transparency is something that I, I find to be like gold.I really, really love a good transparent person. And and so I appreciate that, that willingness to, to expose yourself like that, because, you know, that's what really connects people to the story. Right. Exactly. So tell us in your own words then about this film and why on earth would you make such a.[00:03:00]John: Well, I made it because it talks about one of the most major cultural shifts currently happening in America right now, which is more and more people leaving the church, leaving religion and leaving God. So that's why I made it. I thought that's a very, I I'm, I pay attention to pop culture. I, I, I paying a attention to what's half happening in society and because my personal story was part of that cultural shift that's happening in America.It definitely related to me on a personal level, as you just mentioned in the introduction. So I mean, this is something that I had been, I, I, you know, like you, I'm interested in the big themes of life, sex money not so much drugs. Jesus, God health. You know, all those, the big themes in life are the ones I wanted to know as much [00:04:00] as possible about because the more you know about these big themes, I think the more, the better happier life you will have, you know, the more things you can figure out.Right? So I've always been intrigued by the of God. And once I was old enough to begin thinking for myself, when I'd say probably high school and college, I started pursuing my curiosity about God and trying to learn as much about who God is and how I can, you know, if he, or she, or whatever it is, is really that powerful and can be so helpful in my life.I wanted to really, you know, see what it's about. So I could work it to my benefit. Right? So this documentary really part of it talks about what I just mentioned, but the, the main catalyst was again, [00:05:00] paying attention to current events and just continuing to see more articles about churches closing and more and more people walking away from the church and religion.And I think the tipping point Devana and for me was when I started doing some research about ministers and priests who were coming out. Right. I mean, I can't think of anything more taboo than coming out as a nonbeliever. If you're a priest or a minister. Religious, you know, someone in the clergy, nothing.I can't think of anything more taboo than that. So when I did re because I, I wasn't sure that there were people like that, but I started doing some research in 2017 just to see if I could find any stories about that. And that led me to something called the clergy project, which was a project dedicated specifically [00:06:00] to people like this.People in the clergy who had changed their minds about God and religion. And didn't have a place to go to kind of talk about it, get support. So the clergy project was started, I think in 2012 or something like that, specifically as a place for these people to go, to get, get Presa ministers, clergy, people, to kind of talk about their feelings, cuz they were in a lot of pain, right.It's almost, you know, it's like being L G B T or transgender. Right. And not having a place to go and talk about that. Right. You know, if you're, if you're in a society that is not supportive of who you are as a person and what you think and how you believe you're gonna be living a very isolated life with a lot of pain and feeling afraid to talk about these things are a big part [00:07:00] of who you are and what you, how you think.So. The clergy project was really intriguing to me. And that to me, was the tipping point. The idea of these priest ministers coming out, I thought would make an interesting documentary. I didn't think my story was that unique because there's just so many people who grew up religious and through circumstances over time, change their perspective on that.There's nothing really that unique about that. But when you start talking about clergy members who spent their career as, as a priest or minister or something like that, and then suddenly, or maybe not so suddenly, but for whatever reason to they no longer believe, I thought that was a very subject that deserved to be looked at.And I thought that would at least be the start of my documentary, where it went from there. I wasn't totally sure, but that was the, that was the tipping point for me to say I've gotta try making something [00:08:00] about this, cuz this is just too interesting.De'Vannon: Hmm. Yeah. So in the, in the video and that is a very interesting point. It, it seemed like it, it, the, the part about the clergy coming out was kind of sprinkled through it. And I seemed like it got a little bit more gritty about it towards the end. And I do have a lot of questions that I want to ask about the clergy, but before I get on that, I want to kind of kinda lay a bit of framework here.So, and I wanna read like, Like a, a quote from this, or from, from about the from about the film that I thought was interesting and says that the, the fastest growing religion in the United States seems to be no religion at all. [00:09:00] A 2016 study conducted by the public religion research Institute found that a quarter of the subject survey claim, no religious affiliate and this surprising figure increased substantially among the younger generation.Now in the video, it was showing like I think it was graphs or charts about how, how, how, how younger people like at each generation less and less, less and less seemed to have any sort of religious affiliation at all. And I thought that this was so interesting because like, I'm about to be 40 this year.And my boyfriend's 25. And so. And so, so all his friends are like in between like maybe 21 and 25, you know, somewhere around in that range. And when it comes to the matters of religion and stuff like that, all of them that I know of so far are the same way. They're just kind of like, we don't do religion, you know, we just don't have that.You know, it's not what they [00:10:00] do and stuff like that. And I thought about, you know, as to why this could be, you know, you know, what example do they have to really go of, you know, look at what look at what has become of the church, you know, with the, with the preachers leaving and what, how crazy religion looks on television?You know, you got all your evangelicals and all the Republican nonsense mixed into it, you know, why do you think that that so many young people specifically like young people are not interested in religion? I think it's because of the bad example that, that they have had to look at, but what do you think.John: Don't know. I think, you know, it doesn't really matter what I think. I think it's just, you know, I, what concerns me a little bit is when I talk about this film to people and tell them the title of it, they think that I'm anti God and that this film is about my opinion [00:11:00] and my bias against God. And that's not what the film is about.I mean, you watched it. This is a documentary and I, I approached it like an investigative journalist and then talking about what's happening. Starting with these priest ministers who are now leaving the church and then talking about the statistics of the general population and then weaving my personal story into it for, you know, the second half of the film.So I mean, I'm glad to give you my opinion, but my opinion doesn't really matter. I want people to come to their own, you know, come to their own conclusions. I'm no expert, I'm no theolo, you know, theologian it doesn't, you know, why people are leaving. Everyone's got their own reasons. I just, you know, I, I think that it doesn't the, the, I would guess that the younger people are leaving more and more are leaving religion in church is because it doesn't serve them in a, in [00:12:00] a way that it serve their parents.I mean, I can just tell you from my experience, I mean, the reason. I grew up religious is because my parents this was part of their tradition. It was just a thing to do on Sunday. You went to church and if you didn't, it was a sin. So there was, you know, some, some some of that fear of God and extend there to keep you, you know, going to church on, on Sunday. One of the things I point out in the film Devana and is one of the, the, the, the reasons, many people especially people of a certain age, younger people under, under 40 has been the internet because they have more access to information. If they're, if they wanna get, get the facts on stuff, they can, they can research it.So there was an interesting graph that I showed. In the film that that the, the shift away from religion began B about 30 years ago in the early to mid nineties. And it has increased significantly [00:13:00]since then for, you know, up, up until about the, the early nineties, it was about five to 7% of people who consider themselves nonreligious. But since since that time it's gone up significantly every year. And even since I made the film in 2016, it's gone up about 5%. When I made the film, I was using a, a pew research statistic from 2016 that said it was about 24% or 25%. And just two months ago, they came out with an update on that.It's now closer to 30%. So there is a parallel between people walking away from church, religion, and God, and use of the internet. So that may be a contributing factor. De'Vannon: Right? Well, I appreciate your, your insight on that. I love the sharing of insights and opinions, you know, because it's thought provoking, it'll still get people thinking, you know, and it'll still lead them to their own, [00:14:00] to their own conclusions, but sometimes people need that little nudge.And so, so speaking more on the preachers who came out, you know, it's so interesting whenever I hear the term coming out and using a reference, that's not G B T Q I a. And so But it still, it still echoes the same vulnerability and risk of exposure and fear that can mean coming out. And so yeah, on the video, you've got these preachers going on, television preachers who had, you know, were, had, you know, pretty high up and everything like that.Now they're no longer in these religions anymore because of various reasons. You know, and then there, and one of em, I just should say one of 'em was from Louisiana. One of the guys that I profiled Jerry, I can't remember his last name, but you may recall if you watch it recently. Devana and at the end of the film, I, I took some, some a clip from a New York times [00:15:00] documentary that followed this guy around for a while.John: And He had a really hard time. I mean, it's, it's hard enough coming out anywhere as a nonbeliever, but when you're in the deep south in a small town, Louisiana, I don't have to tell you what that's like. And his wife left him his congregation, you know, naturally turned on him. He was outta work.He had to leave the state eight. He basically, he, he was like a man without a country. And I don't know what he's doing now, but he really paid the price for coming out as a nonbeliever, which is why it's so courageous, I think to do it's like, you know, now I just watched a clip on tick to talk. Talking about the the Russian propaganda machine and they showed a clip of a Russian female newscaster, just, you know, like a robotically reading the script from Putin about what's going on and right behind her, there was a, a, a woman holding [00:16:00] up a, a sign saying this is all bullshit. They're you're telling you lies, just went up.It went viral. So it takes a lot of courage. I guess I'm making a parallel sometimes to stand up for what you believe, you know, you're gonna pay the price. So I, I, I, I can't tell you how much admiration and respect I have for people who are willing to come out for what they believe when it's not popular.De'Vannon: Right. And I found the interesting that when these preachers came out, it's like they turned. Into into like atheists. It's like the, the, cause a lot of the quotes you have towards the end of the film are like kind of like, you know, atheistic in nature. So I can kind of see how some of the people you were saying in the beginning, how some people might see that you might feel like you're Antigo.I kind of was thinking that too, by the end of the film, like I wonder if he's Antigo, like, I don't know. I'm gonna ask him about that. So where exactly [00:17:00] at your point in your life, do you stand on God? And then I want to get back to, to this vibe that I was getting from the preachers in the film. Okay. So I'm not John: Antigo. And just the quotes that you're referring to were from people like mark Twain mm-hmm and George Washington and people like that who made comments. That were very quotable that basically shared their opinion about God or church mm-hmm . So again, this is nothing about this film, this opinion, those were quotes from these people.And I think there's a lot of people in America that have a belief that this that our forefathers wrote the constitution based on a Christian perspective. And some of the quotes, I some of the people that I quote are from the founding fathers [00:18:00] kind of contradict that, that theory. So, and again, you can look up, you can research everything that I have in the movie. Is you is, is true. And you, you could, you could research it yourself, but I just thought it would be interesting to just share the perspective of some, some famous people who had perspectives on what I just talked about in the film about God and religion mm-hmm and, and church. So yeah, so I, I'm not Antigo, I don't really care what people believe as long as it doesn't mess with my life.You know what I'm saying? As long as they don't tell me that I've gotta, you know, I think the problem start, the problem I start having with, with religion is when it gets political, I, I really, you know, talking about our forefathers, anyone knows, who knows anything about the constitution knows that there's, there's a division between church and state John Adams, when he [00:19:00] wrote and, and Thomas Jefferson, when they constructed.The declaration of independence in the constitution were very clear about that. They wanted to make sure that unlike things in England and other countries, they didn't didn't want politics and, and religion to to cross pollinate. They wanted to have a definite separation between church and religion.They didn't wanna have any ministers telling people to be involved with people's rights as human beings and, and the things that they put in the, in the, the constitution. So what's happening is that, especially in the, in the Republican party they have crossed that line many times. I mean, I think religion has become a big part for many politicians, especially in the Republican party and the constitution and the declaration of independence [00:20:00] is very clear about keeping that separate De'Vannon: too true, too true.I say that all the time, but you know, here we are. So what, what, what interested me the else about the preachers in your film? It's like they went from being all about God and in the church and whenever whatever happened, it caused them to be done with that. Like, one of them was preaching like. Like kind of like, you don't need Donna.There is no, like you don't need, there is no divine power out there. You already have all, all the power that you need within you. So it's, it was like he abandoned all concepts of God all together and then he switched gears. And so, and it reminded me of how I felt when I got kicked out of Lakewood church in Houston, Texas, you know, for not being straight.And, and I, and I took a very negative reaction to that. And then I stopped associating with God and I never got to a point where I was like, he doesn't exist, but I stopped going to [00:21:00] church and everything like that because of the hurt that I received there. And so, which was, which was an immature to, for me to do, I shouldn't have done that.I should have, you know, I taken a more positive approach to that. Got some counseling, went to a gay affirming church and not let what happened at Lakewood cause me to stop, you know, my faith all together. Are John: you or at Lakewood? Is that Joel Stein, right? Oh, wow. Okay. De'Vannon: So and so and so I have a blog about that on my website and I go into detail and in my memoir, but you know, I wasn't, you know, I'm not straight.And I was, you know, singing the adult choir. I was teaching the kids ministry worship leading in the kids ministry. And I applied for a job there. They went look up, looked up my social media on MySpace page as a part of their application process, cuz the, the 2, 2, 2 or three years that I've volunteered there four or five, you know, at least what 1, 2, 4 days a week at the church, wasn't enough to vouch for my, my work ethic.[00:22:00] They needed to go ask my space as well. And so while, while they were looking, they saw that I was hanging out in S which is the gay district in Houston. And I had a really RA photo on my cover. So because of that, they fired me from all the aspects of ministry and everything like that. And so. And so that's John: how they, so what did they, did they give you a reason for that to van on when they fired you?Did they tell you, why did they say, you know, we don't like gay people. De'Vannon: She said that you can't be doing that hanging out there with them. Ah John: so did you ask her to be more,go there with them. I love that. De'Vannon: so it was on me because I shouldn't have lied on the application. When I filled out the application, the volunteer in the kids ministry, they had on their straight up, like, we don't want gay people were being around our children [00:23:00] and you know, the mind that I have now, really, they actually John: had that.Yes, that was on in, in writing. In writing. Yes. And this is Joel Olsteen's church saying we don't want, hold on a second.We don't the, we don't want gay people hanging around our children, correct. With Joel Olstein church. Okay. De'Vannon: And so, okay, John: go ahead. I wonder what he, I wonder what he would say if he was interviewed about that and confronted with that on their application. I wonder how he would answer that you should get him on your show. Davanonhe would make a great kiss for you. De'Vannon: I don't know what I would ever say if I was face to face with him, but, you know, I don't know how good it would go. I need to, I need to mature my war before that day comes. So, but I thought, John: I thought they're [00:24:00] supposed to love everyone. De'Vannon: You know, churches are not like that.You know, they are, they have an agenda. Every church has an agenda. Tell me about it. And you know, but for all, and it's not just. And that sort of stuff happens at all kinds of churches. The Hillsong church in Australia, which are very good friends with Lakewood church have the same policy. And they're very bold about it.They're like no gay people can be on staff or volunteer here. They said it countless times. They don't give a fuck. So, and but you know, the mind that I have now, if I ever come across that on an application or something, then I know that that's simply not the organization for me to be at, but I had just got out of the military serving during don't ask don't tell.And so I was conditioned to function in an environment where I couldn't fully be myself. So I just thought it was another Don as don't tell situation. I've had some PE, some legal friends of mine tell me that it's not legal for a church to do that. I didn't even know that it even much gotten to the realm of illegality.You know, I just was like, well, [00:25:00] I wanna volunteer. I'm not trying to like, fuck any children or anything like that. So. That's, you know, and especially with the litany of paperwork, you know, they do like full background checks and every damn thing on new social security numbers, you know, and everything just to volunteer.It's not like, it's not like I'm gonna give them all of that information on me, how to find me and everything to go in there and commit a crime. It's like the dumbest thing John: did you van, and I'm curious is because I don't know if it's legal or not, but I would wonder about that. Did you ever do any research on that or speak to any legal authorities to find out if that's De'Vannon: true?No. And even because by the time I got done with all of my nervous breakdown and everything that that helped to contribute to we're talking a good10 years after, so whatever statute of limitations, I was sure it would've been pass that, but it would never hurt to look into cuz I didn't, I think the person who I was talking to said it gets into the realm of like discrimination or something like that. [00:26:00] And so, which made sense when they said it, but I was so.Fucked up in my head whenever they fired me from volunteering that I, that I couldn't, I couldn't even much, I didn't think I was just like, okay, well fuck them. And so, but, but the preacher in the film reminded me of that because when he was talking about how he doesn't really believe in God anymore, we don't.And you know, it sounded to me like he was coming from like a place of pain and it sounded like he was still hurting from that. And it really reminded me of how I was back then. And I wonder, you know, in the future, once he's healed, you know, if all of that, if he would still be like, you know, anti, he was very more like, like anti guy.And he was saying like, there's nothing Toine, you know? And so, so I, I, so I wanna encourage people, you know, Not to conflate church and God, you know, those are two separate things, religion, and [00:27:00] God are two separate things. And the confusion that I had when I got kicked outta Lakewood was I didn't separate the two.And so when the church rejected me, I took that as though God had rejected me and I allowed that to it cause a rift where there should not have been a rift, you know? And I feel like, well, they're John: pretty, you have to admit, they're pretty connected. religion and God. Right. De'Vannon: Well, when I say religion, I mean denominations like denominations churches, the physical manifestation of what God is supposed to be, they are connected.But at the same time, it's like, they're not, it's like when two people are married, they're connected and they do become one in many ways. But at the same time, they're very much still individuals and, and everything that a preacher says is not. The divine voice of God. And every decision at a church makes is not the divine will of God.And so we gotta learn how to put them together when they are together, but how to separate them when they need to be separated. [00:28:00] Cuz they're not always in tandem. John: So divine and I'm gonna make a suggestion to you. I, I it sounds like you're not ready to have, have Joel Olstein as a guest on your show, but here's someone that you might, you might be open to because while you were talking about refr referencing that, that minister in my film, I just remembered the guy's name.And he is, he is the guy from Louisiana. His name is Jerry Dewitt, D E w I T T. So if he's written a couple of books he's had a podcast. So if you pop him into Google I think he will find him. Jerry that's J Jerry with a J E R R Y D E w I T T. And you could, you could invite him on your show and ask him these questions yourself.He might, you know, since you're a Louisiana boy and, and he is too he might, he might be to be on your guest mm-hmm [00:29:00] and, you know, talk to a homeboy De'Vannon: I'll reach out. You never know what could be. It would be great. Yeah. To talk to someone who used to be in clergy who left. Yeah. You know, I'm coming from a, from a volunteer perspective, he's coming from a, from aler clergy's per perspective.That could be pretty kick ass. Yeah. So, John: so, so like I said, I don't, you know, I, I, I kind of, I get off on a tangent there, but you know, as far as my feelings about. Being against God. Again, I, I don't this is a free country. People are free to be who they are and believe in what they want to, as long as it doesn't mess with my life.And the only way someone's belief in a particular religion or God would mess with my life is it's that starts getting involved with politics. For example, if I was a woman and I believed in abortion and I had some [00:30:00] co you know, ultra conservative or evangelical Congress, people who were trying to overturn Roe versus the, the, he weighed, then I would probably have a problem with that.Do you know what I'm saying De'Vannon: as do I, and you know, the crazy thing about it is the whole concept of what God is. It's subjective. Everybody's gonna have a different opinion about that. How to interpret scripture as subjective. Everybody's gonna have a different opinion about that. You know, there's, there's precedent in the Bible about why it's not a good idea to try to establish laws against people based on your personal beliefs.And that is, that is the main takeaway that I get from the convert version story of SA, because what did Saul do before he became Paul? He was a big person in the San Hedron. The San Hedron was a part of the religious people who governed, you know, over there in the middle east. He went to them, got permission to go and [00:31:00] persecute people who were not living according to his opinion of how they should.That's exactly what it was. I believe in this. They're not living how I think they should. So I'm gonna go make them do it. That was his whole point of going to Damascus and Jesus knocks him off his horse, the blinding light, the whole story. We know how it goes. And Jesus is like, yo dude, cut this shit out.This is not how I want you to go about it. And that's exactly what Republicans are doing when they say, Hey, we think those people over there should live a different way. Let's go make some laws to force 'em it's the same thing. But when they read through the Bible, they're not reading about it on how to improve themselves.They're reading. If they read it at all, you know, is about how to change other people. And when I was in seminary, before I left seminary, one of the reasons I left seminary was cuz one of the professors was just like, yeah, we want to control people in churches. And he said this as, just as just like the sky is [00:32:00] blue.And I was like, what the fuck are you talking about? so, and John: he actually said he wants to control people. Yes. He was at the law, profess least he was on, at least he was honest about De'Vannon: it. At least he was honest, but I was, but it wasn't just him, but all the classmates were nodding in agreement. Like they didn't have a problem with what this man was saying.And so he was like, and he was coming from a Baptist background if I recall correctly. And, and I was just like, no, we would not be controlling people. it's not what this is about. But, but the Republican culture and everything like that is so much about control, which I believe stems from insecurities and fear within people cuz confident, happy.People don't go about the business of trying to make life miserable for other people. , you know, it's just not what we do. We're too busy being happy. so, right, right. John: And so, well, they think they're on a mission. This is what, what the problem I have with religion and ultra religious people is because [00:33:00] they feel like they're on a mission from God and they're doing in God's will it's the same motive behind the, do you know, have you heard of the crusades?Do you know what the crusades were about? Are you to history? Yes. Okay. Do you know, do you know what the crusades De'Vannon: are about? Yeah. That's getting into the church, like prosecuting people and I think like heritage fix, you know, and maybe John: like the crusades, the crusades were A mission done. I think they were done in the, in the 10 or 11 hundreds that were initiated by a couple of popes during that time period where they felt that they were on a mission from God to convert the people who were not Christians and sent all their troops kind of, kind of like what Putin is doing to Ukraine. These guys did to the middle east, they got all their, their armies and their weapons, and they went on a mission from God, their, on their, on their [00:34:00] shirts, the van, their would be these big red crosses. They, they that's how they identified themselves. These big, giant red crosses. They were, they were so Christian soldiers and they got these huge forces and they marched into the middle east.And they just started slaughtering people because it was easy for them to do because when you, when you look at people who don't think the way you do or look the way you do, it's easy to minimize them. Right. And it's easier to to do bad stuff to them because you think that they're less right? They're, they're, Heins, they're nonbelievers, so it's an easy excuse to kill them.And, and that's what the, the crusades were about. They were doing. They totally believe they were on a mission from God. And in God's name, just murdered. Tens of thousands of people. I mean, look it up. It's pretty, pretty scary. De'Vannon: Yeah. I do have [00:35:00] that I wrote a blog about that and I have a, a link and they called it like, I think like the inquisition and I think they labeled people as like heretics and I think there was like a, that's John: a different that's that's, that's similar, but different.Okay. Similar that is different than the crusades. Okay. But same idea. You know, going after people that don't think a certain way, that's, that's the, the common thread between the two. De'Vannon: That makes sense. But, but John: I, you know, I'm making a parallel, you mentioned the Republicans and again, the parallel that they believe that many of them are evangelical.And if I, if I'm, if I'm Understand it correctly is that the whole idea is that you've gotta basically convert everyone to think the way you do evangelize. That's