Podcasts about john yeah

This episode is all about the emotional side of investing during market turmoil, especially the conversations (or arguments) happening at kitchen tables right now.   Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com   Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. The topics and information discussed during this podcast are not intended to provide tax or legal advice. Investments involve risk, and unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial advisor and/or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed on this podcast. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Insurance products and services are offered and sold through individually licensed and appointed insurance agents.     Speaker 1: This episode is all about the emotional side of investing during market turmoil, especially the conversations that might be happening around kitchen tables all across America right now. Let's get into it this week here on Retirement Planning Redefined.   Welcome into the podcast, where we're going to talk about talking to your spouse or loved one about market crashes and fears. If you're sitting around the dinner table and stressing out about the stuff we've been seeing over the past few weeks, it's been a volatile March and April. It's maybe worthwhile to have a chat about how do you go about that, because obviously when it comes to dealing with money and talking about money, that's sometimes where families and relationships struggle. This week, the guys are going to help us break it down from things they say from their clients, maybe their own personal perspective and mine as well, as we have this conversation.   What's going on, John? How are you doing, buddy?   John: Doing good. Just found an electric fireplace.   Speaker 1: Oh, nice, nice.   John: For my remodel. I can't wait to have it installed.   Speaker 1: There you go. Yeah, we got one of those as well when we did ours. Nice, very good. Works well. My wife's always got that thing on. I'm like, "Really?"   John: Yeah.   Speaker 1: Even when it's warm. I'm like, "You're killing me." Well, hey, there you go. Couples and spouses already over the fireplace, we haven't even got to the money yet.   What about you, Nick? How are you doing, buddy?   Nick: Good, good. Staying busy.   Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, let's dive into this since you're about to have this situation start to prop up because you've got some nuptials coming soon. Again, congratulations on that.   I got a few questions I just want to run through. Feel free to drop in some real life scenarios that you've seen from your own life, or clients, or whatever you guys want to share when it comes to this. It's an important question, because I so many advisors like yourselves say, "Hey, when you're building a retirement plan and a strategy, make sure both people are involved so that you understand what you've got and what you're into." Even if it's not your thing, that way everybody just feels like they're on solid ground when it comes to knowing what's happening.   How do you deal with that? As a married couple or in a relationship, how do you deal with market downturns? Because when you start seeing your accounts go down, you start to freak out a little bit. Is it a good idea to talk about that, guys? Or do you think that should be saved for talking, Nick, like in front of you guys, where you're there as a mediator kind of thing?   Nick: I think the number one most important part is that people actually start to have the conversation.   Speaker 1: Just talk, right?   Nick: Yeah, just talk. There's a reason that, I would say from the standpoint of therapy, 50% of the stress probably comes from guidance and 50% just comes from getting it out kind of thing.   Speaker 1: Right.   Nick: The act of literally just talking and trying to get on the same page I think tends to be helpful. The reality is most couples with many things, the way that they approach a decision, the way that they feel about something that's happening tends to be different. It's pretty rare that they're both the same.   Speaker 1: Right.   Nick: John and I talking about that quite a bit with clients, where many of our clients, we'll work as a team. In a lot of ways, we feel like it benefits us because we have similarities and differences just like couples do. Often times, we can pick up on more information because of that.   I think having the conversation to get a baseline of how they're feeling about the direction of things. Then, really, I do think it is important to reach out to their advisor and get an idea, a better idea of what's going on. Because the other part about that is that the phase of life that they're in really has a significant impact on how much they could be impacted. We've got clients that are working and just saving, they're often times feeling less concern. Those that are approaching retirement or very early on in retirement, they're probably the ones that are the most freaked out. Those that have been retired for a little bit longer have gotten a better feeling of it and I would say are a little bit more stable when it comes to this sort of thing. Just really getting on the same page is important.   Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure. John, to expand on that, what's each person's natural reaction to financial stress? The two top things that couples fight about is money and in the bedroom, and love. Do you fight, do you flight, freeze, freak out? When you start seeing your accounts drop, are you thinking, "Hey, my dream is fading away?" How do you react to that can go a long way into how you deal with that financial stress.   John: Everyone's personality is different. Everything you just listed there, Nick and I have seen it across the board.   Speaker 1: Oh, sure. Yeah.   John: I definitely say if someone's reaction is to fight over something, it's definitely a good time to do a check with your advisor to avoid those unnecessary fights about it. Everyone reacts differently. It's good to have conversations. Back to what we were saying, just having the plan reflect how is this actually affecting your situation. Once you see that, that might actually take some of the stress away to help you make better decisions.   Speaker 1: Well, yeah, because to that point, Nick, number three is that no matter what you do, whether you fight, flight, freeze, or freak out, is it because you don't know the longterm plan or you're not on the same page? Typically, the panic comes in when you don't realize what's going on, especially if one person is leading the financial charge and the other one is just along for the ride because it's not their thing or they don't care about paying that much attention to it. But then, in these times of turmoil, now they want to pay attention and now they're freaking out because they don't really understand the plan or they don't know it at all. That's the importance of both people working together.   Nick: For sure. I think over time, we realized that when people are uncertain or they don't understand something, that leads to anxiety. And the anxiety builds up and then blows, and that leads to the freak-out factor or fighting between each other, or things like that. We've got clients who have told me one spouse can tell when the other spouse is really freaking out. They're not the personality to say something, but they become ornery or short.   Speaker 1: Right.   Nick: It's like, "Okay, I knew it was time to reach out so that we can have a conversation about this."   Speaker 1: Yeah.   Nick: That absolutely is something that makes a lot of sense. Having that plan to be your guide and stay on path is super important.   One of the things that we tend to tell clients over time is, and this is really playing out, where the reality is there's a lot of people, for the last 10-plus years, that have been very heavily invested in the Magnificent Seven, or heavy in tech, and all that kind of thing. It's been a safe haven and out-performed almost everything and pulled the market. Now we've got a little bit of a cycling out of that and it seems like things are shifting a little bit more to diversification is important, that sort of thing.   One of the things that we'll tend to say to clients, at all times, you should have something in your strategy that you're very happy about having and something that maybe you're not so happy about having. When markets are going really good, you hate that maybe you've got six, 12 months in cash that's not getting a ton of return. But when markets are going bad, you're really, really happy that you have that six to 12 months in cash for different things. All those things go together to try to help stay on the same page and go back to your plan.   Speaker 1: Yeah. With headlines and internet stuff, and everything like that, it's really easy to get sucked into reactionary moments, John. How do you balance facts with feelings? That's one of the biggest things that we're dealing with. Money and feelings go hand-in-hand. How do you balance the facts in? If you're a couple at home, any thoughts or advice for folks? I know we talked a couple of weeks ago about not doom-scrolling and turning the TV off.   