the whole premise of E even I can't even say evangelism to, to, you know, go out and witness and change [00:36:00] people and convert people. And to your minister's point, control people, you know, that's not uncommon that he was evangelical.You said, and that's what he said to you. And that that's what many evangelicals believe they might not be. So honest about it. You know, Joel may not admit that that's what he is looking to do. That you've gotta be a certain way. You've gotta look a certain way. You've gotta have a certain sexuality.You've gotta conform to their version of the Bible. And if you don't off with your head, That, De'Vannon: that mentality seemed to kind of like prevail because when they fired me, they let me know that I wasn't the first one, they were like, we do this all the time. , you know, you know, the, they did offer, you should have John: been wearing a wire.You should have been wearing a wire. So you had that on, on, on all De'Vannon: audio. Well, you know, this is back like. Gosh, [00:37:00] and maybe like 2008, 2009. So the concept of everything being recorded and being so available, I think we may have just been converting from flip phones and shit, you know, and pages, you know, technology.Wasn't like, you know, everything, wasn't like, Ooh, I got you on camera. You know? Yeah, no, no, I'm John: just I and De'Vannon: facetious. But I've thought about that before, like how great it would be if I, if I could, if I would've had that recorded, you know, and stuff like that. But I had no idea that that's what they would've done.Cause I thought maybe I was gonna actually be getting hired or something, but instead, instead I got fired. Well you, when you saw, when you watched my doc, I I had a somewhat similar situation where I received a letter from the church saying don't come to Bible study anymore. Remember that part in the film.Right. Right. Because you cause you, you y'all had an interesting thing going on where you had a singles ministry at this church now we're in New York city and it was like the marble something collegiate marble [00:38:00] collegiate church. And the singles group was twenties and thirties. You were in your forties and they had a real strict thing about that.So they would, as you say, in the film, tap people on the shoulder in a way and tell them, Hey, you're too old. So stop coming here. And John: so what was, well, it wasn't, it wasn't let me just interrupt you. It wasn't real strict. Because we're talking about as an experience in the film or part in the film.I talk about experience. I had, where I was kind of dragged into a Bible study. I really wasn't interested in going, but someone dragged me into this thing. It was after the, the Sunday sermon and there were probably 40 people in there and there were quite a few people in there that were over 40. I looked around and I was not the, I was maybe 45, 46 at the time. So I I was reluctant to go because I thought it was strict. I thought, you know, you get carted at the door to make sure you're, you're under 40, which you know, is kind of silly when you think of a church, both about how inclusive they are [00:39:00] to restrict a Bible study to people of a certain age. I don't really understand the logic behind that, but I certainly was not the only one who was over 40. And, and even though that's the reason that they gave me in the letter that I shouldn't continue going the real reason is I suspect something that was quite different that I mentioned in the film. De'Vannon: Right? Because you challenged the the preacher, he asked the question. And then your, he asked if anyone had any questions during this Bible study and your question was something like, what is truth?Oh, no, your question was, is it true? Correct. And then he was silent. He really couldn't say much. And then you said something to kind of help him out of the rabbit hole that, that he found him. And then he said something like, truth is objective or like, what is truth? Right. John: Which was a pretty lame answer.As far as I was concerned. well, churches do, but, but it [00:40:00] was, it was shortly thereafter that I received a letter saying we really value you as person and don't come to Bible study anymore. You're too old. De'Vannon: Right, but in the video, you know, and that sucks that that happened to you. But in the video you said that, that, that, that did happen to other people.And then you observed that those people not only stopped going to the group, but they stopped going to the church as well. And I, I, and I, and that's a very, I thought that was very interesting point because sometimes when I tell people say I got kicked out of lake, it, they go that they tell you, you can't come back.And then I have to make it clear. When you kick a person out of one, part of a church, you kick them out of the whole church because it makes it very fucking awkward. When you try to go back there, it feels weird. It feels, I don't even have a word for it. It feels alien. Suddenly you just don't, it feels like a whole different world.When someone's told you that you, [00:41:00] for being who you are being the age or who you choose to love how old you are or whatever physical characteristic you have or something that. You really can't help. We don't want you here. John: well, it makes you feel like you're not fully accepted, De'Vannon: right? So you don't have to say bitch, leave the whole church and don't come back.You know, just telling someone to get out of any part of it, because a church is, is not supposed to be like that. You can't like everyone come on in, the doors are open, but we only want certain, certain of you in certain portions of the church, you know, that just doesn't work that way. Well, what John: I, what I, what I've discovered dev van en sounds like you've discovered it as well, is what churches say and what they do are often very different things.De'Vannon: This is true. And a big part of my ministry, my calling, whatever you want to refer to it as is to get people to a point where [00:42:00] they can. See, what, what is real and what is fake and understand, like you say, in your video, that just because someone's a preacher doesn't mean that they are right, or that they're gonna be right all the time.They're just human. And and so, so we gotta take these preachers and pastors off of these pedestals, we gotta take these churches off of these pedestals. Now, you know, a word came up called, try that somebody in your film said, and I thought that that was very interesting. And he said that our tribal instincts can override our rational thought of a writer.One once upon a time said, no, man is an island. Okay. Because we have this innate sense to, to congregate. Be it gangs to be it in a church. Be it. And the military, you know, this, this, this there's this group, you know, we need each other. And so we are always gonna find some kind of way. When I got kicked outta church, I replaced the church group with the, with the nightlife.And then I began to dive deeper into like the clubs and stuff like that. And that's ultimately how I became a [00:43:00] drug dealer. And I didn't know it then, but we're gonna always and seek out communities some kind of way, because that's just how we're designed. And then in the case of, and then we let our need for community override our rational.So we'll stay at the church and listen to the preacher and try to be involved. Even though we've seen things that we know don't make sense, you know, and we rationalize it a way.Which ain't good. You know, if we see something and it doesn't make sense, then that should be addressed. If if the priest are abusing the altar boys or different people, we can't just sweep it under the rug and rationalize it away and go, oh, I'll just stay right. John: Well, it's almost like being in a bad marriage, right?You're you're in a marriage and you get used to it. I, and the longer you're in it, the more you're willing to accept bad behavior because you're kind of used to it. And you kind of you rationalize that while there's a lot of good [00:44:00] in it. Because it's hard to walk away. I mean, a church for many people and certainly was with me was a very big part of my life.Mm-hmm so it's easy to rationalize. Well, it's not perfect. And no church, what church is perfect. Right? And it's, you know, it's a very, and listen, I don't fault people for thinking that way to each his own, you know, they're right. Nothing is totally perfect. The church that I went to in New York, wasn't perfect.But the reason I stayed involved with it as long as I did is be because of tribalism, I, I looked forward to seeing my friends every Sunday. Sometimes I would just skip the sermon and I'd go straight to the coffee hour, just so I could hang out with my friends. That was very, very, a big, important part of my life in New York city that I valued.But once I got over were 40 and was not so welcome in the, in the singles group, they really didn't have a singles group for I'm trying to think. Oh yeah, they [00:45:00] did have a singles group for people. Over 40 and everyone was 70. So I remember Dick dip dipping my toe in there when I was like 42. And the next youngest person to me was like 63.So I did not feel like trying to ingratiate myself to a new group with people were you know, 10, 15, 20 years older than me, especially when I'd been just part of a group for the past 15 years of people, many, many people just, you know, a couple of years younger than me. So I didn't really, I, I didn't like the fact that they had a hard cutoff at 40, you know, I, I, I just thought that didn't make a whole lot of sense.Like, what are they trying to tell you that if you're not married by the time you're 40, you're a loser, you know, which is kind of what they were saying. At least that's a message. That's how I interpreted. De'Vannon: In, in other churches, Lakewood and other churches too. Have, [00:46:00] you know, the, the groups divided by ages, I think just either have a singles fucking group or don't have one regardless of the age, because a 20 year old, a 20 year old may be attracted to a 60 year old.You know, the very concept of that is trying to act like is trying to force people into a certain age range. That's very presumptuous. John: Yeah. And, you know, listen, it, it it really hurt a lot of people. I mean, I was just a little perturbed by it, but there are a lot of women very attractive, smart career women in New York city, right.Who spend most of their twenties and thirties focusing on their career, which is very much the case of the kind of women you meet in New York city. So, you know, here they are Approaching 40. Right. And now suddenly they're thinking, gee I, I, I do I wanna have a family? Do I wanna switch gears here? I'm still single. But at least church is a big part of my life. And then having a, being, having them [00:47:00] get tapped on the shoulder saying us, sorry, you're out of this group. I mean, that was a pretty big deal for a lot of those women who were really, really hurt by the fact that they were no longer welcome.Welcome in this single group is hard enough for anyone to turn 40. You're gonna be turning 40, but especially at think in our society for women. I don't think, you know, our society is rarely friendly to women that you know, of a certain age, older women. So that's a pretty big birthday for many women.And on top of dealing with that on an emotional, psychological level to have your church saying sorry we, you really can't come to this group anymore group that they may have been a part of for 5, 10, 15 years, where all their friends were to get, you know, tapped outta that group. That makes no sense to me, especially coming from a church that on their website says how inclusive [00:48:00] they are and welcoming they are to everyone.De'Vannon: Yeah. And then it just, its a certain type of.That I just, it just can't be described because you think about the money that you've given to the church and the time you spent volunteering and stuff like that, it does feel like a marriage or some sort of relationship and to be dismissed from it, for any for, and unless you've done something bad against the church and like stolen their money or actually done something, then maybe they could say something, but they still shouldn't dismiss you.It feels like a bad breakup. And John: for me it means bad. It's bad business. I have to say, you know, from a business perspective, listen, every, every church is paying attention to their finances. Right? So the last thing you want to do is do something that's going to Get people to leave your church, especially when you're in your early forties, [00:49:00] in New York city, you're in your prime earning years.And this is what I mentioned in the film. Why would you wanna do something that upsets someone enough that they're gonna walk away from, from the church and stop giving their charitable contributions? I mean, the church, their lifeblood are, is charitable contributions. So, you know, loosen up a little bit with your, with your rules on Bible studies.You know, I mean, gimme a freaking break here and stop scaring people away or not scaring people away, but push people away with a stupid rule. Like, you know, an age thing. It just, it just made no sense to me. And when I brought that to the attention of the minister minister, who I knew was interested.In keeping people coming to the church because he hired me to do an ad campaign to attract more people. So I knew he was very concerned about attracting and keeping people to, to [00:50:00] the church. I didn't understand why he just kind of dismissed the fact that that people were leaving the church because they felt as you said, you kick 'em outta one group.They're not gonna feel welcome. If that's the main connection to the church, there's a good chance that they're gonna stop coming to that church. If they can't continue going to that group where all their friends are,De'Vannon: these are decisions that people make when they're not accustomed to being rejected or being told they can't come places.So, you know, people. You would hope to not to get that same sort of behavior from people who are, have been the victim of discrimination and all kinds of prejudice throughout life, but people who have always been accepted will never get why, why, why do they, why, why did they just leave? You know, we only kicked them outta one part.We don't see what the big is. That's right. That's right. So right. But you know, when I think about preachers like that, I hope and pray that they [00:51:00] didn't start out with cold hearts. You know, you know, my, my spiritual leader told me that, you know, a preacher is either gonna be really, really strong or really, really weak.And that, that, that there's no in between. And so it, to me, like maybe these preachers start out with the best of intentions, but in the process of time, as the congregation grows, as the money grows, you know, or something like that, maybe their, maybe their motives get corrupt, but, and they don't even realize that it's happening, cuz it happens so gradually. You know, maybe it is all at once, but there's not much we can do about that, but I want church people and people who still look up the preachers and listen at what they say to become, to have a greater level of scrutiny that they, than what they have now to actually judge what the preachers saying and not just accept that it's fact.And if some foolishness shows up, then the whole, their priest you're accountable, they don't get to get away with things and, you know, and, you know, and, and things matter like that. [00:52:00] Right. You a quote that you had in here, which stuck out in my nogging a concerning your, your marriage, you know, you, you know, you, your divorced man, and you talk about that.In the film. You said, if I had to pick a moment, when my attitude about God began to sour, this would be it you're talking about a woman that you had met in church. I think it may have been in the singles group that I'm not sure. Yeah, but like it, wasn't the singles group, you in church, everything's going great.All the boxes are checked, but a few weeks later there's trouble. You, you said you felt betrayed by her in, by God. John: So for your listeners I'll do a little ex explaining here in the film. I talk about a woman. I met at church in the singles group that I got married to. And the quote that Devana just referred to was [00:53:00] the quote that I said in the film that Happened the day I got married in the church that if there was a time that my attitude about church and God began to sour this would be it the day that I got married at the church.And the reason I said that, and as I share in the film is that despite the fact that I met this woman in church, and I thought the marriage was ordained by God. Our marriage went downhill immediately. I mean, immediately it was a crash and burn that could never have predicted, and I didn't understand it. It like, it was like my wife had become turned into a different person. Immediately after we got married, I didn't understand what was going on. It seemed pretty clear that even though she gave me an ultimatum, it's kind of ironic because I wasn't so [00:54:00] sure about getting married and it took her giving me an ultimatum to make the decision to get married. And, but once I made that decision, I was, I was committed. But my wife's attitude seemed not, seemed, definitely changed immediately after we got married. And I was blindsided by it and I couldn't in it because as I said, I thought this marriage and this relationship was ordained by God.So it really challenged. My beliefs in God, when the marriage started going downhill and we were in marriage counseling and I was impersonal, we were in personal counseling, but she got involved with another guy. And didn't seem that interested in getting back with me. So, so it didn't really matter how much I tried, if I'm with a partner who is not exhibiting behavior to support the idea of [00:55:00]being in a marriage anymore. And we went through, we were separated for almost three years, so I was not willing to give up on the marriage, even after I found out that she had been involved with another guy, I was willing to continue to work on the marriage and try to get it back on track. She did not seem to have that similar perspective.And so that kind of changed my attitude about things being ordained by God. And that's when I began questioning the whole idea of God and all that stuff. Why? But I thought our marriage was based on that. Why De'Vannon: did you think it was ordained by God? What did God did God tell you something that he speak to you in some way to make you believe?John: Well, first of all, I met the woman in church, so that's a good start, right? When you meet someone in church, you think, okay, maybe God has something to do with bringing us together because it is God's house, right? [00:56:00] That's what church is supposed to big God's De'Vannon: house. I'll say that that's an assumption that a lot of us make.And I used to be that way when I attended churches and I was in singles groups too. And that that's a pitfall. I wanna warn people right now, not to get into, as you walk through life with God and you gain spiritual understanding, don't go put God's mouth on things. You know, if he didn't speak, just cuz you're in church and you meet some woman or some dude or whatever.That don't mean automatically that you should run off and marry them as they say, not everyone in church is saved, you know, and not, not everything, not everything that happens under his roof is ordained by him. But see, we get caught up in our emotions and stuff like that. And then, and then, and the stuff the preachers are telling us, and then we, sometimes we wanna say that that's the voice of, of God when God didn't actually speak.And so, so basically you're saying y'all met in church. All the, the boxes are being checked. This looks like it would be of God, but God didn't necessarily speak to you personally. [00:57:00] Well, John: I thought I had a supernatural experience to Von. Okay. In addition to what I just said beyond the fact that we met in church and our relationship blossomed at church events and retreats that we attended together, but there was one experience that I, I was, I had convinced myself was a supernatural met that I received from God.And that was when we were sitting in church one Sunday morning. And as the minister was preaching about something to do with God's love and bringing people together, whatever he was talking about at the moment he was talking about God's love and loving people. I felt myself. Bathed in light and brightness.And the reason I felt that way is because there was a beam of light that was coming through one of the stain glass windows and was shining directly on me and my [00:58:00] girlfriend at the time. So it was a very, very directed beam of light that was just hitting the, the window at a certain way. That for at least maybe a minute or two was illuminating, the two of us.And I said, oh my God, this is the sign. Because I at the am, we had been going out for a while and I think she had been kind of hinting at getting married. And I, I still had some doubts about whether or not this was something I, I was ready to do. So when that experience happened to me, I thought it was a sign by a sign from God.De'Vannon: Do you still think it was? No. So if it wasn't a sign from God, do you think maybe you kinda like ma made it up or just, just, this is what you believe, what you were wrong. John: Listen, when you, when you're, when you're indoctrinated into religious thought, right. It's easier for [00:59:00] you to justify natural things as supernatural De'Vannon: Uhhuh.yeah, that does happen too. So we, so we wanna avoid that. We wanna gain discernment. We wanna always be praying for discernment so we can see the truth of things. And but you know, to me, like, You know, with her, you know, seeing the other guy she's actually having sex with him, she's become an adultist, you know, at this point, you know, you know, was she that, you know of, you said she was seeing the other guy, do you know she was sleeping with him?Yes. Cuz I asked her. Okay. And so that's according to G she and John: she, and she admitted it. De'Vannon: Oh, she was a bold bitch, you know? And according to Jesus' teachings, you know, the only reason that people can lawfully get divorces in the case of infidelity. So it's almost like God was giving you a way out through this, whether you wanted to take it, you know, or not, at least the door was [01:00:00] open to, to the divorce legally, this, this brings me to another issue I take with people who take issue with people, meaning like you're.Straight people, quote, unquote, your Republicans and everything like that. And these preachers who are on like their fifth marriage and shit who get divorced all the time, for reasons other than infidelity, but in the Bible, you know, Jesus said, if you get divorced for any reason, other than infidelity, then that's wrong.And this voice he's concerned that you're still married. Yet. We find in churches all across the land that people in, all these unions have been divorced, but it was not for infidelity. And somehow it's perfectly okay. And then they continue on preaching against gay people and women who won get, get, get abortions and everything like that.But they don't really preach too much about how you're supposed to stay married unless it's for infidelity. So that's one of my pet peeves that I have now. I don't go around judging people who were divorced for reasons other than infidelity. Cuz I don't care. [01:01:00] Cuz like you said, what, what they're doing and who they're fucking don't affect me.But since they wanna have problems with other people, you know, I bring it up because there's they're because they're hypocrites. Now you, during this time you went to go see a, a preacher, a priest or whatever, cuz he is, this is a Catholic church, right? Not a Catholic church. Okay. No, no. This is a preacher. And and he told you to stay married. He's like divorce is not the way, but then later on he would get like, I think two divorces or something like that.And I don't think he was removed from that post from being a preacher. And so how did that make? He was, John: he was the, he was the head minister of the church that I'd been going to for 15 years. De'Vannon: Okay. He was a head minister. He told you not to get divorced later on. He gets a divorce twice, twice. How did that, how did that make you feel?John: Well, what do you think?De'Vannon: I might have said some John: exploitation. The, the H I, you, I think you [01:02:00] said it earlier, it's the H word hypot. Yeah. I mean, I, I, I can't think of anything more hypocritical than someone telling you, you shouldn't get divorced and then they get divorced, not once, but twice.I mean, that's the definition of hypocritical and it extends De'Vannon: beyond that because he didn't get removed from that position. I mean, us, both of those wives cheated on him and he had the lawful way out, but yet they're removing people for being two years over the age limit. You know, in, in the singles John: group?Well, I wasn't removed just to be clear the van and I wasn't removed from church. I just got a letter saying, please don't come to this group anymore. De'Vannon: all right. That makes it so much more palatable. John: I wanna be clear. I don't wanna, I don't wanna unfairly you know, trust the church. I still have the letter by the way.So, De'Vannon: but people I've talked. I talked to [01:03:00] someone before who got divorced and they removed him from his volunteer positions in church. So it's very interesting, you know, but you know, those, those double standards get applied everywhere you go. When I was in the middle was the same way. Somebody who was like to say is their first year in the air force.If they got a DUI, they get kicked out. If they were got, if they were caught drinking underage. But if they, someone who had been in there 20 years did the same thing. They wouldn't be treated as harshly, you know, The standards, they just don't seem to apply when you get higher up in organizations. Mm-hmm so the last thing I wanna talk about before we wrap this up is a little bit about Catholicism.I love to throw, throw shade at the Catholic church because I don't, I, I really, I have, I have no disrespect for Catholic people. I just think that is one huge mind. Fuck. And I cannot understand [01:04:00] where they come up with all of these damn rules and shit that have nothing to do with the Bible. And I guess the popes made it up or someone who's supposed to be holy made it up.And then therefore it is believed by people, but the, the billions of people who make up the Catholic church and give the church it's power and things like that. And I just don't see what they're getting. In return. The Bible tells us not to pray to angels and to anyone, but God, and they're praying all these saints, there's all these dead people.There's all these robes and all this kneeling. When I, when I went one time and I was like, am I sucking Dick in the sanctuary today? Or what is going on? Why am on, on my knee? well, of my needs were half the John: service. Well, hopefully you weren't doing that in church, Savannah. It De'Vannon: would've made it worth it . If, if, if, while I was down there, one time someone had stuck something in my mouth.So I'm gonna quote you again. You had some interesting one [01:05:00] liners, John: if you have, well, there might have been a few priests that would be happy De'Vannon: to accommodate you. I think I would've been too old for them at the right age. I think I might have been in my twenties and you know, and then the right age of 21, you know, they seem much too old for them.And so, you know, you never know. So you sad in here. I don't know if you have any books, man, but if not, I think you should write one. Cause you have some interesting one-liners in their, in this film. So referring to Catholic sex, sex education, you said to get a basic sex education, you need to be taught by people who had sex, who actually had sex, who actually had sex.So you were talking about getting sex education from like these crazy ass looking nuns and stuff like that. So just tell us, as we begin to wrap up about your Catholic experience and what you think of the Catholic church. John: So in the film I talk about going to parochial school, junior high school which was [01:06:00]13, 14, 15 years old.And one of the required courses was weekly courses was a course in religion and they kind of cross pollinated religion and sex education with, I guess, you know, they could only hire so many teachers and I guess they couldn't have a dedicated teacher teaching sex education and a Catholic school.So the, the teacher was teaching religion integrated some what, what they considered sex education. I would say sex lack of education would be a better way to phrase it. And one of the things they I was told at the age of 13 was that I'm, I'm trying to remember cuz it was quite a while ago, but the clear message I got was that you really should not be having sexual thoughts in your head.And if you do or do it too much, or don't turn your brain off immediately, once that sex sexual [01:07:00] thought pops in your head, if you don't immediately shut that down, you're walking on thin, thin ice with Jesus and, and you, you don't wanna, you don't wanna sin in against Jesus now, do you? So that was kind of the message I got is that it would be a, a sin or could be a sin against Jesus.If you don't shut down really quickly, any sexual thought about you know, my case, naked women or naked girls that, that pop into your head, you, which is a pretty big mind fuck to tell a 13 year old kid. And I have to tell you when you're, whe

united states america god jesus christ new york time texas health church australia google starting mental health bible marriage england politics film new york times religion christians christianity ukraine government sex german russian leaving emotional emotions institute congress bbc divorce political exodus winner republicans louisiana ga catholic straight documentary vladimir putin democrats lgbt films roe v wade rejection religious fuck trailer constitution usa today filmmakers churches ra pe lgbtqia baptist similar persecution correct catholics catholicism george washington myspace dui mm damascus compelling tens vimeo evangelical thomas jefferson emotional health declaration of independence pentecostal john adams crusades writer director hillsong cuz lakewood outlet fucked twain presa heretics montrose american legion freeup antigo fallas podmatch bathed religious persecution heins toine madison ave joel olsteen joel stein chrsitian god suffering paralleling john yeah john well john so john follis john don de'vannon john not jerry dewitt john listen

275: Making Change Happen – Why Not You? with Nyota Gordon

Greater Than Code

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 23, 2022 52:55

01:47 - Nyota's Superpower: To hear and pull out people's ideas to make them more clear, actionable, and profitable! * Acknowledging The Unspoken * Getting Checked 07:15 - Boundaries and Harmony 10:35 - News & Social Media * Addiction * Filtering * Bias 18:54 - The Impact of AI 23:00 - Anyone Can Be A Freelance Journalist; How Change Happens * Chelsea Cirruzzo's Guide to Freelance Journalism (https://docs.google.com/document/d/18rwpMH_VpK8LUcO61czV2SzzXPVmcVhmUigf1_a7xbc/edit) * Casey's GGWash Article About Ranked Choice Voting (https://ggwash.org/view/79582/what-exactly-is-ranked-choice-voting-anyway) * First Follower: Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy | Derek Sivers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ) 40:13 - The Intersection of Cybersecurity and Employee Wellness: Resiliency * @selfcare_tech (https://twitter.com/selfcare_tech) Reflections: Casey & John: “A big part of resilience is being able to take more breaths.” – Nyota Damien: You can be the expert. You can be the journalist. You can be the first mover/leader. Applying that conscientiously. Nyota: Leaving breadcrumbs. This episode was brought to you by @therubyrep (https://twitter.com/therubyrep) of DevReps, LLC (http://www.devreps.com/). To pledge your support and to join our awesome Slack community, visit patreon.com/greaterthancode (https://www.patreon.com/greaterthancode) To make a one-time donation so that we can continue to bring you more content and transcripts like this, please do so at paypal.me/devreps (https://www.paypal.me/devreps). You will also get an invitation to our Slack community this way as well. Transcript: PRE-ROLL: Software is broken, but it can be fixed. Test Double's superpower is improving how the world builds software by building both great software and great teams. And you can help! Test Double is hiring empathetic senior software engineers and DevOps engineers. We work in Ruby, JavaScript, Elixir and a lot more. Test Double trusts developers with autonomy and flexibility at a remote, 100% employee-owned software consulting agency. Looking for more challenges? Enjoy lots of variety while working with the best teams in tech as a developer consultant at Test Double. Find out more and check out remote openings at link.testdouble.com/greater. That's link.testdouble.com/greater. DAMIEN: Welcome to Episode 275 of Greater Than Code. I'm Damien Burke and I'm here with John Sawers. JOHN: Thanks, Damien. And I'm here with Casey Watts. CASEY: Hi, I'm Casey! And we're all here with our guest today, Nyota Gordon. Nyota is a technologist in cybersecurity and Army retiree with over 22 years of Active Federal Leadership Service. She is the founder, developer, and all-around do-gooder at Transition365 a Cyber Resiliency Training Firm that thrives at the intersection of cybersecurity and employee wellness. Welcome, Nyota! So glad to have you. NYOTA: Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate you. CASEY: Yay! All right. Our first question—we warned you about this—what is your superpower and how did you acquire it? NYOTA: My superpower is to hear, pull out people's ideas, and make them more clear, more actionable, and more profitable. DAMIEN: Ooh. NYOTA: Yeah, that's one of my friends told me that. And how did I get it? I'm a words person. So I listen to what people say, but I also listen to what they don't say. CASEY: What they don't say. NYOTA: Yeah. CASEY: Can you think of an example? NYOTA: Like that. Like when you did that quiet thing you just did, I saw that mind blown emoji because there's a lot in unspoken. There's a lot in body language. There's a lot in silence. When the silence happens, there's a lot when someone changes the topic, like that stuff is a lot. [chuckles] So I listen and I acknowledge all of that. Maybe we all hear it, or don't hear it depending on how you're processing what I'm saying, but we don't always acknowledge it and respect it in other people, DAMIEN: You have to listen to the notes he's not playing. [laughter] Do you ever have an experience where things that are not said do not want to be heard? NYOTA: Absolutely. But that's part of acknowledging and so, you can tell when people are like, “I do not want to talk about that.” So then I would do a gentle topic change and not a hard left all the time, because you don't want to make it all the way weird, but it may be like, “Oh, okay so you were talking about your hair, like you were saying something about your hair there.” I try to be very mindful because I will get in your business. Like, I will ask you a million questions. I'm very inquisitive and maybe that's one of my superpowers too, but I'm also aware and I feel like I'm respectful of people's space most times. CASEY: I really like that in people when people notice a lot about me and they can call it out. When I was a kid, my family would call me blunt, not necessarily in a bad way, but I would just say whatever I'm thinking and not everyone likes it right away. But I really appreciate that kind of transparency, honesty, especially if I trust the person. That helps a lot, too. NYOTA: I was just saying that to my mom, actually, I was like, “You know, mom, I feel like I need a different quality of friend,” and what I mean by that is my friends just let me wild out. Like I ask them anything, I say anything, but they don't kind of check me. They're like, “Well, is that right, Nyota?” Like, Tell me, why are you saying it like that?” But they just let me be like ah and I'm like, “Mom, I need to be checked.” Like I need a hard check sometimes. So now you're just letting me run wild so now I'm just seeing how wild I can get. Sometime I just want maybe like a little check, a little body check every now and then, but I try to be mindful when it comes to other people, though. It's the check I want is not always the check that other people want. CASEY: Right, right. DAMIEN: What is it like when you're being checked? What happens? NYOTA: It's hard to come by these days so I'm not really sure [chuckles] when I'm getting my own, but I'll ask a question. I'll just kind of ask a question like, “Well, is that true?” people are like, “This world is falling apart,” and you know how people are because we are in a shaky space right now and I'm like, “But is that absolutely true for your life?” How is everything really infecting, impacting what have you being exposed to in your own life? So as we have the conversation about COVID. COVID was one of my best years as far as learning about myself, connecting with people better and more intimately than I ever really have before and we're talking virtually. So things are going on in the world, but is it going on personally, or are you just watching the news and repeating what other people are saying? JOHN: That's such a fascinating thing to do to interrupt that cycle of someone who's just riding along with something they've heard, or they're just getting caught up in the of that everything's going to hell and the world is in a terrible place. Certainly, there are terrible things going on, but that's such a great question to ask because it's not saying there's nothing bad going on. You're not trying to be toxically positive, but you're saying, “Let's get a clear view of that and look at what's actually in your life right now.” NYOTA: That part, that part because people are like, nobody's looking for crazy Pollyanna, but sometimes people do need to kind of get back to are we talking about you, or are we talking about someone else? DAMIEN: That's such a great way of framing it: are we talking about you, or are we talking about someone else? NYOTA: Yeah. CASEY: It reminds me of boundaries. The boundary, literally the definition of who I am and who I care about. It might include my family, my partner, me. It's may be a gradient even. [chuckles] We can draw the boundary somewhere on that. NYOTA: Yeah, and I think we also get to speak even more than boundaries about is it in harmony? Because I feel like there are going to be some levels that are big, like my feelings are heard, or I'm feeling like I just need to be by myself. But then there are these little supporting roles of what that is. I think it's as you see, some parts are up and some parts are down because sometimes when it comes to boundaries, it's a little challenging because sometimes there has to be this give and take, and your boundaries get to be a little bit more fluid when they have to engage with other people. It's those darn other people. [chuckles] DAMIEN: But being conscientious and aware of how you do that. It's a big planet with a lot of people on it and if you go looking for tragedy, we're very well connected, we can find it all and you can internalize as much of it as you can take and that's bad. That is an unpleasant experience. NYOTA: Yeah. DAMIEN: And that's not to say that it's not happening out there and that's not to say that it's not tragic, but you get to decide if it's happening to you, or not. NYOTA: Right. DAMIEN: And that's separate from things that are directly in our physical space, our locus of control, or inside of the boundaries that we set with ourselves and loved ones, et cetera. NYOTA: Because it's so easy to – I say this sometimes, guilt is a hell of a drug because sometimes people are addicted to guilt, addicted to trauma, addicted to a good time and not even thinking of all the things that come with those different levels of addiction. So I think we get fed into this news and this narrative, like we were speaking of earlier a of everything's bad, this is a terrible place, everyone's going to hell. Whatever the narrative is the flavor of the moment and there's so many other things. It's a whole world, like you said. It's a whole world and I think the world is kind of exactly what we're looking for. When I was in the military, every town is exactly what you need it to be. [laughter] Because if you're looking for the club, you're looking for the party people in little small towns. But I could tell you where every library was. Don't call me nerdy because I am, but I don't care. All right. I could tell you where every library was. I could tell you where every place to eat. I could tell you all of those things, but then you'll ask me like, “Where's the club?” And I was like, “There's a club here?” Because that's not what I'm looking for. That's not the experience that I'm looking for. So I would dare say every place is exactly what you're looking for, what you want it, what you need it to be. CASEY: We're talking about the news a little bit here and it reminds me of social media, like the addiction to news, the addiction to social media. In a way, it is an addiction. Like you keep going to it when you're bored, you just reach for it. That's the stimulus, that's your dopamine. I think of both of those, news and social media, as a cheap form of being connected to other humans. A bad, low quality, not a deep connection kind of thing. But what we all would thrive if we had more of is more connections to others, which like community, authentic relationships with people. But that's harder. Even if you know that and you say that's your goal, it takes more work to do that than to pick up Facebook app on your phone. I deleted it from my phone six months ago and I've been happier for it. [laughter] NYOTA: Like delete, delete? Like delete? CASEY: Well, it is on my iPad in case I have to post a shirt design into a Facebook group. I'm not gone gone, but I'm basically gone and I know that I don't interact on it and it's boring. I don't post anything. I don't get any likes. I don't even want to like anyone's post and they'll say, “Oh, you're on.” I don't do anything. Like once every three months, I'll post a design. NYOTA: Is that for every social media channel? CASEY: I'm still on Twitter. NYOTA: Twitter. CASEY: I'm still on Twitter and LinkedIn kind of for business reasons. But if I could drop them, I think I would, too. NYOTA: Did you say if you could? CASEY: If I could drop them and not have business repercussions. NYOTA: Mm. DAMIEN: This sounds like a great idea to make more profitable. NYOTA: [laughs] I'm thinking does a lot of your business come from –? I feel like LinkedIn is social, but. CASEY: I wouldn't say that I get new business from these necessarily, but I do end up with clients and potential clients and people I've talked to before saying, “Ph, I saw that thing and now that I saw you wrote a blog post about doing surveys for an engineering org, now I want to talk to you.” NYOTA: Mm, okay. CASEY: Like that is pretty valuable and when I'm writing something like a blog post, I want to put that somewhere. But anyway, I am happier that I'm off of Facebook and Instagram, which I wasn't getting as much value out of. Other than connection to people, the shallow connection to people and instead I switched to messaging people. I have text message threads and group chats and those are much more intimate, much more stuff being shared, more connection to those individuals. NYOTA: I agree with that. What about you John? Like what is your relationship with social media right now? JOHN: So I've always been sort of arm's length with Facebook. So it's been just like eh, I check in every week, maybe just sort of see. I scroll until I lose interest, which is 10 minutes the most and then those are my updates. That's all I see and then occasionally, I'll post a meme, or something. I don't really do a lot there. Usually, I keep it around just for the people that I'm in touch with that are only on Facebook and I only have connection to them. But you bring up an interesting point about there's a positive and a negative to being able to filter your social media. For example, with Reddit and Twitter, you only see the stuff for people you're following and/or the subreddits that you're subscribed to. So you can very much customize that experience into something that isn't full of most of the crap people experience on Twitter, or Reddit. So there's that positive there because you can craft a world that's maybe it's all kitten pictures, maybe whatever, and post about programming, whatever it is. But you do have the problem of filter bubbles so that if you are in something that's a little bit more controversial, you do end up with that echo chamber effect and lots of people jumping in, or if you're in a sub that's interesting to you, that's also very contentious and the threads go off the rails all the time, but you can control that. You can see like, “Well, no, get it out of here. I don't need to deal with that static.” I rely on that a lot to sort of focus in on what I'm using it for, whether it's keeping up with specific friends, or specific topics and then trying to filter out as much of the things I don't want as possible. NYOTA: Is Facebook's your only social media channel? JOHN: No, I'm on Twitter. I don't usually post a lot, usually just retweet stuff and read it. NYOTA: That's kind of lame a little bit. I'm not saying, I'm just saying that your social media choices – [laughter] DAMIEN: Wow. NYOTA: But I think you're are right, though. I'm a lot better off for it because I did find myself going down a social media rabbit. It was easy for me to cut off the news. I actually stopped watching the news in 2007 when I became an officer. They were like, “As an officer, you have to watch the news. You have to be aware of what's going on in the world,” and I was like, “Oh, okay,” and then I walked away from that lady and I was like, “I'm not watching the news anymore.” DAMIEN: Hmm. NYOTA: Because I felt like she was trying to trick me in some kind of a way, but you get what you need. If it's something that I need to know, it comes to me it. It comes to me like. Believe me, it'll come to you. She was a little bit too adamant about what I needed and how the news was a part of it. It just felt a little not right and so, I actually stopped. DAMIEN: The news is a very specific thing like that word, the news [chuckles] Is anything new about it? [chuckles] The news is a group of organizations, a group of media organizations that are all very much alike. The Economist, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times, The Chicago Tribune, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox News, MSNBC. These are all organizations that operate the same, they cover the same things, and they do them in largely the same way along of course, some political partisan differences. But it's not new and for most people, it does not serve them, or inform them. NYOTA: Yeah. It's very divisive. DAMIEN: I used to get my news from Jay Leno. [laughter] That was better than CNN more and funnier, too. NYOTA: That part. [laughs] I think it's just interesting how it's such a whole world with a whole bunch of people with various levels of experiencing, bumping into each other, and like you're saying, this is what everyone's reporting on. Nothing else happens? Nothing good happens anywhere else? CASEY: Yeah. NYOTA: Nothing? See, that's not true. [laughter] Like that can't be real for me and so, I'm not going to be able to include that in where I spend my time. JOHN: Yeah. I used to have NPR on in the car whenever I was in the car, I was like, “Oh, it'll keep me inform,” blah, blah, blah. But eventually, I was like, “You know what? They still talk about the same crap. They're just from a perspective I agree with slightly more.” But even when they do human interest stuff, or stuff that isn't about a war, or some sort of crisis in Washington, it's still so negatively biased. Even the stuff that's theoretically positive, it still has this weird you should be concerned about this vibe to it and eventually, I was realizing that there's no room for that in my life. DAMIEN: Yeah. We talk about how harmed full Facebook is to society and individuals. But this is not again, new. [chuckles] Facebook optimizes for engagement, which causes harm as a byproduct. It's the AI-fication of what media has been doing ever since there has been mass media. NYOTA: Yeah. It's interesting because there was a moment in there. So I even got on social media because I was always gone. I lived wherever I lived while I was in the military and so, it was a way to let my family know, “Okay, I'm here. Look, I ate this.” [chuckles] All of those things. So there was a part where Facebook made a drastic turn on my feed and I was like, “Ohm this is so bad!” And then I was like, “Okay, wait, wait. Who's bad? Who is this coming from?” So I cleaned up my whole Facebook feed and then it became a happy place again and then now where it is, it's a place where it's only seven people out of the thousand Facebook friends I have. I was like, “Okay, well that's not it either. That's not it.” So it's just interesting how AI has such a impact of what we listen to, or what we talk about. So now it's these days I'm like new shoes, new shoes, new shoes. Because I want that to come up on my – I don't even – you know what I'm saying? Because I know that you're listening, so I'll get it later. So now I almost treat it like an administrative assistant so I can look it up later. [laughter] CASEY: Hilarious. NYOTA: Yeah. JOHN: Please target some ads around shoes to me. NYOTA: I did. Yeah, because they're listening. CASEY: And it works, doesn't it? I know. NYOTA: Yes. CASEY: I know it works. NYOTA: Yes. CASEY: That still blows some people's minds. If you could say the name of a product and you'll see it the next day. If you have your ads on, it's listening and your phone is listening. Everyone's phone is listening. NYOTA: Yes, yes. Because you're looking at something like – I don't even really listen to the music. What is it? Spotify! And then it's like, you're listening to Spotify, but why is my mic on? You want to hear me sing the song? Why does my mic have to be on? I don't understand that part. Like why? They'll be like, “Oh, she has a great voice on her.” Is that why you're listening? [laughter] Why are you listening? I don't understand that part. So I don't know. DAMIEN: There's a deal coming your way. NYOTA: [laughs] Come on. Let's go. JOHN: I assume the public reason for it is so that you can do voice searches and like, “Hey, play me some more Rebecca Black,” or whatever. But who knows what else they're doing with it once you've got it turned on, right? It could be whatever. DAMIEN: Actually listening in on people is not the technically most effective way of getting those results. If you say the brand name of a shoe, it's probably because the people around you are talking about it and what do they search on Google? What ads have they seen? It's easier to say, “Oh, you're in the room with these people who are interested in these things,” or “You're in conversation with these people who are interested in these things. Let me show you these things without honing through massive amounts of audio data.” CASEY: Yeah. Both are possible and that one's easier. I'm sure they both happen and at what frequency, that's hard to study from beyond outside, but we know it's all possible and we know it's happening. If this is news to anyone listening, you can look this up. There are a million articles about it and they explain why and how, and some people did some empirical tests and I don't have any handy, but I've read it over and over and over on the internet and the internet's always right. NYOTA: That's what I heard [laughs] and not from the news. CASEY: I have these Google Home Minis in my house and all of them, the mics are off. So if ever the power cable gets jingled, it says, ‘Just so you know, the mic's off and I have to say it for a really long time. This is a very long recorded message. So that you'll want to turn your mic back on,” and it says that. Can you believe it? [laughter] DAMIEN: That's not the actual text of the message, right? I have to check. NYOTA: These little home speakers are cool in all the worst ways, but the best ways, too. So my Alexa, I'll be asking her whatever and then I'll say, “Thank you, Alexa,” and she'll say, “You're very, very, very, very welcome,” like she's singing, yes. [laughs] DAMIEN: Wow. You people have corporate spying devices in your homes. It's unbelievable. NYOTA: But you have one, too. It's just your phone. So we all have them. DAMIEN: Yeah. She promises me she doesn't listen unless I ask. NYOTA: That's what mine said! CASEY: Mine said it! [laughter] I don't trust them either. I don't even trust that the mic off necessarily works. Part of me is tempted to go in and solder the mic off. I never want the speakers to have the mic. I will not use that feature at my house. But I do want speakers in every room enough that I'm willing to take the risk of the switch not working. NYOTA: Yeah. At this point, I think I've just big brothers watching, or at least listening, [chuckles] Big brother really like, “Oh, I need to turn that off. She's talking about the big brother. We'll blush over here.” [laughs] CASEY: I want to go back to something I was thinking on the news. Sometimes I hear, or I know about things in the world because I'm someone who's in the world sometimes and the topics I want to hear in the news don't always come up. Like, DC Rank the Vote is happening and there was eventually an article about it and another article. I wrote one, eventually. Anyone can be a freelance journalist. So if the news isn't covering stuff you want it to. NYOTA: I like that. CASEY: You can literally write the news, too. NYOTA: Mm. CASEY: They might even pay you for it. DAMIEN: [chuckles] You can write the news, too. Say it again, Casey. CASEY: You can write the news, too. There's a really cool freelance journalism guide, that I'll put in the show notes, by someone in D.C. Chelsea Cirruzzo, I think. I didn't pronounce check that, but she wrote an awesome guide and it led me to getting an article published in Greater Greater Washington, a D.C. publication about ranked choice voting. I was like, “Why is no one talking about this? It's happening here. It's a big problem.” So I wrote about it. Other people write about it, too and they have since then, but you can be the change you want in the world. You can. Journalism is not as guarded and gated as it might seem. NYOTA: That's so interesting because I think what's interesting is we know that. We know that we can contribute, we know that we can write, but then you're like, “Wait, I can contribute! I can write!” CASEY: Mm. NYOTA: So I think that's, thank you for that reminder. CASEY: Yeah. But the how is hard and without a guide like Chelsea's, I'm not sure I would have broken in to do it. I needed her to go through it and tell me this is the process, here's the person in the org, what they do, what they expect and how you can make it easy for them, and you need the pitch to have this and that, has to be timely and like –. All that made sense. I'm like, “Oh sure, sure, sure.” But I couldn't have come up with that on my own, no way. NYOTA: But she bundled it together like that. CASEY: Yeah. DAMIEN: I would have never imagined that's a thing you can do because that's an entire degree program. That's a post-graduate degree program, if you'd like, and I see people who've been doing this for 20 years and do it poorly and they seem like smart people. [chuckles] So what makes me think I could do it? NYOTA: Because we can do whatever we want. CASEY: I mean, these publications do have editors and it's their job to help make the quality, at least meet the low bar at minimum that the publication expects. But if you are really nerded out on ranked choice voting, or something, you might be the local expert. If you're thinking about writing an article, you might be the best person to do it actually. NYOTA: Mm, that's good. That's the quota right there. CASEY: So what are you nerding out about lately? Anyone listening to this, think about that to yourself and is there an article about it you can just share? I like that. I don't have to write every article ever. If not, you can think about writing it. NYOTA: I like that. DAMIEN: And what strikes me is like where the bar is for local expert. Like I believe a 100% that you're the local expert on ranked choice voting because I know enough about ranked choice voting to know that people don't understand it. [chuckles] CASEY: Yeah. And after I wrote the article, I found a group of people and so, now there's like 10 of us at this level where we get it and we're advocating for it. But I'm one of the top 10 at that point still, sure. And there are details of it that I know, details other people know that I don't know, and we're all specialists in different nuanced details and together we're stronger and that's a community, too. It's been a lot of fun advocating for that in D.C. JOHN: That's awesome. NYOTA: It's interesting the visual that I'm getting in my head, like you're over here dancing by yourself and then you back up and they're like, “Oh shoot. Other people are dancing to this same song,” and then you look and you'd be like, “Look, y'all, we're all dancing,” but you're still the lead dancer and they're the backup. [laughter] I don't know why I got that visual. CASEY: I like this image. NYOTA: Yeah. CASEY: I want to give the other organizers some credit. I think they're the lead. But I found them eventually. I couldn't have found them if I didn't write the article probably. I looked it up. I Googled it once, or twice. They have a website, but I don't know, it didn't come up for me right away, or it did, but I didn't know how to contact them and getting into breaking into that community is its own barrier. NYOTA: That's unfortunate. But you're the lead to me. I mean, you're Casey. I mean [laughter] they're okay. CASEY: Thank you. NYOTA: I mean they're okay for what they're doing, but they're not you, so. No shade on what they're doing. CASEY: Sure. JOHN: I just posted a link to a talk by Derek Sivers about how the first followers are actually more important than the first leader and it's a fantastic talk. It's pretty short, but really amusing and it makes such a fantastic point. Like Casey, you were out there, you posted the article and then all these other people show up. So now I've got this like group of 10 and then those people – you and they are all doing outreach and they are expanding that group of people that are up to speed on this stuff and are advocating for it. So there's this nucleus and it's expanding and expanding. CASEY: Yeah, and each person we get, then they can bring in more people, too and it's a movement, it's growing. I think we'll have it soon. There's literally already a bill passed in D.C. It's passed a committee and now it's gone to the bigger committee, the whole process, but there's a real bill that's been passed some steps. NYOTA: You might as well do a TEDx. I mean, you might as well. JOHN: Yeah. CASEY: Good idea. Yeah, yeah. NYOTA: But they just let anybody do them. I have one. They just give them out. They're like, “Let Nyota do it.” “Okay. I'll just – let me do it.” You can do it. You have something to talk about, it's the same. It's like the news. Why not you? CASEY: Yeah. NYOTA: You're already talking about it. CASEY: True. NYOTA: I mean, you get a TEDx, you get a TEDx. [laughter] CASEY: Look at this, Nyota inspiring us. DAMIEN: I'm inspired. Why not me? NYOTA: No, really. DAMIEN: I'm serious. That is not sarcasm. I mean that very sincerely. I'm thinking about all the things I want. I'm going to call Casey later on and go, “Okay. You know how to bring ranked choice voting to a government. How are we going to bring it to another one?” And I think about all the other – CASEY: Yeah. DAMIEN: I'm actually trying to bring ranked choice voting to my neighborhood council. I pushed to an amendment to our bylaws, which has to be approved by another organization, which I can't seem to get ahold of. [laughs] But we're doing it and why shouldn't we be doing it? Why not us? NYOTA: Why not? CASEY: Yeah. Oh, I've got resources to share with you. We'll talk later, Damien. JOHN: Well, that's also great because that again, is going to spread. Once the local organization is doing it, people start getting experience with it. They're like, “Oh yeah, we did it for this thing and it worked out great. Now I sort of understand how it works in practice. Why the heck aren't we doing it for the city council and for the governor?” And like, boom, boom, boom. DAMIEN: Yeah. Ranked choice voting is interesting because as much as people don't understand it, it's really simple [chuckles] and I think overwhelmingly, people need experience with something to understand it. CASEY: Yeah. Yeah. DAMIEN: And we have a lot of experience with plurality voting in this country, in my country at least. We have almost none with ranked choice voting. NYOTA: I think it's interesting how people get so excited about presidential elections and that sort of thing, but your life really happens at your local elections. CASEY: So true. NYOTA: Your quality of life is your local elections, like you're talking about these roads being trashed. Well, that's at the local. Biden and Kamala, they have nothing to do with those potholes all along this road. I think so people miss that. You're like, “Those elections are great. Presidential election, awesome.” But your local elections? Those are what matter for where you live and I'm like, “Why are people missing that?” CASEY: Yeah. DAMIEN: I think it goes back to the news. CASEY: Sure. That's a part. NYOTA: Darn you, news. [laughs] DAMIEN: Right, because national news is leveraged. NYOTA: Mm. DAMIEN: The national broadcast is made once and broadcast to 300 million people in the country. Local news does not have that leverage. CASEY: True. NYOTA: Mm. They need to get their social media presence together then because people are listening to Instagram. CASEY: I'm thinking about everyone's mental model of how change happens, too and I don't think a lot of people have a very developed mental model of what it takes to make change happen. I do a workshop on this actually and one of the examples I use is for gay marriage in the US. You can see the graph; you can look it up. We'll include in the show notes, a picture of gay marriage over time and it's like one's place, one's at another place, like very small amount. Just maybe not even states like counties, or some lower level, a little bit of traction, a little bit of traction, a little traction. Eventually, it's so popular that it just spikes and it's a national thing. But along the way, you might look here from the news that when it became a national thing, that's the first time, that's the first thing you heard about it. But along the way, there was all these little steps. So many little steps, so many groups advocating for it, and the change happened over time. I also think about the curve of adoption. It's a bell curve. For the iPhone, for example, some people got it really early and they were really into this thing. Like PalmPilots were really the earlier edge of smart devices. Some people had that; they're really nerdy. Some people are still holding out on the other end of the bell curve. Like my mom's best friend, she still has a flip phone and she doesn't have any interest in a smartphone. I don't blame her. She doesn't need it. But she's the lagger, the very far end lagger of on this model and to get change to happen, you've got to start on whoever is going to adopt it sooner and actually like get them involved. Like the smaller states, the smaller counties that are going to support gay marriage or whatever the issue is, get them to do it and then over time you can get more of the bell curve. But a lot of people think change happens when you get the national change all of a sudden, but there's so much earlier than that. So, so, so much. Like years. 30, 40, 50, a 100 years sometimes. [chuckles] NYOTA: Yeah. This is the dance that John was talking about that he posted about this. CASEY: The first follower, yeah. NYOTA: Yeah, first followers. But you get to be the first leader if you allow it. If you really want change like you're saying. Instead of looking for someone to follow, [chuckles] we get to decide how we want to live. DAMIEN: Yeah. This seems true at work. If there's a cultural norm you don't like, you can change it by getting your allies on board and aware of it, socializing it and more and more people and gradually over time and eventually, that thing's not happening anymore. Like, I don't know. An example is eating at your desk over lunch. Not the best social norm. I don't want that at places I work. I want people to take a break, rest, and be better off afterwards. But you can get it to happen gradually by getting more people to go to lunch room, or go out of the office and you can change the culture in the office with enough dedication and time if you put your mind it. NYOTA: Yeah. But what we don't get to do is complain about it. Right? [chuckles] CASEY: Mm. Whenever I have some kind of conflict, I think about do I want to accept it and stop complaining, or do something about it? NYOTA: Mm. CASEY: Or I guess the third option is neither and then I'm just frustrated. I don't like to choose that one if I can ever avoid it. [chuckles] Do something, figure out that I can do something like work on it, or accept it, which is kind of giving up. But you can't do every change you ever think of. NYOTA: No. CASEY: It's not really giving up. Acceptance does not mean giving up, but it does mean you can put your mind down and focus on other stuff. NYOTA: Yeah. That's triage. That's what that is. [laughs] CASEY: Triage. Yeah, yeah. [laughter] DAMIEN: That third option is really important because I choose that a lot. It's important to know that and acknowledge it. [chuckles] It's like, oh no, I've chosen to be frustrated. Okay. NYOTA: Yeah. Good. CASEY: And you can, yeah. Sometimes when I choose to be frustrated, it's that I'm still working on it. I'm working on figuring out if I can do anything, or not. I don't know yet. DAMIEN: For me, it's I'm not willing to do, or figure out what it is to do, but I'm also not yet willing to accept it so I just shouldn't to be frustrated. CASEY: Sure, yeah, yeah. DAMIEN: And the frustration. If I acknowledge that and recognize that, the frustration can better lead me to go, “Okay, no.” Making the change stinks. But [chuckles] the frustration is worse and lasts longer, so. NYOTA: And then you start speaking from your frustration, which is even worse [laughs] and then it bleeds over. CASEY: Not effective. NYOTA: Yeah, it bleeds over into other things and because now you're saying stuff like, “See, this is what I'm talking about.” [laughter] No, I don't. No, I don't see what you're – no. Are we talking about the same thing? Because now you're just frustrated all over the place. CASEY: Yeah. [laughter] NYOTA: What are you talking about again? Are you talking about work? CASEY: When someone's in that situation, I have to ask them, “Would you like to be effective at this?” DAMIEN: Ooh. [laughter] NYOTA: Oh, that's a shank. [laughter] CASEY: They might not want to be. They might just want to vent. That's fine. It helps me set my standards, too. Like, do they want support, or do they want to vent? NYOTA: I'm going to write that down. CASEY: I mean, it sounds pointy. Here's my blunt side showing. I meant it. You can answer yes, or no. It's why it's a question. I'm not going to give you obvious answer question. I expect one. NYOTA: Yeah. That's good right there because I'm just getting to the part where I'm like, “Do you want me to help, or you just want me to listen?” Because I'll be like, “Oh, I know the answer to this!” And they'll be like, “Oh, I don't. You always trying to help!” First of all, stop talking to me then. [laughter] DAMIEN: Can you tell my friends that? NYOTA: Right? CASEY: Yeah. NYOTA: Like don't come to me because I just want to help. I've got a solution and if you don't want a solution, don't talk to me. CASEY: Sure, sure. That's the kind of support you're offering. NYOTA: Yeah. CASEY: You're offering that support and if they want it, great. If they don't, sounds like you're setting the boundary. Good. NYOTA: Right, right. Oh, I don't have a – no, I have no problems setting a boundary. Yeah, no problems because the thing is this is your third time. Like at some point, you need to either want to do something, or quit talking to me about this. CASEY: Yeah. NYOTA: Like that part. CASEY: I'm pretty patient supporting friends like that, but there is a limit to the patience. Yeah, three. That sounds like pretty good. I might even go to six for some people before I start telling them no. NYOTA: Mm. CASEY: [laughs] I mean, “You have to do something, or complain to someone else.” NYOTA: Yeah. Like, are you going to do something – are we still talking about this like? CASEY: Yeah. Some people need the support, but it's not necessarily me they're going to get it from because I don't have that much energy and time to put toward that. NYOTA: Yeah. I just think that's important to, but my friends know that already. Like, don't talk to me about your allergies, or don't talk to me about your fitness, or you can't fit your clothes. For me, I don't buy new clothes because I can't fit them. I won't allow myself to do that. CASEY: Some people do. NYOTA: Yeah, so – [overtalk] DAMIEN: I'm sorry. Buy clothes you can't fit? NYOTA: No, I don't buy new clothes because I can't fit my old ones. DAMIEN: Ah, okay. NYOTA: Right. DAMIEN: I know that one. NYOTA: I only buy new clothes because I want new clothes. DAMIEN: Mm. NYOTA: I put that around myself like, it's not because I don't want to go outside and walk, or you know. But then I don't allow myself to get too thin in the other direction either, because that means I'm doing something that's probably not that healthy, like not eating real food. I will just eat potato chips and that's it. [chuckles] So I have to – like, if it's too far to the left, or to the right, then I know that I'm doing something that's not healthy. I've got to reel myself in. I don't have any other checkers. I'm my own self-checker. I don't have a spouse that's going to be like, “Hmm, those jeans look a little snug.” [chuckles] I don't have it. [laughs] It's just – [overtalk] DAMIEN: Well, what I'm hearing, though is it's going to be, you set a high bar for checking people. So for somebody to check you, they're going to have to be really insightful and not candy-coated. NYOTA: I don't like candy. CASEY: Yeah. [laughter] NYOTA: Yeah. CASEY: Like direct. NYOTA: Yeah, because I don't need a bunch of like, “Oh, Nyota. How are you today?!” You don't really have to be like, “Oh, so I heard what you said about that.” I don't think that – that's not right, or however the check comes, like however it comes. CASEY: Yeah. NYOTA: But I want that because I know I'm not right about everything. I know that and I don't pretend to be all-knowing. I just want somebody to kind of reel me in sometimes like reel me in. Please reel me in. [laughter] Because I'll just keep – I'm a habitual line stepper. You know what I'm saying because now I'm just going to keep on seeing what you're going to let me slide with. Even as a kid, my mom was like, “You're always everywhere.” Like, “You're always – like, “We could never find –” I was the kid that why they came out with those harnesses for kids. [laughter] That's – CASEY: What an image. NYOTA: Yeah. I'm that kid because I just want to see, I want to go look, I want to go what's over here. Like what's around. Are you going to let me slide? Are you going to let me say that one? What else you're going to let me slide with? It's that so that's why they created those harnesses for kids like me. [chuckles] DAMIEN: Your bio says your firm thrives at the intersection of cybersecurity and employee wellness. What's the intersection of cybersecurity and employee wellness? JOHN: I was just going to ask that. I want to know! NYOTA: I think it's resiliency. DAMIEN: Mm? NYOTA: Yeah. So cybersecurity is that resiliency within organizations and then that wellness of people is that resiliency that's within humans. When those two come together, it's a healthier—I can't say fully healthy. It's a healthier work environment because when we get to show up to work healthy, resilient, drinking water, getting rest, being able to have emotional intelligence, social intelligence; all of those things are what I count as being resilient. And then when you can show up to work that way, then you're not showing up to negatively impact the network because you're not focused. You're not paying attention. You're clicking on every link because it looked like it – it seemed fine. But had you been like you had one moment of awareness to pause, you would see oh, this is not right. When I put my mouse over that, I see that the link at the bottom is not where I'm supposed to be going. So that place is resiliency at work. DAMIEN: That is an extremely advanced view of security, maybe it's from your time as an officer, but the general view of security is it's this wall you put up and you make the wall really secure, you make the wall really strong and really tall, and that way you keep everything out. It's like, well, no. Anybody who has gone to office training school knows about defense in depth. NYOTA: Right. DAMIEN: Knows you can't maintain any particular perimeter indefinitely. The French found that out to much of their chagrin. [laughs] NYOTA: Oopsie. DAMIEN: That's a Emmanuel line reference. That's not news. [laughter] To go all the way to like – and I see where you're going with this. Phishing emails don't work on people who are calm and relaxed when nothing's urgent. NYOTA: Yes. DAMIEN: Where they can go, where they can stop and think, and have that wherewithal and that energy and that reserve. NYOTA: Right, even at home. Especially how all of these scams are on the rise, Navy, federal, IRS, all kinds of people. If you're just one moment aware, you'd be like, “Wait, have I ever engaged my bank in this way?” DAMIEN: Hm mm. NYOTA: Like ever? Have they ever called me and asked me for my six digit? They called me and I didn't call them? Like, I just think if you just take a breath and then think part of being resilient is being able to take more breaths. DAMIEN: Wow. Yeah. Wow. CASEY: Ooh, I like that line. NYOTA: Yeah. We know that one of the biggest vulnerability to cybersecurity posture of anything that happens is people because we are normally that vulnerability, we're normally that weakness in the network because we are human. So anything that we get to do to reinforce ourselves, guard ourselves up, it's always going to have a positive second, third, fourth order of effects. DAMIEN: How does upper management react to that when you come in and say, “We're going to improve your cybersecurity, give your employees more days off”? NYOTA: So I'm actually new having this conversation within leadership, but they already have leadership corporations, they already have this structure in place. Just haven't heard anyone tie it together specifically to their cybersecurity posture. So there's already a lot of wellness initiatives, you can talk to counselors. I think we already have these initiatives in place, but they're just kind of ethereal, they're kind of out here, but to say, “Now tie that not just to our bottom line, because employees are less willing to have turnover, but let's tie it to the security of the network because our employees are aware and they're more vigilant.” So it's just kind of helping them to see the work that we're already doing within corporations. We get to laser focus that into a place. CASEY: Hmm. I like it that this gives way to measuring the outcome of those programs, too. You can correlate it, too. NYOTA: Yeah, instead of like, “Oh, we're happy at work. We're skipping and holding hands down the hallway.” Well, that may not necessarily be what you want, but you do want less infractions on the network. More opportunities to be successful but not having to spend so many manhours undoing cybersecurity risk. CASEY: I want to zoom out. I want to go meta with you. You're helping them become more resilient. How do you make sure your changes there are resilient? When you leave, they persist? You can Mary Poppins out and they're still the way they were before you arrive. NYOTA: Mm, that's a good question. So during the time that we work together, they also buy a bundle of coaching. They have opportunity to come back for where I can do, like, “Hey, y'all it's time for the refresh,” and not in a lame way. I'm actually creating on workshops now and it involves coloring books. Because when we were in Afghanistan, Iraq, and all the places we colored, and I just feel like coloring saves lives and when I'm saying people, I'm talking about mine, because it is very calming and not those crazy ones that are really small and you have to have a pen. So I'm talking about a 5th-grade coloring book with big pictures where it's relaxing and you're talking amongst your peers. It involves that. Setting them up with skills to be able to well, if you do nothing else, make sure you're playing the gratitude game in the mornings. What is the gratitude game? I play this game with myself. Every morning when I wake up, I say three things that I'm grateful for, but it can't be anything that I've ever said ever before. DAMIEN: Mm hm. NYOTA: I play this game. It's always making you search for the gratitude, always looking for that shiny light. There's always a better today, a better tomorrow, and so, even if there's something as that and drink water, because there's a lot of things that happens when you're dehydrated. There's a lot of clarity that doesn't happen when you're thirsty and so, even if it's just those two things and reminding people, just those two things have even had an impact on my life. Do you see my skin popping? Do you? [laughter] I'm just saying. Water is your friend. [laughs] So just those, just kind of even a pop in, a retraining. Hey, remember. Remember sleep, remember relaxing, remember get up and walk around your cube, and the filter water is so much better. It tastes so much better than bottled water. I'm just, it's better. I'm holding up my filtered water. Picture here, I keep it at my desk while I work if I'm on a lot of calls in a row. NYOTA: Yeah. CASEY: I can go through water. NYOTA: And that's why you're alert. I don't think people understand that being dehydrated really makes you lethargic and you're like, “Are they talking? I see their mouth moving. I can't pay attention. What is happening. What is that?” And being dehydrated is not good. Don't do that. Just take a little sip of water. We're talking about water, just take a little sip of your water. Go get some water. [chuckles] If you're listening, get some water. [laughs] CASEY: Reminders help. I'm going to post one of my favorite Twitter accounts, @selfcare_tech. NYOTA: Ooh. Please. CASEY: And they do a water reminder probably every day. Something like that. So I'll just be on Twitter and I'm like, “Oh yeah. Thanks.” DAMIEN: [laughs] See, we can turn social media even to our good. CASEY: Yeah. We can find some benefit. NYOTA: But we get to decide and I think that's another thing that people don't. Like, they negate the fact that you get to decide. You get to decide where your life is, or isn't. You get to decide where you're going to accept, or not accept. You're going to decide if I work at this job, it's for my greater good, or not. We get to decide that. You've already created your life up to this point. So what does it look like later? We've created this life that we have and people take responsibility for that. Who do you get to be tomorrow? Who do you get to be today? The thing is we always get what we ask for. So I've been asking for a bold community, I've been asking for a community that pushes and pulls me and here comes Casey, here comes Andrea, here comes you guys and I'm like, “I think that's so interesting.” We do get what we ask for you. CASEY: It sounds like you're manifesting the world around you. I like that word. NYOTA: Yeah. CASEY: I don't even mean it in a metaphysical spiritual sense, but even just saying. Back when I was an engineering manager and I wanted to become a PM, I told people I wanted to be a product manager and by telling a lot of people, I got a lot more opportunities than I would have. NYOTA: Yes. CASEY: Telling people was very powerful for that. NYOTA: And in my Christian Nyota way, that's what happens. Miracles come through people. So give people an opportunity to be your miracle. JOHN: So we've come to the time on our show where we do reflections, which is each of us is going to talk about the things that struck us about this conversation, maybe the things will be thinking about afterwards, or the ideas we're going to take forward. Casey, do you want to start us off? CASEY: Yeah. I wrote down a quote from Nyota. She said earlier in this episode, “A big part of resilience is being able to take more breaths,” and I just think that applies anywhere the word resilience applies and I want to meditate on that for over the week. JOHN: I'm right there with you. That is really sinking in and applicable in so many ways. I love it. DAMIEN: Yeah, and involving taking some breaths while you do that, huh? [laughter] I am really inspired by this conversation. The ideas of you can be the expert, you can be the journalist, you can be the first mover, the first leader. Realizing that in my life, I'm going to be looking for ways I want to apply that conscientiously. How to make sure not to try apply it everywhere. [laughs] But I get to decide. I get to decide who I am and who I'm going to be in this world and what this world is going to be like for me, so that's awesome. NYOTA: That is good. I like that one, too. And along those lines for me, it's like when Casey's like, “I mean, I knew this, I knew this, I knew this, I knew this, but when someone had created this bundle for you to be able to follow, I really heard when we do things, leave breadcrumbs so someone can come behind us and also be able to support. Because if you don't – leave some breadcrumbs. So I thought that was – she was like, “I knew these things but she had created this framework for you to be able to do it, too,” and I heard leave some breadcrumbs. So I really like that. DAMIEN: Yeah. John, do you have a reflection for us? JOHN: No, I mean, really, it's the same as Casey's. [laughs] Yeah, that statement is really going to sit with me for a while. I like it a lot. CASEY: I'm going to make a t-shirt of it. NYOTA: [laughs] I love a good t-shirt. DAMIEN: Well, Nyota. Thank you so much for joining us today. NYOTA: Thank you so much for having me. I'm so honored to be amongst such caring, intelligent, thoughtful people and so, I appreciate you all for having me. Special Guest: Nyota Gordon.

covid-19 spotify google ai washington guide water news french new york times joe biden local army mom iphone impact vote abc afghanistan boundaries cnn nbc llc cbs miracles navy picture reddit washington post iraq tedx npr journalism acceptance ipads presidential fox news cybersecurity irs economists slack intersection msnbc kamala ranked chicago tribune mary poppins jay leno devops javascript phishing making changes elixir rebecca black derek sivers ohm johnno making change happen john yeah john well john so test double greater greater washington freelance journalism john thanks greater than code damien burke devreps

Ep057 - The Shylock Trap

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 31, 2022 9:24

"Doubting Thomas: [Whistling]. John: Someone must be in a good mood today. Doubting Thomas: Yeah, I just have a feeling you are about to blow my mind with good information. John: Well, today's pod is going to be all about shylocks." This podcast and our other podcast are productions of Little Red Hen Industries. Learn all about financial education and personal financial management in this episode segment with John Brandy on the Simple Success podcast. Learn more about Simple Success with John Brandy using our all-in-one access link here Visit the Simple Success with John Brandy website today! We also have websites, and you can subscribe to both podcasts. You can even send us a video, audio or text message, but of course, you'll have to head to the show notes, either on your phone or on the web, to actually get links and stuff. I mean, I COULD read the URLs where you can subscribe, support or leave one of those video or audio messages, but you really don't want me to do that. And those explicit and clickable links are in the show notes. Simple Success Website: https://www.simplesuccesswithjohnbrandy.com/ A Choice Voice Website: https://www.achoicevoice.com/ iOS Link for Simple Success: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/simple-success-with-john-brandy/id1549566678 Droid Link for Simple Success: https://podcasts.google.com/search/simple%20success%20with%20john%20brandy iOS Link for A Choice Voice: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-choice-voice-with-john-brandy/id1560026051 Droid Link for A Choice Voice: https://podcasts.google.com/search/a%20choice%20voice%20with%20john%20brandy Support: https://anchor.fm/simplesuccess/support https://anchor.fm/achoicevoice/support Voice Messages: https://anchor.fm/simplesuccess/message https://anchor.fm/achoicevoice/message Finally, you can find us on Podmatch, where we consider guests as well as consider guesting on other people's pods. Podmatch Host Profile https://podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/1611285111512x890580376127176400?return=true Podmatch Guest Profile https://podmatch.com/guestdetailpreview/1611285111512x890580376127176400?return=true And really finally, the music for our pods comes from “Cute” by Bensound, and from “Piano Background” by Nick Simon Adams, both on freesound.org. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/simplesuccess/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/simplesuccess/support

trap cute urls bensound podmatch shylock john well

Ep056 - Mortgage Thoughts

Simple Success With John Brandy

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 24, 2022 17:08

"Doubting Thomas: What are we talking about today? John: Well, it's all about mortgage products and the mortgage process and how to get one. Doubting Thomas: Ahh, yes! Mortgage advice. The topic du jour." This podcast and our other podcast are productions of Little Red Hen Industries. Learn all about financial education and personal financial management in this episode segment with John Brandy on the Simple Success podcast. Learn more about Simple Success with John Brandy using our all-in-one access link here Visit the Simple Success with John Brandy website today! We also have websites, and you can subscribe to both podcasts. You can even send us a video, audio or text message, but of course, you'll have to head to the show notes, either on your phone or on the web, to actually get links and stuff. I mean, I COULD read the URLs where you can subscribe, support or leave one of those video or audio messages, but you really don't want me to do that. And those explicit and clickable links are in the show notes. Simple Success Website: https://www.simplesuccesswithjohnbrandy.com/ A Choice Voice Website: https://www.achoicevoice.com/ iOS Link for Simple Success: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/simple-success-with-john-brandy/id1549566678 Droid Link for Simple Success: https://podcasts.google.com/search/simple%20success%20with%20john%20brandy iOS Link for A Choice Voice: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-choice-voice-with-john-brandy/id1560026051 Droid Link for A Choice Voice: https://podcasts.google.com/search/a%20choice%20voice%20with%20john%20brandy Support: https://anchor.fm/simplesuccess/support https://anchor.fm/achoicevoice/support Voice Messages: https://anchor.fm/simplesuccess/message https://anchor.fm/achoicevoice/message Finally, you can find us on Podmatch, where we consider guests as well as consider guesting on other people's pods. Podmatch Host Profile https://podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/1611285111512x890580376127176400?return=true Podmatch Guest Profile https://podmatch.com/guestdetailpreview/1611285111512x890580376127176400?return=true And really finally, the music for our pods comes from “Cute” by Bensound, and from “Piano Background” by Nick Simon Adams, both on freesound.org. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/simplesuccess/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/simplesuccess/support

mortgage cute urls bensound podmatch john well

Bundling the Best of AR with Ease of Use, with BundlAR's John Martin

XR for Business

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 8, 2020

The world received a gift three years ago, in the form of AR technology from the likes of Google and Apple - ARKit and ARCore. But most businesses had no one on-staff at-hand to take advantage of this gift without some extensive upskilling to do. John Martin shares how BundlAR makes AR easy for everyone, and what is needed for wider adoption. Alan: Hey, everyone, I'm Alan Smithson, and today we're speaking with John Martin, the CEO and co-founder of BUNDLR, an augmented reality platform company empowering training, learning, and development innovators with on-demand and mobile immersive experiences. John and I met at the VR/AR Association Chicago meetup, and would become amazing friends as we built the future of communications together. In this interview, we will discuss one of the largest barriers to the widespread adoption of AR and what organizations need to do in order to deploy AR experiences instantly and on a global scale. All that and more, coming up next on the XR for Business podcast. John, it has been a pleasure to get to know you over these years, and I'm super excited to have you on the show. Welcome to the show. John: Thank you, Alan. And I'm looking forward to a great conversation with you, as always. Alan: It's been a couple of years since we got to know each other. I stayed at your house in Chicago. That was very lovely of you, I got to meet your family. And I've watched your platform go from kind of the infancy stages to being a global phenomenon, now. Let's-- I want you to have the stage to really tell people what BUNDLAR is all about and what you guys are doing. John: Well, BUNDLAR, we had a pretty clear mission about a year and a half ago. We were very fortunate to be working with some of the world's great innovators on what I'd call augmented reality projects. It could have been a prospective student tour at Arizona State University. Google gave a grant to the DuSable Museum in Chicago, so they wanted to reboot the Mayor Harold Washington exhibit. Proctor & Gamble had projects at upcoming conventions and shows. Remember when we used to have those? And from all of these engagements-- Alan: In real shows, like IRL, in real life? Like in--? John: Yeah, like in person, back in the good old days. Oh, do I miss that! But at any rate, what we realized was when Google and Apple gave this gift of AR to the world just three summers ago, saying they were all-in with AR, meaning that the hardware was going to work, it was like, wow. Most corporate IT or marketing teams really didn't have anybody on board their staffs that could take advantage of this amazing capability of the mobile device. So at any rate, for us, there's was like, well, what if we could take all of these engagements that we had created, and put them into a repeatable self-serve augmented reality content management system and platform? So it was a very big idea, but we thought one that was worth the journey. So we started to build out a team of 12 really focused AR professionals on the development side to build out this platform. Alan: Well, I know your CTO, Matt [Wren]. I mean, his whole experience in life was creating content management systems for massive corporations, so-- John: Exactly. So it started with Matt and Gareth [Davies], who's on the product side, but really knows AR. We were so blessed to find literally the man that wrote the book on Unity [chuckles] Joe Hocking, to join the team. And Lewis Gardner on our CMS. So we were very fortunate to have a great team come together. And we shared a vision, which is, let's build out an augmented reality platform that would make it super easy and affordable for businesses and organizations to weave in augmented reality c

#30 - The Horrors of our Past - Part 2 - Tricia Paquette's Story

True Crime Real Time

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 2, 2020 61:21

On a bright spring day in May of 1974, on the side of a highway in the mountains of British Columbia, a small child of four tiredly walked several feet behind her mother and stepfather, barefoot, dirty and crying, dragging her teddy bear behind her on the gravel shoulder of the Trans-Canada Highway.A passerby, Robert, would pull over and give the family a ride to Vancouver, set them up in a hotel, and get the child's stepfather a job, and take temporary custody of the girl. One morning her mother would come and fetch her and the next time he would hear of the little girl, she'd be dead. The people of the city were terrified and upset. Where was Tricia? What happened to her? Parents started walking their kids to school, and teachers began talking about stranger-danger in the classroom.Joyce gave permission to the Brantford Police Services to tap a phone call she would make to John Wildman from the police station. Here is the transcript of the call:"John: Well, uh, what I can't understand, Joyce, is why you would phone here on Thursday night before anyone knew about Trish and accuse me, and then your friends, Val and them, phone the people downstairs on Saturday Joyce and say the same thing. Joyce: Same thing about what?John: They told Bev and Ron that between them and myself that we killed Trish, and this was on Saturday, Joyce. Now, what in the hell is going on with you and your friends – before anybody even knew what happened."Episode Crime Article, Photos + Sources: https://truecrimerealtimepod.com/Music provided by Scoutyboy: Twitter: @ scoutlhurtHuge thanks to Podcorn for sponsoring this episode. Explore sponsorship opportunities and start monetizing your podcast by signing up here: https://podcorn.com/podcasters/

music canada parents murder explore crime vancouver ontario true crime historical british columbia horrors unsolved podcorn paquette brantford mmiwg trans canada highway john well john they

Living in a Post-Scarcity World of Technology, with You Are Here Labs' John Buzzell

XR for Business

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 13, 2020 37:08

We live in a three-dimensional world, and according to today’s guest — You Are Here Labs president John Buzzell — our computers are finally starting to catch up with that. John shoots the proverbial breeze with Alan on how spatial computing is going to fundamentally change our relationship with computers, and thus, our relationship with the world. Alan: My name is Alan Smithson, your host for the XR for Business Podcast. Today’s guest is a good friend, John Buzzell from You Are Here Labs and You Are Here Agency. John is an award winning 28 year veteran of the digital industry, creating interactive experiences across augmented reality, virtual reality, video games, mobile apps and numerous high volume websites. To learn more about You Are Here Labs and You Are Here Agency, visit yahagency.com. John, welcome to the show. John: Thanks, Alan. Good to be with you. Alan: And of all the people we’ve had on the show, you have a lot of experience in this field. I mean, you built the AR Porsche visualizer where you could drop a Porsche right in your living room and I actually have a photo of a Porsche in my living room from your app. John: [laughs] That’s great. You know, that was an interesting project, because we started off on the Hololens and it was a really interesting project. But at some point, Porsche said this is a little too future for us at the moment and we need something that the dealers and the salespeople can use without fear. And so when ARKit popped up from Apple and they said surprise, now everybody with an iPhone 6 and above and use augmented reality, it really changed the game. And we very quickly converted that experience from the Hololens to the humble iPad and it took off from there. So we were really excited to have one of the first ARKit apps that was really connected to a major company or brand. And I’m glad you liked it, too. That’s cool. Alan: It was really special. Can people download it now still? John: Well, no, they can’t. That was about two years ago that we did it. And for all of us in technology, who knows how fast it moves. Porsche is a global company and they were very impressed with the innovation. And I think they were excited to kind of pull it back to HQ and see what they could do globally with it. And also our clients left for jobs at other companies simultaneously. [laughs] So– Alan: That’s the challenge in technology, you’re working on a project with somebody, you’re all in it, and then they leave. [laughs] John: I mean, I think that’s one of the neat things about emerging tech is, is it really can help vault peoples careers into the next dimension, in the sense that these technologies are so profound and they will affect the work that we do and the way we live our lives for so long in the future, that people that have this experience, it’s really great for them individually. Alan: You’ve been doing this a while longer than myself, but I’ve been in early VR since 2014. And I’ve noticed that a lot of the people that were just building demos and stuff like that, now are running huge companies. HP and Microsoft, they’re running huge departments in this, just because they were early and learned how to do it. And they learned in a time when there was no YouTube video on how to make AR, you had to just kind of guess. John: Yeah. I mean, my career resembles that, in the sense that I got started doing interactive marketing on diskettes before CD-ROM. Our friend Cathy Hackl says, “Don’t talk about that, it makes you sound old!” but I think the experi

apple technology iphone vr ipads labs porsche scarcity hq business podcasts xr hololens cd roms arkit cathy hackl john yeah john well buzzell alan smithson john thanks alan you

Wisdom from the Wizard of UCLA (Part 1) - John Wooden

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 5, 2020 24:55

Wisdom from the Wizard of UCLA (Part 1) - John WoodenWisdom from the Wizard of UCLA (Part 2) - John WoodenWisdom from the Wizard of UCLA (Part 3) - John WoodenFamilyLife Today® Radio TranscriptReferences to conferences, resources, or other special promotions may be obsolete. Growing Up With WoodenDay 1 of 3 Guest: John Wooden From the series: True Success: A Personal Visit with John Wooden Bob: It was the 1920s in rural Indiana. The Depression had not yet rocked America. John Wooden was a young boy growing up on a farm, a high school student who loved basketball but who was about to meet the real love of his life. John: I noticed this one little gal, and I didn't know, but she had noticed me, too, but I didn't know that. Somehow, on the first day of classes my freshman year, we happened to be in the same class, and I knew right then, and we knew we were going to be married by the time I got out of high school, and August 8th it would have been 70 years since last August 8th, we would have been married. Bob: Today you'll hear the first part of a conversation with a man who grew up to be one of the greatest coaches of all time as we talk about his faith, his family, and basketball. Stay tuned as we talk with Coach John Wooden on FamilyLife Today. And welcome to FamilyLife Today, thanks for joining us on the Wednesday edition. I can't help but smile as I listen to that excerpt from our interview with Coach John Wooden. Of course, a lot of people are smiling right about now because this is the time of the year when March madness really takes over. There is a lot of basketball ahead for us. Dennis: Semis are this weekend, Final Four on Monday. Bob: It's got to bring back lots of memories for you from your college days, doesn't it? Dennis: Well, high school. You know, going back to high school, Bob, those were my glory days. My college days, I had several splinters. Bob: Sitting on the bench, huh? Dennis: I got the 15th uniform out of 15 in college. I learned what it was like to be a substitute. Bob: But your team almost went to the Final Four, didn't it? Dennis: Well, not THE Final Four. We almost went to the Junior College National Championships in Kansas, and I'm trying to remember where in Kansas. Bob: But that's like the Final Four for Junior Colleges, right? Dennis: Oh, yeah, absolutely. In fact, I started that game – the last game of my college career, I started. Bob: You poured in what – 15, 20 points? Dennis: Now, wait a second – hold it, just one second, because they put me on an All American. This is a true story. The coach had watched me. It was the only game I started in my college career, but my coach was so impressed with me never quitting and just staying out there and being tenacious – he started me. And he put me on the quickest guy I've ever played against. Bob: Man-to-man defense. Dennis: Man-to-man defense, and did you know, when I left the game in the first half – I played about six or seven minutes – I had scored more points … Bob: … than the All American, and the reason was this: He was so fast and I was so slow, he would fake three or four times, and by the time I had taken his first fake, I was back to where he was really going. And so I would post up underneath the bucket, and the guy didn't like to play defense, and I'd post up on him and score. And so when I left the game, I had actually scored more points than him. Bob: Now, some of our listeners are wondering what are you talking about Dennis' glory days of basketball on FamilyLife Today? Dennis: Because we really don't have anything else to talk about. No, that's not true. We have a guest today – well, Bob, a dream of mine, and I sent you a note one day. I said, "Bob, you know, one of the people I would really like in all the world to interview for FamilyLife Today and for our listeners and give them a glimpse of what a great human being he is, what many have described as the greatest coach of any sport of all time – Coach John Wooden." Now, there are a number of our listeners who have no idea who John Wooden is, but a ton do. Bob: Coach Wooden coached the UCLA Bruins back in the '60s and the '70s. Dennis: Well, actually, he started coaching in 1948. That's what most people don't realize is. He didn't build that national championship dominant team in the '60s and '70s. He built it in obscurity beginning in 1948 throughout all the '50s and early '60s before he won his first national championship in 1964. Bob: And after he won his first one, then he won his second and his third and his fourth and his fifth and his sixth. Over a 12-year period he won 10 national championships. Dennis: That's right, including winning 88 games in a row before they were knocked off at the Houston Astrodome, and I remember watching this game as a young man, where Lew Alcindor was playing against Elvin Hayes, and Houston beat them 71-69, and the Astrodome had, like, 49,000 people in it. It was nationally televised. It was an event, and there are few coaches that could claim the accomplishments that – in any sport – what he has accomplished. But in basketball, he is the ultimate. Bob: Well, we're going to hear a little bit about that game and about a lot of other games as we talk with Coach Wooden over the next few days. A while back, you and I sat down with him in a studio in Los Angeles and just had a great opportunity to find out about the man who grew up to be "The Coach." Here is part 1 of our conversation with Coach John Wooden: Dennis: Tell us about life in the Wooden household when you were growing up as a young lad. John: We had a small farm, and I learned a lot, I think, of things that helped me later on. You had to work hard. Dad felt there was time for play but always after the chores and the studies were done. Dad would read to us every night from the Scriptures and poetry, and I think that created a love of poetry, which I've always had, liked to dabble in it a little bit. My dad was a wonderful person. I never heard him speak an ill word of anybody; never blamed anybody for anything; I never heard him use a word of profanity. I think that his reading to us of a night later caused all four sons to get through college, though he had no financial means to help and there were no athletic scholarships. All four sons graduated from college and all majored or minored in English, and all got advanced degrees, and I think Dad had a lot to do with that. Dennis: Your dad had, as you've already mentioned, a profound impact on your life. In fact, I was so looking forward to this interview with you, because I've quoted you about something that you said you carried around in your pocket. Or – it, first of all, was carried around in your father's pocket, is that right? And then you started carrying it around – it was your dad's creed – and then a poem by a pastor by the name of Henry Van Dyke. John: My father gave to me, when I graduated from high school – excuse me – from grade school, from the eighth grade, he gave me a $2 bill – one of those large $2 bills and said, "Son, as long as you keep this you'll never be broke." Then he also gave me a card, and on one side was the verse by Reverend Van Dyke that said, "Four things a man must learn to do if he would make his life more true; to think without confusion clearly; to love his fellow man sincerely; to act from honest motives purely; to trust in God and heaven securely." And on the other side was a seven-point creed, and the seven-point creed insisted, first of all, I think it was, "Be true to yourself," and I think we know if we're true to ourselves, we'll be true to others; and the second was "Help others." There is no greater joy than a person can have than do something for someone else, especially when you do it with no thought of something in return. Another one was "Make friendship a fine art." Work at it, don't take it for granted, work at making friends and making friendships flourish. And then was one, I think, stood out to me a great deal was, "Make me today your masterpiece," and I tried to teach from that, as time went by, to my players and my English students, to just try and do the best you can each day. Just make each day a masterpiece. It's the only thing over which you have control. You have no control over yesterday. That will never change. The only way you can affect tomorrow is today. And then another one was to "Drink deeply from good books, especially the Bible;" and then was "Build a shelter against a rainy day," and he wasn't thinking about a physical shelter, he was thinking about a more lasting shelter. When I think about that, I often think of when Socrates was unjustly imprisoned and was facing imminent death and the jailers who were mean people, they couldn't understand his serenity, and they said, "Why aren't you preparing for death?" And his statement was, "I've been preparing for death all my life by the life I've led," and when I think of building a shelter against a rainy day, I think that's what Dad had in mind. Then the last was – the seventh was "Give thanks for your blessings and pray for guidance every day," and I've carried that with me in one form or another since those days, yes. Bob: Those core convictions are so bedrock with you, that's a part of how your mom and dad raised you. I think some people – we hear those things in the 21st century and some people go, "That sounds kind of old-fashioned, kind of corny," but that's so ingrained into who you are and who you've been, and you would say that's been a part of what has made you successful as a coach, right? John: Well, I would hope so, but I know, too, if someone said, "I'm not what I ought to be and not what I want to be and not what I'm going to be, but I think those things have made me better than I would have been. Dennis: Your dad read the Bible every day. John: Yes, he did. Dennis: How did you see him live out his faith in Christ every day, as a father? What are the most indelible memories that you have, as a boy, watching your dad? Because, undoubtedly, for him to have the influence he had on you as a man, his character has to resonate even today in your life. John: Perhaps I wasn't realizing it at the time, but as I look back on my dad and the fact that he never spoke an ill word of anyone and just was a good person. You don't realize it so much of the time, and many of the things – one of the things he said was never try to be better than someone else. You have no control over that, and if you get too involved and engrossed and concerned – maybe these weren't his exact words, but things over which you have no control will adversely affect the things over which you have control. Now, years later, I remember that. So somewhere in the hidden recesses of the mind, they stuck there, but it was things like that. Mr. Lincoln said there is nothing stronger than gentleness, and my father was gentle man – working with animals and things. I remember reading to us nights over the Scriptures, and I can still close my eyes and hear him reading "Hiawatha." I can still hear "By the shores of Gitchigoomie, by the Shining Big Sea Water, Stood the wigwam of Nokomis," and so on, and things of that sort. Bob: You didn't have any TV, any radio, so in the evening reading was the primary form of entertainment, wasn't it? John: You're correct – by a coal oil lamp or candles. Bob: Was your dad – as you think back on his life, you've talked about this tender side of him, and yet he was still whipping you when you did the wrong thing. Was he a strict disciplinarian? John: Well, I would say yes but not in a physical point of way. I know – oh, I didn't want to get an unkind word from my dad, you know, a strong word. I don't know, you just hated to hurt him in any way. You just had that feeling about him. Dennis: As you followed your dad, you undoubtedly watched how he'd love your mother. Tell us about what you observed there and his commitment to her, as a woman and to his wife, over their years together. John: Well, I think Dad's first concern was always for Mother. He was looking out for her the best he could in every way but in a gentle way, in a gentle way. I can picture them together – not at all the romantic way that you might think, but there was just something between them that was very, very special. I don't know how to describe it. Dennis: You said of yourself in your book, "They Call Me Coach," that as you moved into your high school years, you were shy, you were reserved, especially with the opposite sex. John: Yes, I suppose, not being exposed much – no sisters – and I'm on the farm, and I suppose that's the reason, I don't know, but I was a little shy. Bob: But here you were, this star basketball player on the high school team. I mean, the girls, the cheerleaders, had to notice Johnny Wooden, didn't they? Did they call you Johnny back then or was it John? John: They called me lots of things. (laughter) You'd be surprised, the more they think it was John Bob. Bob: John Bob. Dennis: John Bob. John: And Nellie and I had been married for many years when her sister came out here to California one time, and she said, "Don't you think you and John have been married long enough that you should quit calling him John Bob?" Bob: But didn't the girls start to notice you as you were draining those jump shots on the basketball teams? Dennis: Yeah, he kind of skirted your answer there. I was watching him about that. John: Well, I'll tell you, my freshman year, I was still living on the farm. We didn't lose the farm until after my freshman year, and then we commuted from this little town of Center, and we lived about a half a mile out of that to Martinsville, and I noticed this one little gal, and I didn't know that she had noticed me, too, but I didn't know that, and that summer she brought the brother of her closest friend, who became very dear to me, to drive up. Her brother had a car, and they drove up, and I was working in the field plowing corn with a team, and they parked in the road and motioned for me to come over, and I wouldn't go over. I just kept on. Bob: Why wouldn't you go over? Here's this cute girl on the side of the road … Dennis: … and you even liked her, too. John: Oh, yeah, but I was dirty and somehow on the first day of classes, we happened to be in the same class. She said, "Why didn't you come over to see us?" I said, "Well, I was dirty and perspiring, and you would have just made fun of me." And Nellie said – I can still see her, she said, "I would never make fun of you," and I knew right then … Dennis: … there was a spark in her eyes. John: And this is the only girl I ever really went with. Bob: So by your junior year in high school, did you think, "This is the girl I'll marry?" John: I did. Bob: And you all started going together? John: We did. Bob: So you waited to marry until you got to college? John: Yes, until I graduated. I was glad to be married and graduated and got my first job, yes. Bob: Coach, that's a long courtship – from your junior year in high school until you've graduated from college and got your first job. That must have been hard. Dennis: But, Bob, the rest of the story is, if Nellie hadn't put her foot down … Bob: … he might still be dragging it on today? Dennis: Well, there is the rest of the story here, because he really had promised her that he was going to marry her upon graduation, but then the war came along. John: Yes. Well, I had an appointment to West Point, and she said it would be six more years, and "I'm not going to wait. I'm going to a convent." So I didn't go to West Point. Bob: She said she wouldn't wait on you? John: That's right. Dennis: And so what did you do? John: Well, I finished at Purdue. Dennis: So you were married then? John: We were married on August 8th. It would have been 70 years just last August 8th that we would have been married. We were married on August 8, 1932. Dennis: You were, in those days, All American three years in a row, you were named the College Player of the Year your senior year, and as I was doing this research, I was thinking – I was talking to Bob. I said, "I don't remember Coach Wooden being that tall, to be College Player of the Year. He must have been 6'3" or 6'4". On the sidelines you looked a little small around those big guys at UCLA. But you were only 5'10" in those days. John: But, you know, the teams weren't as big then, either, as they are now, too. Our center at Purdue, Stretch Murphy, was 6'8", and he was a giant. I only had the pleasure of playing with him one year. I had the displeasure of playing against him one year when I was a sophomore in high school for the Indiana State Championship, he was the center on the opposing team, and he was good. Bob: Did you just have what it takes as an athlete? Were you just a naturally gifted – something about the way God made you that you turned out to be a good basketball player? Or did you work really hard to be a good ball player? John: Well, I hope I did the latter, but He provided the former. I had natural quickness, and I couldn't do much about my height, but I could do something about my condition, and I always wanted to be in the best possible condition and hoped that would be better than others, hoped others wouldn't work as hard at it as I did do that, and I think I carried that throughout, and I think that helped. And I think it probably come from my earlier grade school days on the farm of working hard, and I like to feel that no one is going to be in better condition, then I have no control over it. I should have control over myself. Bob: Well, we've been listening to a conversation with Coach John Wooden – actually, part 1 of a conversation that we're going to hear the remainder of over the next couple of days. Dennis: What a sweet time, huh? Bob: It was a great time. Dennis: Bob, you and I just had a great time. I'd look over at you occasionally, and you'd be sitting there grinning, and I'd be grinning, and the reason is, is when we interviewed Coach, he was 91 years old. He's now at his 92nd birthday, and I'm told that he knows where 180 of his players are – his past players. He's kept in touch with them. I heard about a coach the other day whose players never go back to visit him – none of them. It's common knowledge that his players don't want to have anything to do with him, and I think about Coach Wooden and the wisdom that he passed on, and it reminds me, really, of Proverbs, chapter 4, where a father is imploring and exhorting a son to "Listen, my son, and acquire wisdom." And I'll tell you, just hanging with the Coach for the interview we did over an hour and a half, we're not going to be able to air all of it here on the broadcast over the next couple of days, but just hanging with him, you thought, "What would it have been like to have played for a coach like that?" And then it hit me, you know, that's what our children need to be expressing about us as parents. You know, we learned, we sat under the greatest mom, the greatest dad, the greatest coach, the greatest teacher the world has ever known. Yeah, they're going to be biased, but the idea is that we, as parents, we're impacting the next generation just like Coach Wooden did. Bob: That's right. You mentioned the entire interview going more than an hour and a half long. We've actually taken the complete interview and put it on two CDs, and I got some early copies of these CDs, and I'll tell you what I found – you can pass these out to lots of folks. You can pass them out to the high school coach at the high school where your kids go. Dennis: Oh, let me tell you something, I've been doing this, and I've had friends doing this – any coach of any sport – Laura's volleyball coach – I gave her a copy of this, and she grabbed hold of it like it was gold, and the reason is it is gold. Bob: It's thoughts on life from a great coach but it's also thoughts on faith and character and what really matters. You can use this as a way to begin a dialog and to open doors evangelistically with fans of the game, with coaches, with players, with friends. We have the two-CD set that features the entire – I think it's about an hour-and-45-minute-long conversation with Coach John Wooden. It's available in our FamilyLife Resource Center. You can call 1-800-FLTODAY to request as many copies as you want. Dennis: It even looks like a basketball on one side and a net on the other. Bob: 1-800-F-as-in-family, L-as-in-life, and then the word TODAY. You can also order online at FamilyLife.com. Ask for the two-CD set of our conversation with Coach John Wooden when you contact us, and there's a second resource we want to mention to you as well – Coach Wooden has put together a course that is designed to teach his principles of success in business, in athletics, in school. We have a videocassette where Coach lays out the Pyramid of Success that he put together, and we have the Pyramid on our website at FamilyLife.com, but we also have it on a mousepad that you can have by your computer just to review the character qualities that go into success in any endeavor. Along with the video and the mousepad, we've got a wallet card. Dennis: Not just any wallet card. Bob: No, it's a laminated … Dennis: … a laminated … Bob: … that's right, and it has some of the Coach's philosophy on it – never lie, never cheat, never steal, don't whine, don't complain, don't make excuses – pretty simple stuff but profound nonetheless. Ask for these resources when you call 1-800-FLTODAY. Again, it's 1-800-F-as-in-family, L-as-in-life, and then the word TODAY or go online at FamilyLife.com, and you can see some of the resources there, and you can order online as well. Again, our website is FamilyLife.com. When you do get in touch with us, someone is likely to ask if you'd like to help with a donation to FamilyLife Today, and we hope when they ask, if you are able, you'll say yes and be able to add a donation to the work of this ministry. We're a nonprofit organization, and we depend on those contributions to keep doing what we're doing. So if you can't help with a donation, you can donate online at FamilyLife.com. You can call 1-800-FLTODAY or you can write a check and mail it to us at FamilyLife Today, Box 8220, Little Rock, Arkansas. The zip code is 72221. Once again, it's FamilyLife Today at Box 8220, Little Rock, Arkansas, and our zip code is 72221. Well, tomorrow we're going to find out how the UCLA dynasty almost never happened and how it might have been the Minnesota dynasty if it hadn't been for a snowstorm. Dennis: Yeah, this is a great story about lost opportunity. Bob: We'll hear that tomorrow as we continue our conversation with Coach John Wooden. I hope you can be with us for that. I want to thank our engineer today, Robbie Neal [sp], and our entire broadcast production team. On behalf of our host, Dennis Rainey, I'm Bob Lepine. We'll see you back tomorrow for another edition of FamilyLife Today. FamilyLife Today is a production of FamilyLife of Little Rock, Arkansas, a ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ. We are so happy to provide these transcripts for you. However, there is a cost to transcribe, create, and produce them for our website. If you've benefited from the broadcast transcripts, would you consider donating today to help defray the costs? Copyright © FamilyLife. All rights reserved. www.FamilyLife.com

Wisdom from the Wizard of UCLA (Part 3) - John Wooden

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 5, 2020 24:55

Wisdom from the Wizard of UCLA (Part 1) - John WoodenWisdom from the Wizard of UCLA (Part 2) - John WoodenWisdom from the Wizard of UCLA (Part 3) - John WoodenFamilyLife Today® Radio TranscriptReferences to conferences, resources, or other special promotions may be obsolete. The Pyramid of SuccessDay 3 of 3 Guest: John Wooden From the series: True Success: A Personal Visit with John Wooden Bob: There are a lot of skills in life that, according to Coach John Wooden, are more important than being able to hit a jumpshot or sink a free throw in the middle of a basketball game. One of the character qualities that Coach Wooden tried to instill in all of his players was the quality of poise, which he defines as being comfortable with just being yourself. John: The person who has poise is not acting, they're not pretending, they're not trying to be something they're not. They are themselves, therefore, they are going to function in whatever they're doing near their own particular level of confidence. There will be no fear, no trepidation at all. They'll function near their own particular level of confidence, because they're not pretending, they're not trying to be something they're not. Bob: This is FamilyLife Today for Friday, April 4th. Our host is the president of FamilyLife, Dennis Rainey, and I'm Bob Lepine. Before you sit down to watch the games this weekend, you ought to hear what The Coach has to say. Stay with us. And welcome to FamilyLife Today, thanks for joining us on the Friday edition. How does this work? This is April, but this is the end of March Madness. So is this just kind of a spillover? Technically, is this April Madness that we're going to experience? Dennis: I think it's March Madness without aspirin – there's been no cure, Bob. Bob: Tomorrow, of course, are the semi-finals in college basketball, and then Monday night the championship game in what's called The Final Four, and it's all over the papers and all over the TV, and it's even here on FamilyLife Today, although we're not talking about this year's Final Four. We are talking with a man who has been there year in and year out. Dennis: He really has – Coach John Wooden coached UCLA to 10 national championships out of 12 years. What a great man. I just remember watching, as a young lad, his championship teams – the first year he won, 1964 – Gale Goodrich helped win that national championship. He came back the next year and scored over 40 points in a game, and it's funny how you can remember those things as a kid, but basketball was a very important part of my life, and I think parents need to pay attention to their children's athletics. Not just for their performance and whether or not they win the championships but the kind of coaches they have, the kind of influence that they have on them. And, Bob, you know, you were there when I received a phone call from the Washington Post asking me for my opinion if a parent should be informed if their daughter is going to play for a coach who is a lesbian, and they were wanting to know what I thought about that, and my ultimate point was character does matter, and a person's sexual practice and sexual preference are a reflection of his or her true character. And Coach Wooden grew up in a family where he learned character, and he raised a family where they had great character. In fact, his daughter was in the room where we were interviewing him, and she was smiling so big during this interview, and she told us later it was one of her favorite interviews she's ever heard with her daddy who, at the time, Coach Wooden was 91 years of age. And she was just beaming, because we were drilling down deep around the stories that surrounded their family. Bob: You had asked him about regrets from coaching and yesterday we heard him share some of those regrets, and then you turned the conversation and asked him about any regrets at home. Here is our interview with Coach John Wooden: Dennis: I know something that I heard that you did that you don't regret, and that was spanking your daughter one time when she was in the fifth grade. You're laughing. You think it was the right thing? John: Yes, I think it was the right thing. Dennis: Tell us about it. John: Well, she had wanted very much a wristwatch, and I couldn't get the wristwatch at the time. I had one coming for her. I got her – and we got a cameo ring that we thought was very pretty and very nice, and when we gave it to her, we had some guests there – some friends – and she wanted the wristwatch. She took that cameo ring and threw it, and she went to her room in a hurry with me after her, and I spanked her. I think it's the only spanking that Nancy ever got from me. I spanked her. But what hurt her a lot is I made her march back in and apologize to our friends, and I think that hurt her worse. I didn't hurt her too much on the spanking. I remember that. That's the only time. Dennis: You were married for 53 years before Nellie's death. John: Correct. Dennis: It's my understanding that you have a tradition on the anniversary of her death – something that you're doing on a regular basis in honor of her. John: Oh, I write her a letter, mm-hm. We, Nan and Jim and I go to the cemetery, and we write her a letter. Dennis: Just a letter expressing your heart, your love, your appreciation for the 53 years you shared with her? John: More than that – there were several years before, you know, and still – still. Dennis: She was a soulmate. John: Indeed. Dennis: How so? John: Well, it will be kind of hard to explain just from first time, but there was something there almost from the first time we ever got acquainted, and she was the one for me, she was the one for me, she was the one for me. Bob: Did she love basketball like you loved basketball? John: She loved what I loved. Bob: So if you loved basketball, she loved basketball. John: That's right. My main regret is that I didn't do the things that she liked to do. She always did the things that I did. She liked to dance, and I didn't. I regret that I didn't learn to do more of the things – maybe go to operas and learn to dance and things of that sort. Those are things I regret. Dennis: What was your favorite quality about her? John: I don't know how to answer favorites – it's just love, just love – something about her – I just loved her. Dennis: Tell us how your relationship with Jesus Christ fit into your marriage and your family? John: Well, I think that started going back in my early years. My mother and father just good Christian people – not because they went to church and had us all go to church I don't think, necessarily, going to church makes you a good Christian, but Dad, I think, always reading the Scriptures every night, and I think that encouraged the children. Dennis: Was there a time when you made a commitment as a young man or a boy to Jesus Christ that you look back on as being the time when your faith began? John: I wish I could say that, but I can't. I was baptized in 1927 with Nellie, because she wanted me to, and my parents wanted me to – and her parents – so I was baptized. But in my heart I didn't really accept Christ then, and when I did, I can't say. It wasn't a sudden overnight thing – something didn't happen. I think it was just a gradual thing that came along. I've heard of people saying one thing happened and it changed. There wasn't any one thing. Bob: Apart from your mom and dad, were there spiritual influences in your life as you went through coaching and as you continued as an adult? John: Well, to some extent, many of the things that – I loved Lincoln – and many of the things of his life and his wonderful ability to say so much in just a few words and those things, and he was a spiritual man. I think perhaps Billy Graham has always stood out to me above all others, and I don't want to say that the others aren't, but he just has stood out a little more in spiritual things. And there have been things that have happened in my life that were strange – I wouldn't call them exactly spiritual. I was in the service, I was to go aboard the USS Franklin in the South Pacific, and I had an emergency appendectomy, and somebody else went in my place, and that person who took my place was killed. It wasn't my time. Bob: The variety of players that you've had over the years – you've seen young men with all different orientations on life – some who have no interest in anything spiritual or religious; some who were devoutly interested in spiritual or religious things; in fact, it may have gotten in the way of their basketball sometimes, their interest in religious things, I don't know. And then, of course, in a high-profile sense, you had one young man who had a very high-profile conversion that involved a name change. What did you think when Lew Alcindor came and said, "I don't want to be called Lew anymore. My new name is Kareem." John: He never talked to me about it, and that wasn't done until after he was out of school. I've had three players that have done that – all outstanding players. Walter Hazzard was the first one – he changed Abdul-Rahman, but that was after he was out of school. But here he has – his father's a minister, and he did. And the third one is Keith Wilkes – now it's Jamaal. I don't think I've ever known a finer person than Jamaal Wilkes – I don't know of a finer person, and his father also is a minister. Now, he's the one that talked to me – all this happened after they left UCLA. He asked me what I thought about it, and I said, "Well, it seems that most religions rely on our second commandment and not the first," which I don't approve of it, but I said, "What does your dad say?" He said, "About the same thing as you said." Dennis: Coach, when I was a young man, I was in junior college – I think it was my sophomore year, when you played Houston in the Astrodome in front of 52,000 fans. It was a big showdown – number one, UCLA, undefeated, with Lew Alcindor against Elvin Hayes and the number-two ranked Houston Cougars. John: It was the most widely televised athletic event for that time – the most widely televised, and there was about 52,000, they tell me, paid, but over 55,000 in there. Bob: A few guys snuck in without paying, huh? (laughter) Dennis: What were you feeling? I mean, did you feel anything any different about that game than any other game? John: No, I didn't. I didn't think it was a place to play basketball – had that floor way out there, and you're a quarter of a mile from your dressing room. I told me players that if they had needs to go to the bathroom, they better do it quick, because we're not going to have time for you to walk a quarter of a mile to go do it. It was a tremendous ball game, and it was good for basketball, very good for basketball. Dennis: As you have been a coach over the years, and a teacher, you have developed a definition of success and what you'd call the Pyramid of Success. Could you just explain, just briefly, to our listeners the definition of success and what you've created here in this Pyramid of Success? John: Well, first of all, as an English teacher, I became a little bit disappointed, disillusioned somewhat that parents of youngsters in my English classes – many, if they're youngster did not receive and A or a B in one way or another I found that many parents would make the youngster or the teacher feel that they had failed. Now, our good Lord, in His infinite wisdom, didn't create us all alike as far as intelligence is concerned, any more than we're not alike as far as appearance or size or anything else. Not everybody could earn an A or B, and I had youngsters that didn't that I thought did very well. I'd be proud of them if I were the parent. But I didn't like that way of judging, and I wanted to come up with my own definition of success, and it came from three things. One, my father tried to teach us to never try to be better than somebody else. Always learn from others and never cease trying to be the best you can be. That's under your control, and the other isn't, and if you get too involved and engrossed and concerned in regard to things over which you have no control, it will adversely affect the things over which you have control. And I also recalled a discussion in class that we'd had many years before where success was discussed and most everyone went along with Mr. Webster's definition – "the accumulation of material possession or the attainment of position of power or prestige," or something of that sort. And then I ran across a verse, and as you have indicated, I like verse, and I ran across this simple verse that said, "At God's footstool to confess, a poor soul knelt and bowed his head; 'I have failed,' he cried; the Master said 'Thou didst thy best.' That is success." I believe that's true. And from those three things I coined my own definition of success. Success is peace of mind attained only through self-satisfaction in knowing you made the effort to become the best of which you are capable, and you're the only one who will know that. You can fool everybody else. It's like character and reputation – your character – you're the only one that knows, and you're reputation is what you're perceived to be by others, but your character is what you really are. So that was what I wanted to use to help me become a better teacher and to give the youngsters under my supervision something to which to aspire other than just a higher mark or more points in some athletic endeavor, but it didn't seem to be serving a purpose for which I had hoped, and I had tried to analyze it, and I came to the conclusion that it would be much better if I came up with something you could see. But it gave me an idea of a pyramid, and I started working on that, and I worked on it for the next 14 years. But somehow the first two blocks I selected were the cornerstones, and if any structure is to have any real strength and solidity, it must have a strong foundation, and the cornerstones anchor it, and I used "industrious" and "enthusiasm," and I believe that today. From those two, and I think they're strong – you have to enjoy what you're doing, and you have to work hard. You can't work near your own particular ability level unless you enjoy what you're doing. You may think you are, but you can't unless you really enjoy it. And, along with the foundation, I wanted blocks that included others, so I chose "friendship," "loyalty," and "cooperation," and then gradually moved up to the second tier – "self-control," "alertness," "initiative" and "intentness." And then going up to the heart, which I call being in condition for whatever you're doing – whether you're an athlete, whether you're a surgeon, whether you're a deep-sea diver – whatever you are – being in condition for whatever you're doing can be attained by practicing moderation. And then you have to have the skills. You must know how to do things, you must be able to do it, and you must be able to do them quickly, oftentimes. Then "team spirit" – that's consideration for others. I could talk on that for a long time – consideration for others. And all these blocks below will help you become confident. You can't have confidence unless you're prepared. Failure to prepare is preparing to fail, and you can't have confidence without being prepared, or you can't have that without the blocks below. You must have confidence, and then you must have poise, and I also coined my own definition of poise and poise, to me, is just being yourself. The person who has poise is not acting, they're not pretending, they're not trying to be something they're not. They are themselves, therefore, they are going to function in whatever they're doing near their own particular level of confidence. There will be no fear, no trepidation at all. They'll function near their own particular level of confidence, because they're not pretending, they're not trying to be something they're not. And all these blocks will make you competitive – competitive. You'll enjoy it, you'll enjoy it. There's joy in being involved in something difficult. There's no great joy in doing things that anybody else can do, although they must be done to the best of your ability regardless of whether difficult or easy, but the joy comes in being involved in a difficult situation, and these blocks below will bring them up. And then leading up to the apex on which success rests, I put on one side, "patience" and "faith." Good things take time and should. We don't want them to, but they should. Things should take time, and we must have faith. We must have faith that things will work out as they should, which doesn't mean that they'll work out exactly as we want them to. But if we have faith, and we do what we should – too often we want things to happen a certain way, but we don't do the things that would necessarily help that become reality. We just want it to happen. But you have to have faith. If you do what you should, things will work out as they should. So that's a very brief synopsis of the pyramid. Dennis: Well, I'm sitting here looking at the actual pyramid, Bob, and we're going to put it on the website as well – FamilyLife.com – and give folks a picture of this pyramid and what it exactly is, but he nailed it perfectly. Bob: Without looking at it. Dennis: Without looking at the copy I've got. I just want to say, Coach, to you, thank you for living an exemplary life, for being a man who has taught many of us over your lifetime, and I just appreciate you joining Bob and me and cheering on some moms and dads and husbands and wives who are in the throes of raising the next generation of young people. Thanks for helping us build a great team here on FamilyLife Today. John: You're very kind, and I appreciate the kind words. Bob: Well, that is the voice of legendary coach John Wooden who, today, is 92 years old, and undoubtedly on his way to catch the games this weekend and Monday night in the Final Four. He said he's been to most of them, even since his retirement, and just to hear the humility in his voice. That was characteristic of Coach Wooden all the way through his life, wasn't it? Dennis: It really was and, again, I just had to go back to the Book of Proverbs and think about Solomon speaking to his son and exhorting him – "acquire understanding, embrace wisdom, listen to the words of your father. Heed them, and you'll live. If you don't, you'll be a fool, and you'll die." And Coach Wooden has exhorted us over the past couple of days to heed well our assignments in life, whether we be single, married, parents, grandparents, but to leave a legacy. You remember, Bob, I told our listeners that there was a story I was going to conclude today with that is a real favorite, and I want to do that in just a moment, but I want you to tell our listeners how they can get a copy of this CD that we're making available for – not just the basketball players, but for dads and for coaches of any and every sport that your children may know. Bob: It's actually a two-CD set that features our entire conversation with Coach Wooden, much of which we were not able to include over the last three days here on FamilyLife Today. This hour-and-47-minute conversation took place not long ago as we sat down with Coach Wooden and just probed issues relating to his life, his marriage, his family, his coaching, and his view of success, and it's a great tool to pass on, as you said, Dennis, to players, to coaches, to enthusiasts, to fans. It's a great way to open a door and begin to talk with them about what makes up true greatness in a life and in a profession. Dennis: You may want to consider getting multiple copies of these CDs because you really only heard about half of the material, over the last three days, that are on these sets that we recorded. Bob: You can call us at 1-800-FLTODAY to request the two-CD set. Again, it's 1-800-F-as-in-family, L-as-in-life, and then the word TODAY. You can also go online to order at FamilyLife.com. While you're online, you can see John Wooden's Pyramid of Success. The Coach sat down, and he has got the mind of an engineer and the soul of a poet, and he laid out for us a pyramid, where he said here's what I think real success looks like, and how you achieve competitive greatness. It's built on poise and confidence and then on conditioning and skill and team spirit. He lays out all of the qualities that make up real success. We've got a video where Coach explains that success pyramid along with a mousepad that has the pyramid on it and a pocket-sized card you can carry along that has some of Coach Wooden's counsel on how to live on this wallet-size card. It would be a great gift to give to somebody who loves the sport, loves The Coach. You can call 1-800-FLTODAY for more information about these resources or about the two-CD set of our interviews with Coach Wooden. Again, it's 1-800-F-as-in-family, L-as-in-life, and then the word TODAY. Dennis. Dennis: I mentioned a story that I was going to share about – at the end of our interview, we got up to leave, and Coach Wooden was using a cane to kind of make his way to the elevator, and he gave me a book and you, too, I believe, Bob, and I took the book, and it was about leadership, and I said, "Coach, would you just mind signing that to me, and as you did, Coach," I said, "you don't know this about me, but I was pretty good in high school. I set the school record, which still stands, for most points scored. I played junior college basketball on scholarship and, Coach, I remember watching you as a kid growing up," and I said, "If you wouldn't mind, Coach, would you just write in the front – 'To Dennis – you could have played for me at UCLA. Signed, Coach John Wooden,' and then date it." He looked up at me, and a little mischievous grin worked its way across his lips, and he said, "Dennis, we just talked about integrity, didn't we? I can't do that." He said, "But here," and he reached up, kind of in a spry way and took the book from my hands, and began to write, and he was just getting a bigger and bigger grin as he wrote, and he closed the cover and handed it back to me and said, "There you go." And I now have that book in my office. It says, "To Dennis – Since I never recruited out of state, why didn't you call me? Coach John Wooden." That will be one of my prized possessions in everything that I own. Bob: FamilyLife Today is a production of FamilyLife of Little Rock, Arkansas, a ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ. We are so happy to provide these transcripts for you. However, there is a cost to transcribe, create, and produce them for our website. If you've benefited from the broadcast transcripts, would you consider donating today to help defray the costs? Copyright © FamilyLife. All rights reserved. www.FamilyLife.com

God is Good (Part 2) - John & Donna Bishop

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 5, 2020 31:00

God is Good (Part 1) - John & Donna BishopGod is Good (Part 2) - John & Donna BishopGod is Good (Part 3) - John & Donna BishopToday® Radio Transcript References to conferences, resources, or other special promotions may be obsolete. For Better or For Worse Guest: John & Donna BishopFrom the series: God is So Good Bob: More than a decade and a half ago, John Bishop was experiencing headaches that took him to the hospital. He was diagnosed with meningitis, and then a month later, unexpectedly, his memory was gone. What happens to a person, to a marriage and a family, when everything about the past has been erased? John Bishop says you have to start back at the beginning, learning to walk, to talk, learning to love. John: When she began to teach me, she said, "You're John, I Donna, we're married." I said, "Married? Married?" And she said, "Oh, okay, you forgot that. That means you belong to me, and I belong to you." I look at her, I say, "You my Donna?" She said, "Yes." That what I call her ever since – "My Donna." It was so easy to love her. She loved me so good. Bob: This is FamilyLife Today for Tuesday, August 5th. Our host is the president of FamilyLife, Dennis Rainey, and I'm Bob Lepine. What would happen to your marriage if, all of a sudden, you were starting from scratch? John: I tell people she taught me everything I know. Every woman dream come true – her husband forget it all, and she get teach him. [laughter] Bob: And welcome to FamilyLife Today, thanks for joining us. In our years of interviewing folks, we've met a number of couples and heard some remarkable love stories, but the story our listeners are hearing this week is an all-time classic, isn't it? Dennis: It may be the best. I mean, we've heard some great ones here, but we wanted to bring this story to you, as a listener. John and Donna were married in 1974. They had three sons. He was an evangelist for a number of years, pastored a church, had a ranch for young people that he helped staff and give leadership to. Bob: It was back in 1995, though, that he was diagnosed with aseptic meningitis and had to be hospitalized, and normally you recover from aseptic meningitis and life goes on. Dennis: But what happened was, it was like someone erased the chalkboard. All the memory, all of his understanding of all the basics of life were gone because of this disease. Bob: This is a month after he's had his meningitis that he loses his complete memory. He doesn't know that he's married, he doesn't know what marriage is, he doesn't know how to talk, he doesn't know how to eat. Dennis: He doesn't know who God is. Bob: It's like starting from scratch and, obviously, that leads to an incredible stress on a marriage, on a family. I mean, what do you do from there, right? Dennis: It's one thing, Bob, to have a life-threatening illness and live through that valley, but the story you're going to hear is all about how they picked up and began to live life on a daily basis. Bob: Donna, it's almost like when you brought John home from the hospital, you were bringing home a newborn baby who had some adult-level functionality but some very baby-like qualities. Was he ever like a bad boy? When he was home from the hospital, were there ever times when you thought, "I'm going to have to" … Dennis: Let's put it the way it is, Bob – did he ever pitch a fit? Bob: Or a tantrum? John: I can answer that – yes. Bob: Did he go through the terrible twos with you? [laughter] Donna: Yes, he would – especially when it came to eating. He wanted to eat his dessert first. "Why do I have to" – you know, he was always asking questions, why he has to do this and do that, and it was funny, one time I came home, and he was trying to help me, so he was washing the dishes. When he washed the dishes, he broke a plate or a glass or something, and so he hid it in the trash, buried it in the bottom of the trash so I wouldn't know that he broke a plate. So, you know, he was hiding things from me and sneaking around behind me when he was doing things he thought I didn't want him to do. Bob: Now, here's your husband. John: [laughing] Yes … Bob: … acting this way, and you feel like you have to paddle him, spank him, for how he's behaving? How do you handle that, as a wife, when … Donna: I'd be glad to spank him. [laughter] John: She never spanked me, but she had to get after me but, oh, she has been so patient. Bob: When did you – when did it dawn on you that you had a sin nature – that deep inside of you is this rebellion that you want to be selfish, and you want things the way you want them. When did that register for you? John: Once I began listening to the Bible on tape, I – for instance, Bob, I can remember first lie I told, and at least after the illness. In the hospital the nurses had asked me if I had taken something, and it was something I didn't like, and so I had thrown it away, and I told her I had taken it. Now, I didn't know what a lie was, but I felt guilty. But later on I learned what lying was. Dennis: I'm sitting here thinking when you hid the plate – that also had to result in some guilt. John: Yes, mm-hm. Dennis: So here is God convicting you of your need for forgiveness, your need for Savior. And yet you've already made that commitment as a young lad growing up. You don't happen to have that sheet of paper do you? Bob: The page in your Bible that shares your testimony? John: No, I didn't bring it. I sorry, I didn't bring it with me. Dennis: Basically, what does that sheet of paper say? John: Well, it tells about that Saturday night in September. I was brought up in Bristol, Tennessee, over in east Tennessee, and there was a citywide crusade, and the preacher was C.E. Autry. He is with the Lord now. As a matter of fact, I've got a book. I have his name down. I can even tell you the song they sang that night. On my testimony CD I have some people sing it – "It is no Secret What God Can Do." [music – "It Is No Secret What God Can Do"] Evidently, that song meant a lot to me, and so I even put that down – they sang that song that night. I was a 15-year-old teenage boy and lost home, and Mama was telling me that none of the family was saved at this point. And I even wrote that I brought a Gospel tract home from the stadium, the Tennessee High football stadium, it's still there, and with John 3:16 on it, I can tell you it was a Saturday night that September, I got on my knees, and I put my name where "whosoever was" – "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him," and I put my name – "whosoever" there – "should not perish but have everlasting life." I know all those details but can't remember a bit of it, but I wrote it there, and I'm just so glad that I received the Lord as a teenager. And then Mama said I surrendered to the call to preach, and preached my first sermon a month after my salvation, and I've been preaching ever since. The Lord has just helped me and, matter of fact, she said able to be interim pastor of a little country church when a senior in high school, and this is true now – it's Goose Pimple Junction, Virginia. That's where it was – population 29, and so … Dennis: Hold it, hold it, Goose Pimple … John: Yes. Bob: Junction? John: Mm-hm, Virginia, and it is there. You've been there, haven't you, Donna? Donna: Been there, yes, sir. [laughter] Bob: Donna, did you ever have anyone come alongside you after the illness, while you were trying to care for raising your boys and care for John and say, "You know, there's a place he could stay where they'd take care of him, and you shouldn't have to bear this burden?" Did you have folks suggest that to you? Donna: Yes, sir, I had somebody suggest that I could do that, you know, if I got tired and so forth, and I would get tired of taking care of him, but I thought about it. I thought, you know, I could, but just go on. I just was never tempted to do anything like that. Dennis: Now, what our listeners don't know is the length of time this story took. I mean, we're not talking about 30 days in rehab back to John getting to normal. John, give our listeners an idea here of the timeline we're talking about here. John: Well, for several weeks, Dennis, she had to do everything for me, and you know what I mean, I say everything. I was like a baby. This went on for weeks and weeks. Like I say, it took me near two years to where I could walk, and I had to work at it, work at it, and so forth, but it was just incredible how good she was to me. I remember one day she finishing cleaning me up again, and I look at her, I say, "Donna, why so good to me?" And she said, "Well, two reasons." And I said, "What that?" "Well," she said, "one, I promise I would." I said, "Promise? I don't remember promise." And she went and got our marriage vows, and she brought them, and she said, "John, we got married." I said, "In sickness and health, better or worse," and I remember I said, "Donna, I am so sorry it this worse, but thank you keeping promise, thank you." And then she said, "But second reason is" – and she gave me a big hug and says, "I love you." And I got an award back a couple of years ago. A college had asked me to come and they surprise me, they asked me give testimony, and they were giving me an award, and so I was so scared I was going to have to say something and right at last minute, and I thought, "What I going to say?" And here is what I said – I got up, I said, "I'm going to take this award home to my Donna, and will get on my knees, put in her lap, and I'm going to say, 'Donna, if it wasn't for God and you, I wouldn't even be alive much less getting this." So I said, "This yours." I said, "One day I get to heaven, and I'm going to say 'God, why you been so good to me?' and I think God going to give me two reasons. He going to say, "One, I promise I would," and He might remind me Roman 8:28, "All things work together good them love the Lord," and maybe say "John, I told you you love me, everything all right," and then I believe God going to give me a hug, and I believe God a good hugger, and He going to say, "But, John, main reason I love you," and I sure hope I have something put at His feet and say "Thank you, God." But I can't describe how good she's been to me, and God and everybody been so good to me. Dennis: How does that make you feel, Donna? I mean, I'm over here crying. Donna: I'm thankful that the Lord gave me the strength and that I was taught those valuable lessons that my family taught me and my church taught me when I was young, that it's worth it. It's worth it in the end. Don't ever bail. Just stay with it, God will bless you. Dennis: For two years it took you to learn how to walk? Donna: To walk good, you know, without stumbling and up steps. He has a real hard time with steps. Dennis: But even beyond that, John, you've suffered incredible headaches. John: Yes. Dennis: I mean, and just times of just feeling lousy. John: Yes. Dennis: And that's continued on for how long? John: All 12 years. Immediately, because of the brain damage, I began having seizures, and I still have those. But I gladly not quite as bad, and then cluster migraine headaches is what I have, and that's what actually caused my blindness. They change nature, they're sort of what they call "ocular" cluster migraine. But those have been big struggles for me, and I got very depressed, very discouraged. I wish I tell you I got sick and just said, "Oh, everything be fine," and went on. I didn't, Dennis. I got very depressed and went through some very dark times, and I even prayed, "Lord, please take me home, please, because I hurt," and I felt burden for my Donna. She never tell me I burden, but I felt that way, and depressed people do. And I got so depressed, I begged the Lord, "Please take me home, please." I tell people when I talk audience, I said, "You never life seen person want to die and pray harder than man looking at," and then I say, "But now you never in your life want to see – ever seen anybody want to live more than man you're looking at." God turned that around and helped me through those dark times. But that was mainly because of the pain issues and the seizures. I called them issues instead of problems. They just become problem if I let them, but I've had a lot of issues, you know, to go through, but the Lord's given me grace every time. Bob: You know, the name of your ministry … John: Yes? Bob: "God is so Good" Ministries. John: Yes. Bob: John, some of our listeners are going to hear this and say how can you, with all you've been through, testify to the goodness of God. If God was good, why would He allow all of this to happen to you? John: Yes, and, you know, Bob, that was the struggle I was going through. Those questions were going through my mind, and I needed to get hold of something, and the truth I got hold of, I was listening to Bible on tape, but I really loved the Book of Psalms because David been through some trials, too. So I listened to it over, over, over. Matter of fact, I wore that tape out and had to get another one. And he kept saying, though, "The Lord is good." He kept saying it, one psalm after other, other – "God is good." And I'm not saying that all that God is – He is also holy, and He's just, and He's righteous, but the two things that stand out to me is He is good and He's right no matter what happens. He's always good, and He's always right. Our God put Himself through pain. I am able to read now, Dennis, and I'm not smart enough to be able to know a lot of general information, so I focus my reading on people who are hurting, because that's my whole life now, is helping hurting people. The one thing I can tell people is nobody is hurt more than God. When He gave His Son – they say one of the greatest pains a person can go through is the death of a child, but yet He let Him go through greatest pain anybody ever through because something better and – now, I don't have to know what all the better is, but I know I can trust this God because He let Himself hurt. Jesus suffered more than any of us will ever know, and if God love His Son and let Him go through that because He knew something better for everybody, I'm going to trust Him that He got something better for me and everybody, too. You can trust a God like that. He's not like many other religions have gods that are above pain and above suffering. Oh, God put Himself right in middle of it, and I can't always tell people I know how something feel unless I'd been through it, but I can tell them the Lord does because His Son went through the most incredible pain ever been and the reason we're here today is because He did. So I know good going to come from it because He's a good God. Bob: Well, we've been listening today to part 2 of a conversation with John and Donna Bishop and, Dennis, as I was listening to John talk about responding to his own trials, his own pain, I thought of 2 Corinthians, chapter 1, where Paul says, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of all mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves have been comforted by God." He is a living application of that verse. Rather than being consumed by his own pain and suffering and saying, "Why me?" He is comforting others in their affliction. Dennis: He is, and, you know, as we've talked here today, it just occurred to me – there are two groups of people that are listening to this broadcast. One group, who is in the midst of suffering, and they're going through the valley right now, and they know exactly what John is talking about, and they have been comforted, as you've talked about. But I want to remind that group of people where John's comfort came from, and to do that, I want to quote Dr. A.W. Tozer. He said, "The most important thing you think is what you think about God." And the key to John's faith was he had the right thoughts about who God was. He got them from the Scripture – that God is a good God. No matter what happens to us, He is still good. No matter what befalls those we love, God hasn't changed. "The most important thing you think is what you think about God." There's a second group, though, and it's a far larger number, I think, Bob, even though we have a ton of listeners who are hurting who listen to this broadcast, and it's the larger number who need to be reminded of what they promised. They promised, "'Til death do us part," and they needed to hear this love story. I needed to hear it. Who doesn't need to hear of a compelling promise that two people have made to each other to go through such an incredible ordeal as what Donna and John Bishop went through. Maybe you just need to take your spouse's hand before the day is over, and you just say two things – "I promised" and "I love you," and that's a great place to begin to build a family. Bob: You know, I think about the listeners who, over the next couple of weeks, are going to be off on a trip somewhere, a vacation or headed somewhere in the car. They ought to get a copy of this CD and listen to it together as they drive wherever it is they're going together. In fact, if the whole family is along, this would be a great story for the whole family to listen to. We've got copies of the CD in our FamilyLife Resource Center, and if our listeners would like to receive a copy, they can contact us online at FamilyLife.com or by calling 1-800-FLTODAY. If you go online, when you get to the home page, on the right side of the screen, you'll see a box that says "Today's Broadcast," click where it says "Learn More," and you can find out how to order a copy of the CD that features our complete conversation with John and Donna Bishop. We've had to edit parts of it for time purposes here on FamilyLife Today. Or you can call 1-800-FLTODAY and ask for a copy of the CD with John and Donna Bishop. Again, the toll-free number is 1-800-358-6329. When you contact us someone on our team will make arrangements to have the CD sent out to you. You know, on Friday nights at our Weekend to Remember Marriage Conferences, Dennis, we talk about the inevitable difficulties that will come to every marriage. Very few folks will receive the kind of trial that John and Donna have had to experience in their marriage, but all of us will experience challenges and trials in a marriage and in a family. The question is – are we ready for those trials when they come? Are we building the foundation of our relationship each day so that when a trial comes, we are ready to face it because we can stand strong together on our relationship with Jesus Christ. You and your wife, Barbara, wrote a book several months ago, a devotional book for couples called "Moments With You," that is designed for a husband and wife to read through together each day, to spend some time in prayer together, to look at a passage from the Scriptures each day, with the hope that those few minutes invested together will strengthen the foundation of your relationship. And this week we're making copies of your devotional book for couples, "Moments With You," available to our listeners when they contact us with a donation of any amount for the ministry of FamilyLife Today. We are listener-supported. Those donations are what keep us on the air in this city and in other cities all across the country, and so we appreciate hearing from you. If you go online to make a donation at FamilyLife.com, and you'd like to receive a copy of the devotional book, "Moments With You," just type the word "You" in the keycode box that you see on the donation form, the word, y-o-u, and we'll make arrangements to have a copy of the book sent to you. If you call 1-800-FLTODAY to make a donation over the phone, just request a copy of the book, "Moments With You," and, again, we're happy to send it out to you as a way of saying thank you for your partnership with us and for your financial support of the ministry of FamilyLife Today. We appreciate you. Now, tomorrow, we're going to hear about how John and Donna Bishop can continue to call God good, even after all they've been through, and I hope you can be back with us for that. I want to thank our engineer today, Keith Lynch, and our entire broadcast production team. On behalf of our host, Dennis Rainey, I'm Bob Lepine. We'll see you back next time for another edition of FamilyLife Today. FamilyLife Today is a production of FamilyLife of Little Rock, Arkansas – help for today; hope for tomorrow. ______________________________________________________________________We are so happy to provide these transcripts for you. However, there is a cost to transcribe, create, and produce them for our website. If you've benefited from the broadcast transcripts, would you consider donating today to help defray the costs?Copyright © FamilyLife. All rights reserved. www.FamilyLife.com

God is Good (Part 3) - John & Donna Bishop

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 5, 2020 29:46

God is Good (Part 1) - John & Donna BishopGod is Good (Part 2) - John & Donna BishopGod is Good (Part 3) - John & Donna BishopToday® Radio Transcript References to conferences, resources, or other special promotions may be obsolete. Making New Memories Guest: John and Donna BishopFrom the series: God is So Good Bob: The Bible teaches us a different way of thinking about trials, to count it all joy when we experience various trials. That can be easy to read but very difficult to do. Fifteen years ago, John Bishop lost his memory completely as a result of meningitis. In the years that followed, there were many difficulties the Bishop family faced. John: That night I hurting so bad, and I'd listen to Psalm, and it said, "O taste and see that the Lord is good," Psalm 34a – "Blessed is the man trusteth in Him," and I said, "God, I going to believe you're good. If I never get better I still going to believe you're good because that what Your Word says." And I said, "Lord, this must be what faith means is believing You even when I don't feel like it." So I'm going to believe God good whether I feel good or not. I'm going to believe God good whether I get better or not just because the Bible say it. Bob: This is FamilyLife Today for Wednesday, August 6th. Our host is the president of FamilyLife, Dennis Rainey, and I'm Bob Lepine. No matter what happens in your life, can you say God is so good, and all His ways are good? And welcome to FamilyLife Today, thanks for joining us on the Wednesday edition. This past weekend we had a wedding. My daughter, Katy, became Mrs. Katy Walker, and … Dennis: How did you do? Bob: I was fine. I was thinking back to how all marriages start, and they all start with hopes and dreams and the expectation of a storybook romance and they all live happily ever after – that kind of a fairy tale scenario. Dennis: At least that's what we think is going to happen. But when we start out a marriage relationship, we have no idea what God has in store for our spouse or for us, as a couple. Bob: Yes, and as we've been hearing this week, John and Donna Bishop experienced a unique circumstance in their marriage 13 years ago when he lost all memory, and the story had to begin again with a whole new set of circumstances; that the love story had to start up again from scratch. And yet it's been remarkable to hear how God has sustained this couple and to hear them testify to His goodness in the midst of this kind of adversity. Dennis: And, you know, I want to turn to the listener at this point before you hear the rest of the story, and I want to encourage you to order a bunch of CDs and pass them out to your buddies. Bob: I've already done that. I took … Dennis: I have, too, Bob, I'm telling you, I'm going to talk to the folks down at the warehouse, and I'm going to see if we can't make a deal so that you can order these – this story in quantity and pass it out at church, pass it out in your neighborhood. This is going to be a story that I think is going to touch, literally, millions of people's lives around the nation. Bob: And as we hear part 3 of this story, we're beginning to get a picture of the tremendous impact John's illness had on a marriage and on a family. I mean, here were John and Donna raising three sons. Donna: It was hard on the boys. I think it's probably hardest maybe on my youngest son, because he was 10 years old, and I remember one day Luke came to me, and he said, "Mom, it's not fair, because my brothers had a daddy that got to play ball with them and go hunting with them and do fun things with him," and he caught me on an up day there, so I said, "I know, but you know the Lord's going to let him be special in a different way than he was with your brothers." And so I thank the Lord – my youngest son, he's a good boy, and I thank the Lord, and I think him and his dad are close. Bob: That had to break your heart, though, for your son to say, "It's not fair. I want a daddy like my brothers had." Donna: I know. It was – I struggle with the things – I was going to tell you that when – I remember one night John was laying on the couch there, and he said, "It's okay, God, that you let me be sick." Well, when he said that, you know, I said, "Oh, no, it's not okay." Because I just kept saying, "You know, Lord, you know, I married that other man back there, and I just would like to go back to that," and I struggled. That was one of my struggles – the Lord just saying, "Okay, Lord, it's okay." And it was easier for him to say it than for me to say it. I just had a hard time. And so the Lord and I have had many discussions over this. Bob: Do you feel like you've had two husbands? Donna: Yes, sir, I sure do. Dennis: What's the part of John before the illness that you miss the most? Donna: Probably the part just take the leadership and go on and just the energy just to go on and keep going into things. Dennis: So he was the leader, he was leading you and the family and the church and taking you in a direction. Donna: Yes, sir. And he was, you know, just never stopped, just keep going. Dennis: What's the part of the new John that you like the best? Donna: I like the best part is he's very loving, very kind. I guess the Lord slowed him down, and he slows down, and he appreciates things and is just – you know, when we slow down, it's amazing how many things we've learned to miss, you know, that we have missed along the way until we slow down. Dennis: John, as you hear your wife describe John prior to 1995, prior to the illness, as a man, and you are a man, I mean, you have to be like all the rest of us who want to say, "I want to be that man now." John: Mm-hm. Dennis: Do you feel that? John: Yes, I do, and yet they had some tapes of me preaching before my illness, but one day I listening one of my messages, and I was pretty harsh, and I was listening and "I don't like that guy," and I took tape out and threw it out window. [laughter] And I like the new me better. But, you know, my Donna puts it this way, said, before my illness I sort of knock them over the head but now I grab them by the heart. But, you know, I think the Lord just decided if I going to use John, I going to break him all the way down and start over. But what I know of me before, and what she telling me and so forth, I like the new me, and things don't bother me maybe like bother other people, because I've been through just so much, and not a whole lot more I could lose, you know? So, okay, that part of it, let's go on, and I have a good time. I tell people I'm a few fries short of a Happy Meal, but I'm happy. [laughter] Bob: You know, in circumstances like this, it's not unusual for people to say "Lord, why me? Why is this the path You put me on?" And it's not just the person who goes through the meningitis who asks that, but it's the person who is caring for the person who goes through the meningitis. How have you wrestled with the "Why me?" question, Donna? Donna: I have wrestled with it, that's, you know, why – you know, I kept telling the Lord, "Lord, we were fine," you know, "we were fine," but the Lord has just showed me, "Donna, I have something special for you," and I have learned so many things through this, and I thank the Lord that He's brought us through this because I love him more, and I love him in a different way, and it's closer, and God is able to use us. And if we're just willing to say, "Okay, Lord, it's all right. Whatever you bring to my life, I know it's for my good." Every day when I surrender the new thing that, "Okay, Lord, you can have that," and I was just – struggled. I hung onto the back things, I guess, because I could remember them. I hung onto the things in my past, and so – but every time I'd surrender, it was just so much better, and the Lord just eased and gave me so much comfort in knowing that the Lord has a reason for it. Bob: This is almost an impossible question for you to answer, but if the Lord came to you today and said, "Okay, I'll give you the old John, and we'll start from here with things the way they were, and we'll take everything of the last 15 years." Dennis: That's a hard question. Bob: You can have your choice, what do you want? If you could go back and undo the last 15 years and just kind of be on the path you were on, which is what you longed for at some point, would you pick that, do you think? Donna: No, sir. I'd take what the Lord has given us, I really would. Bob: You'd say, "This path has been the right one for me." Donna: Yes, sir. I think if you'd asked me that a few years ago, I'd probably have said no. But I know that God – this is God's plan for my life, and it's okay. Dennis: It's back to what John said earlier – "God is good, and He's right." Donna: Yes, sir. Dennis: And … Bob: … blessed be the name of the Lord, right? Dennis: Yeah, even though it's not been easy, you've begun to experience some of the benefit of the pain that you've been through. Can you share some of those benefits, what they would be? Donna: It's a closer relationship with the Lord. Also faith – just knowing that God's going to take care of us, regardless of what we go through. Dennis: Give us an illustration of that. How has He provided for you? Donna: Oh, He's taken care of everything. I mean, we have more than we need. As far as the physical things, God supplies everything. Every time he goes to the hospital, I think, "Oh, here we go again," you know, but the Lord always takes care of everything, and everything always gets paid, we never late on bills. God takes care of everything, and also our spiritual – God takes care of us spiritually, too, and gives us courage and strength and I think one thing that really touches my heart, too, is, you know, when John was in the hospital, you know, he'd just say the name of God, I knew he was praying to the Lord. And, you know, God does – He never leaves us or forsakes us regardless. And so, you know, John might have forgot everything, and John with that hard – I couldn't go through those things at the time with him, but the Lord was with him all the way through it. It doesn't matter how hard it gets, he's there. And so how hard it gets on me or whoever, God is there, and we've just got to trust Him. Dennis: John, do you have anything to add to that? John: Well, the Lord gives us grace not just endure but enjoy, and, you know, he doesn't just say, "Okay, I'll give you enough grace endure this," there are times of endurance, but most time it's enjoyment. And I get to travel, and I really cannot get to all the places people have invited me. It's just incredible. That's how I met one of your staff. I took my first trip California by myself, and on airplane. I told my Donna, "I can do it." Dennis: What's your vision? What is it again? John: I'm blind, legally blind. Dennis: But it's 20 what? John: I don't know the number. I can – one eye I can just make figures. Like, I can tell you're there, but I wouldn't be able to recognize you. Now, with these goggles that I have under here, I can read if I'm up close, and … Dennis: So how do you negotiate steps to get on a plane and to travel to California? John: You know, people are so nice to blind people. If you've got that cane, they get out of your way. [laughter] And I just able to make it through, and I called her, and I was there at the place, and I said, "Donna, nobody speaking English here, where am I?" [laughter] Dennis: You were in California. [laughter] John: She teasing – I was teasing her like I ended up another country or something. But, you know, it's been fun. One time I went and heard a speaker, she went with me, and this man said, "I know some of you out there got skeletons in your closet." Well, I not been taught that yet, and I'm thinking real, and I'm sitting there thinking, "Oh, mercy, if I knew somebody like that, I'd tell on them," you know? And who would do that? You know, and what skeleton is it? And I got home, and I said, "Donna, that man knew people there with skeletons, and he wouldn't tell on them." And she then had to explain to me. So I am learning all those things, but I do have fun, I do, and the Lord has been – just give me joy as well through the trials and I'm not always laughing, but I love hearing you, because you all laugh a lot, and I love be around happy people. Bob: John, when you started losing your eyesight eight months ago … John: Mm-hm, yes. Bob: You had to think, you know, "Lord, haven't I had enough? I mean, couldn't we just keep the eyes? That would sure be helpful." John: Yes. Oh, Bob, that was one of the biggest struggles. I should have been able to ace that one after what I've been through, but, I tell you, I struggled. At first I couldn't believe it happening. I thought, "Surely not." Then I thought, "Oh, this just be two or three week, and the Lord say, 'Okay, I just testing you.'" But it went on and on and on. I almost felt like when Abraham was asked to give his son, and I thought of my sight, oh, I remember, I'd tell God, "Okay, Lord, not my will, thine be done," and then I had to tell Him, "I sorry, Lord, I didn't mean it," like I needed to tell him, but, I mean, I knew I was just saying the words. Because my ministry been built around telling people that we can trust the Lord with anything, and we can go on. He said, "Rejoice in the Lord always," and I'd lost my joy over this. "Oh, God," I said, "I'm so sorry," and it was just like I raised the knife, and I believe Abraham, when God told him offer son, I think probably at the time God knew he really would do it. He stopped him and said, "Okay," and I finally got a point, "Okay, God, if you want the eyes, too, that is okay. I really do mean it." But that really was a big struggle for me. I should have been stronger, but I wasn't. Dennis: John, I was told when you were going to come down here that just from an illness standpoint and battling all that you're battling, you might not have the stamina. You've done remarkable. John: Thank you. Dennis: I mean, you're hanging in there with Bob's tough questions, and … Bob: Any headaches? You feeling okay? John: Yes, I do have headache, and my pain level each day, Bob, is around 5 or 6, between 1 and 10. When it get to 7, I have to medicate it a little bit; 8 and 9 I can live with. If it gets 10, I have to go emergency room. I getting stronger, but I not quite able handle 10. Bob: So where are you today right now? John: I about a 7. Dennis: Wow, wow. Bob: I don't know many people with a 7 … Dennis: Who would be doing radio. Bob: Or smiling or laughing or talking about how good God is. Dennis: And I think what our listeners don't see is, really, the smile on both their faces. Donna: That's what I appreciate about him, is he can be hurting so bad, but he still keeps going, and he complains some, yes, but, no, not like I would. I know why the Lord didn't give me the headaches. Dennis: Not like he could, because of what he's going through. Donna: No. John: I try to be good to her. She's been so good to me, and I love her. Donna: He's very good. John: I want to make her happy. There are two big goals in my life. Number one, make the Lord happy, number two, make my wife happy, and I love to be able to do that and get her things. When I learned I supposed to love her as much as Christ loved church and gave Himself for – I remember when I heard that, "Wow, that a lot of love. I got to work a whole bunch on this." There is nothing world I wouldn't do for her, and she wouldn't ask me to do something wrong or bad, but I think how good the Lord been to me. He's given me so many things. Dennis: I know there is one other thing you love to do, too, though. John: What's that? Dennis: You love to introduce people to the King of the Universe. John: Mm-hm. Dennis: Undoubtedly, there have been those who have heard your story, who don't know Him and who need to. Would you like to take their hand in yours and place it in God's hand, explain to them how they can come into relationship with Jesus Christ and with the Lord God Almighty?" John: Yes, yes, thank you so much. The Bible says the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance, and if people could just stop, and even if they've been through hard times, difficult times, God in His goodness gave us Son, Jesus, for us, that we might be saved and forgiven and be with Him one day. You see, when I die, all my suffering over. I read in Book of Revelation where John said, "in that city no more pain." And, boy, howdy, am I looking forward to that – no more pain. The God that wants to give us that place of no more pain is Jesus Christ. He gave us life, He shed His blood. It took a good God to give His Son. It took a good Savior to give His life so that if a person realizes they're a sinner, puts their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, He'll save them the moment they turn to Him. And that's a good God, and I just beg people not turning away. I have had atheists saved, Dennis. I had one atheist get saved, and he said to me, he said, "John, I couldn't argue with you. You just kept saying God good, and he said I finally one day I realize why have I turned down such a good God all these years?" And he gave his life to Christ. I would love to know somebody give their life to Christ. He's a good God. Dennis: And I would say to that person right now who is listening, why don't you take the offer that God is making on behalf of you? The good God we've talked about who gave His Son, Jesus Christ. You don't have to get down on your knees. You can do it right where you are, driving in a car, listening on an iPod or computer. But if you want to, it would be a good idea to get down on your knees and just surrender your life to Christ. It is the greatest decision you'll ever make. And, John, I just want to thank you and Donna for telling your story and for allowing us the privilege of – and, Bob, I know you and I have worked together long enough, I know you feel the same – it's just an honor to be in the studio with you. Thank you. John: It's been an honor for us, too. Bob: We want to make sure that those listeners who are interested in establishing a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and we want to invite you to get in touch with us. There's a book we'd love to send you that's call "Pursuing God," that explains what it means to have a right relationship with God through Christ, and this book is available to you at no cost. All you have to do is call 1-800-FLTODAY, and when someone answers the phone just say, I am interested in becoming a Christian, and I'd like a copy of that book, and it will be our privilege to send it out to you, and we trust God will use it to help you begin to establish an ongoing relationship with God through Christ. Again, the title of the book is "Pursuing God," and you can request it when you call 1-800-FLTODAY. You can also request a copy of the CD of our conversation with John and Donna Bishop. We have that in our FamilyLife Resource Center, and when you contact us, we'll let you know how you can receive that CD. You can either order it online at FamilyLife.com, or you can call us at 1-800-FLTODAY, and we'll make arrangements to send a copy or to send multiple copies to you, if you'd like. Again, the details of how you can order the CD are found online at FamilyLife.com or simply call 1-800-358-6329. That's 1-800-F-as-in-family, L-as-in-life, and then the word TODAY, and someone on our team will let you know how you can get the CD sent to you. I don't know how many times, Dennis, I have seen you turn in your Bible to Matthew 7 where Jesus concludes the Sermon on the Mount by talking about two different builders. One builder who built his house on the rock and the other who built his house on the sand, and you have reminded us that when storms come in life, the kinds of storms like John and Donna Bishop have experienced, it's really a test of our foundation on what is our life and our marriage built? And each day we have an opportunity to strengthen the foundation of our marriage as we spend time with God together as a couple. A few months ago, you and your wife Barbara wrote a book called "Moments With You," a daily devotional book for couples to encourage them to spend time praying together, looking at the Scriptures together and talking about their marriage relationship and about their family. And this week we are making that hardback book available to listeners who support the ministry of FamilyLife Today with a donation of any amount. We are listener-supported, so your donations are critical, they're vital, to keeping us on the air in this city and in other cities all across the country, and when you make a donation either online or by phone this week, we want you to feel free to request a copy of the book, "Moments With You," as a way of saying thank you for your financial support of this ministry. If you're donating online, there will be a keycode box you'll come to on your donation form, and we just need you to type the word "You," y-o-u, in that keycode box, and we'll know to send a copy of the book, "Moments With You" out to you, or call 1-800-FLTODAY. You can make a donation right over the phone and just mention that you'd like a copy of the daily devotional, "Moments With You." Again, we're happy to send it out to you as our way of saying thanks for your financial support and for your partnership with us. Well, tomorrow we're going to meet another very remarkable couple. A couple that has weathered a significant storm in their marriage. We'll introduce you to Charlie and Lucy Wedemeyer tomorrow, and I hope you can be back with us for that. I want to thank our engineer today, Keith Lynch, and our entire broadcast production team. On behalf of our host, Dennis Rainey, I'm Bob Lepine. We'll see you back tomorrow for another edition of FamilyLife Today. FamilyLife Today is a production of FamilyLife of Little Rock, Arkansas – help for today; hope for tomorrow. _______________________________________________________________We are so happy to provide these transcripts for you. However, there is a cost to transcribe, create, and produce them for our website. If you've benefited from the broadcast transcripts, would you consider donating today to help defray the costs?Copyright © FamilyLife. All rights reserved. www.FamilyLife.com

Wisdom from the Wizard of UCLA (Part 2) - John Wooden

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 5, 2020 24:55

Wisdom from the Wizard of UCLA (Part 1) - John WoodenWisdom from the Wizard of UCLA (Part 2) - John WoodenWisdom from the Wizard of UCLA (Part 3) - John WoodenFamilyLife Today® Radio TranscriptReferences to conferences, resources, or other special promotions may be obsolete. Coaching PressureDay 2 of 3 Guest: John Wooden From the series: True Success: A Personal Visit with John Wooden Bob: A basketball tournament is a test. It's a test of a team's skill and a coach's savvy. But long before the players ever show up on the court, it can be a test of an individual's character as well. At least it was for Coach John Wooden in 1948. John: I had one black player on my team, and they wouldn't let them play in the tournament, and I wouldn't go without him, because he was a part of the team, and finally they reluctantly said that he could come, but he couldn't stay in the hotel where the teams were staying. He could have his meals there, providing we would take them in a private room. So I refused the invitation and wouldn't go. Bob: John Wooden, who would go on to be come one of the greatest coaches in basketball history, but he was a coach who was known as much for his character as for his basketball prowess. Stay with us for a conversation with the Coach, John Wooden on FamilyLife Today. And welcome to FamilyLife Today, thanks for joining us on the Thursday edition. You know, this would make one of those great trivia questions that pop up on those sports talk shows from time to time – who was the Indiana Rubber Man? Dennis: Mm-hm. Bob: Now, you know and I know, because we had a chance to talk to the Indiana Rubber Man, but I wonder how many of our listeners know that a man who is considered today to have perhaps been the greatest coach of all time in any sport, Coach John Wooden of the UCLA Bruins, was once one of the great players in basketball – both in college basketball and then in semi-pro basketball. Dennis: That's right. He is one of two that are in the Basketball Hall of Fame, both as a player and a coach. The other is Lenny Wilkinson, I believe, and, of course, we talked yesterday about Coach Wooden and a little trip Bob and I made out to Southern California to interview him. He slipped into the studio with Bob and me, and you need to hang with us today and tomorrow, because at the end of tomorrow's broadcast, I'm going to tell you a cute story about Coach Wooden autographing a book for me. Because I did play ball, as Bob mentioned yesterday, in college. My average was just about the same as Coach Wooden's, in fact – no, it really wasn't. Bob: A little less than average is what's your average. Dennis: Yeah, I was less than average, no doubt about it, but he was an All American, as you said, Bob, but he was more than that. He was a man of, I believe, a simple faith in Jesus Christ and in God and who lived out his commitments to his players, to his family, and to his wife, Nellie, and you're going to hear some touching moments about how this man fulfilled his marriage covenant with his wife. Bob: Coach Wooden has been known throughout the years as a man of great integrity, great character, and a great molder of men, and if you ask him what he did, he says, "I was just a teacher. I've taught boys how to play basketball." Dennis: Yeah, in fact, he almost went into teaching, which is interesting. Bob: We'll hear about that today. This is taken from a conversation – an extended conversation – that we had with Coach John Wooden not long ago. Here is Dennis with Coach Wooden. Dennis: A story that you tell that I want you to share with our listeners came at the conclusion of your first year at Indiana State University, where you won the conference title, and you received an invitation to play in the NAIA Tournament, but you turned them down. Why? John: We had a pretty good year, the first year, and the NAIA Tournaments played in Kansas City – 32 teams then – and I had one black player on my team, and they wouldn't let them play in the tournament. So even though this was – of the 12 men on the team, he played the least of all, he didn't get to play very much, and I wouldn't go without him, because he was a part of the team. So I refused the invitation and wouldn't go. Now, the next year I had everybody back on this team, exactly the same team, no one came in and beat anybody else out, and so the next year we had a good year, and were invited again, and I refused again, and finally they reluctantly said that he could come, but he couldn't stay in the hotel where the teams were staying. He'd have to stay someplace else. He could have his meals there, providing we would take them in a private room. I said no, I wouldn't do that, but I was persuaded by the NCAA and his parents that we should go; it might help. So we went, and he stayed with a minister and his wife and came into the hotel from the game. He didn't get to play very much at all, but that was the first black player that had ever played in that tournament, and I think a few years later an all-black team won. So we sort of opened the door a little bit. Bob: You undoubtedly had some players – when you came back and told the team we've been invited to the tournament but we're not going to go because they won't accept this one player – there had to be some guys going, "Coach, I want to go to Kansas City, I want to play on the team. Let's just go along with their rules." Didn't anybody raise their hand in protest? John: I don't think anyone protested. Some would have liked to have gone, yes, but they didn't. I knew these men, and most of them I'd had in high school before, and they knew how I felt about things, and there was no problem. They caused me no problem there. Dennis: As your career was taking off, you were also in the process of beginning your family. You had a daughter and a son, and what I wonder is, I wonder how did you juggle the tension of your marriage, your family, your faith, and a demanding profession? What value in your core, as a man, was your measurement? How did you juggle it all? John: I wish Nellie were here to answer that question for you. Well, Nan, of course, was born in Dayton, Kentucky, when I was down there, and then Jim was born in South Bend two years later, but I tried, definitely tried – Nellie always went to games with me, and I wouldn't leave her to go scout or anything of that sort, unless she couldn't go, not bring basketball home. I tried not to do that. Now, can you do that 100 percent – probably not. But I tried not, and Nellie, when she was interviewed at times, I'd heard her say that, "John never brought the games home. I could never tell after a practice" – she was practically at all the games – "but never after a practice, I could not tell by his demeanor whether he had a good practice or a bad practice or had problems at all." And maybe she stretched the truth a little bit there, but I certainly tried not to. I wanted – next to faith – I wanted family first. Bob: We had the opportunity once to interview Coach McCartney from Colorado – a football coach who started Promise Keepers, and his wife told us that at the beginning of the football season all of the coaches and their wives would get together for a party that they said was the "Football's Here, Goodbye, Dear," party. Because they said that from the middle of the summer until the end of whatever ball game you were going to, you rarely saw your husband. Is the demand of coaching higher today than it was when you were coaching or did you just order your world differently than other coaches did? John: I don't think demand is any higher, it's just what you make out of it. You have to be disciplined on what you're doing. You have to establish your own priorities and then stick to them. I don't think it's any different, and as far as pressure being on you, the only pressure that amounts to a hill of beans is the pressure you put on yourself. If you permit outside pressure, alumni pressure, or parental pressure from the outside, if you permit those to influence you, then you're weak. You better get on with something else, but you'd probably find the same thing someplace else, too. It's like my players – when I'd recruit the player, I'd say, "Now, if you come here, you're going to be unhappy for a while. You're going to be unhappy. You're going to be away from home for the first time, you're not going to be the big shot that you were in high school, but you're not going to like it here for a while. But if you go someplace, it would be the same thing. You wouldn't like it there, so it might as well be here." I sort of felt that way about it, and I think that pressure is – when the coaches talk to me about pressures, I say, "Get out, get out, get out." The pressure amounts to a hill of beans of what you put on yourself. You've got to put pressure on yourself, do a good job, do the best you can, study, work as you can, but don't let that be all-encompassing. There are other things more important. Dennis: How did Nellie keep your family on the track and help John Wooden as a man keep his priorities? I mean, you undoubtedly had your moments when you would work too hard, too long, and be a little too consumed with it all. How did she come alongside you – how was she a good helpmate and counterpart to the Coach? John: Well, she was just a good mother and a good wife, and we had a little disagreement, I remember, one time many, many, many, many years ago, many years before I lost her, we had a little disagreement, and I left the house to go to work without [inaudible], and I should have but when I went to bed that night there was a little note on my pillow with a card, it's still there, it says, "Don't try to understand me, just love me." And that's it. I think we had a great relationship more than anything else, and I've said that when we – we talked about this, and, gracious, we're going to disagree on a lot of things, but let's try not to be disagreeable. Dennis: You had a little tradition that you and Nellie enjoyed right before the game started. Now, Bob, I remember watching Coach Wooden on TV when college basketball games started being televised, but there was something I missed as an observer, a little tradition that he had with Nellie before the game started. John: Back when I was playing in high school, she played in the band, and I'd try to position myself where I could look up and see her in the band, and she's always give me a – and I'd give her a wink or a nod, and that continued, you know, in my teaching days. Before every game, I'd find her and I'd give her a wink or a nod, and so that's probably what you're thinking of. Superstition? No, it wasn't superstition, it just made me feel good. Dennis: Just a little wink. John: That's right, that's right. Bob: You wound up as the coach of UCLA because of a snowstorm. John: Correct. Bob: Tell us how you got that job. John: I was considering both UCLA and the University of Minnesota. That had both offered me the jobs, and I wanted to stay in the Midwest in the Big 10. UCLA was going to call an hour after Minnesota was going to call. Minnesota didn't call, and UCLA called, and I accepted. About an hour later I got a call from Minnesota saying everything was all worked out, and I said, "I'm sorry, I've committed myself. I can't back out now." And there was what they called an "unseasonable" snowstorm that had the lines down, and they couldn't get to a phone to call me at the time, they said. So that's how close it came. Bob: Why didn't you just hang on until they got on – why did you take the job at UCLA if you wanted to be in Minnesota? Did you think they were going to not call? They'd decided to go with somebody else? John: I suppose I thought that. I don't remember exactly now. All I know is they didn't call in time, and I'm a stickler for time. My players will tell you one of the rules that I had throughout is be on time to your classes, to practice, to the bus – be on time – and if you're not, some action will be taken. As the years went by, I learned not to tell them what the action would be. Bob: It didn't matter whether there was a snowstorm or not, they needed to be on time. Dennis: I want to know, Coach, why you chose coaching. I mean, you said you loved to teach English, you were a teacher at heart, you could have done a lot of things. Why did you do it? John: I went to Purdue to become a civil engineer – that's what I wanted to do, but I didn't know – high school counseling, obviously, wasn't as good in those days, and I didn't know that to get your degree in civil engineering you had to go to civil camp every summer. Well, I knew I couldn't go to civil camp every summer. I had to work in the summers, so I couldn't do that. So I changed to a Liberal Arts course and majored in English, and I knew, from that time on, I'm going to teach. I enjoyed teaching, as time went by. I enjoyed it. I taught English in high school, and I wanted to be a good English teacher, and I enjoyed it, and once I got into it, I had opportunities to get out in other areas where, financially, it would have been better, but I enjoyed teaching. Who was it said that you find a job that you enjoy, you'll never work a day in your life. Dennis: And you view coaching as teaching? John: Of course, it is. That's all it is. You're teaching sports. You've heard some of my players, particularly some of the talkative ones like Bill Walton, will often say in his interviews that coach was teacher. Dennis: Coach, as you taught, you believed in teaching about the fundamentals. John: Oh, absolutely. Dennis: In fact, in coming into this studio, the one thing I regret that I didn't bring in here – I brought you a banana, because I know you like a banana, but I should have brought a pair of socks – athletic socks – into the studio, because you took high school stars – you began with a very simple point of instruction. John: That's correct. I taught them how to put on their socks and their shoes. I wanted no wrinkles in the socks, and I'd show them how to put it on and smooth around the little toe. Your blisters usually come from around the little toe or the heel area, and I wanted to show them how to do that, because I know if you don't, they just pull them up. To me, I think, it was just as important thing – a little detail, but little details is what make big things happen. Bob: You had some players who obviously became players of note not only in college but on into the NBA. Some of them seem to be outside of the Wooden paradigm, if I can call it that. You know, Bill Walton does not strike me as the prototypical John Wooden basketball player. It almost seems like here's a guy who can play the game, but here is a disciplined coach and a player who – well – discipline was not high on his list of virtues, was it? John: In certain areas, you might say that, but Bill is very dear to me. For many, many years he calls me three or four times a week from all over, but at the time he played for me, it was a time of the anti-establishment, and he was anti-establishment very much at that particular time. I was concerned about money and things, but I have no right to determine the politics of my players. Now, actually, the religion – that's them. But he's a good student, he's an honor student, he's in the academic hall of fame. When he came on the basketball floor, you couldn't ask – no one could ask – for a player to be more cooperative, set a great example. No one worked harder – never a problem in any way. But he had his little quirks, as we all have, and … Bob: … what about his facial hair, though? He did show up one time … John: … well, he decided I didn't have the right to tell him how to wear his hair, and I said, "You're absolutely right, Bill, I don't have. All I have the right is to determine who plays, and we're going to miss you." Bob: You said, "If you want to keep the beard, you're off the team?" John: That's right. Dennis: This is an All American you're talking to. John: That's right. Dennis: But you drew a line in the sand over the facial hair. John: I did, I did. Dennis: And what did Bill do? John: Then he hurried and got fixed up then. Bob: He shaved his beard off, didn't he? John: And he's been asked, "Do you think Coach would have gone through with it?" And he said, "Well, you know what I did." If I have a rule, I'm going to stand by it. But always remember there can be a gray area at times. There was a time in my teaching that I had no gray area – it was either black or white with me. But there can be a gray area, and I made two mistakes – I made many, but I know two that I recall that I regret very much because I didn't see the gray area. Bob: What are those two? John: Well, I had a rule in high school that smoking was automatic dismissal from the squad for the year, and my finest player, my only center I'd had, I caught him smoking, and I dismissed him. I had the rule, and I … Dennis: … and you think it's a mistake now, looking back? John: Well, he quit school, he never finished school. He would have gone on to college. I think I was wrong. I should have handled it in a different way. Bob: What was the second thing, you said, that you regretted? John: I had a player that didn't qualify for his letter. This was in high school, but he was a fine person that worked very, very hard, and – but, anyway, his dad came in one day and called me and wondered if I'd come out and talk to him. I did, and he said, "Is Joe going to get a letter?" I said – no tact – I said, "Well, I haven't really decided yet." And he said, "I'll tell you this" – remember, I'm just a young man – and he said, "I'll tell you, if he doesn't, I'm going to have your job." Dennis: He threatened you. John: Yes, he did, and I didn't like that, and I ended up by not giving the boy his letter, and I feel, down deep in my heart, that I would have given him the letter if the dad – for the youngster because of the dad, and that's wrong. Bob: That's Coach John Wooden from the UCLA Bruins, although, at the time he made that decision that he regretted, he wasn't coaching on a national platform, he was just coaching high school boys back in Indiana. It's interesting just to listen back to that story and hear it resonate with a coach who cared more about doing the right thing than almost anything else. Dennis: And, you know, Bob, he was reliving that story before us, and he's 91 years old. That story occurred 60 years ago, but he really had a deep, profound regret that you could see on his face, as a man, that he had not done what he thought was the right thing, and I think there is a tremendous lesson for us to live lives with no regrets – to do the right thing today, to obey Jesus Christ, His Word, and the commitments to responsibilities we have. And one of the things He's commanded us to do that I think you can use Coach Wooden to accomplish is Christ has given us the Great Commission, and we're to go and proclaim Him. I think this interview with Coach Wooden we've compiled into 107 minutes, two CDs, that would make a great gift to give each of your children's coaches, whether they be a Little League coach, a junior high, high school, college, it doesn't matter. In fact, Bob, I've reflected on this – many times I wish I'd had these two CDs to have given a coach who maybe was saying a little more than he should be saying; maybe acting a way that he shouldn't have been acting, and I just have to believe that there are some coaches who are going to get these CDs – some dads and some moms who are going to – they're going to think about how they coach, how they behave, how they teach in ways because of this great coach's example. He is truly like Christ. Bob: What they're going to hear in the interview with Coach Wooden that you can have character and integrity and self-control and still be a champion. In fact, you can be one of the greatest coaches who ever lived. We've got the two-CD set available here on our FamilyLife Resource Center, and whether you want to listen to it yourself or pass it on to a coach or a player, you can contact us at 1-800-FLTODAY, 1-800-F-as-in-family, L-as-in-life, and then the word TODAY. Ask for the two-CD set entitled "True Succes: A Personal Visit with John Wooden" when you contact us. Again, you can order online at FamilyLife.com or you can call 1-800-F-as-in-family, L-as-in-life, and then the word TODAY. Dennis: It's a little early yet to be buying a Father's Day gift, but you might think about just getting this and stockpiling this for June. Bob: That's a great idea. And when you think about true success, Coach Wooden has mapped out for us what he calls a "Pyramid of Success." He's taken the character qualities that he thinks are foundational to success – things like industriousness, loyalty and cooperation and initiative and alertness and skill. There are many of them in this pyramid. He's put the pyramid together, kind of like an engineer would do, to show that it's possible for anyone to achieve success in any field if these things are true about them. We've got his Pyramid of Success. We've got a video where he explains the pyramid. We've got the pyramid itself on our website at FamilyLife.com and on a mousepad that you can have at your desk, and then we've got a wallet card that has been laminated that you can carry around where some of Coach Wooden's counsel on living is recorded. His seven-point creed – that's on a laminated card that we'll send to you, along with the video and the mousepad. Ask for those resources when you call 1-800-FLTODAY. You know, our opportunity to provide these kinds of resources to you really comes as a direct result of folks all around the country who help support this ministry week in and week out with donations. Dennis: And, Bob, there are two ways that they can join with us. One is as a Legacy Partner, a monthly donor to our ministry, and there's another group of people who give from time to time – they may make out a check and just send it in and say I can't help you each month, but I can help this month. You need to know that this ministry is 100 percent dependent upon God to move people like you who benefit from our broadcast to join with us in a partnership, and we need your partnership. These are important days for you to stand with us. Bob: Once again, if you'd like to donate to FamilyLife Today, you can do it online at FamilyLife.com or call 1-800-FLTODAY or mail a check to us at Box 8220, Little Rock, Arkansas. Our zip code is 72221. Well, if you ever wondered what it was like to coach a basketball game in the Astrodome with TV lights blaring down on you, a nation watching, 50,000 fans there cheering the home team on, and you're the coach of the opposing team, and you've won 88 games in a row, you're going for number 89 and you lose – do you stay up all night worrying about what happened? We'll find out when we talk to Coach John Wooden tomorrow. I hope you can be with us for that. I want to thank our engineer today, Robbie Neal [sp], and our entire broadcast production team. On behalf of our host, Dennis Rainey, I'm Bob Lepine. We'll see you back tomorrow for another edition of FamilyLife Today. FamilyLife Today is a production of FamilyLife of Little Rock, Arkansas, a ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ. We are so happy to provide these transcripts for you. However, there is a cost to transcribe, create, and produce them for our website. If you've benefited from the broadcast transcripts, would you consider donating today to help defray the costs? Copyright © FamilyLife. All rights reserved. www.FamilyLife.com

Don't Waste Your Life (Part 2) - John Piper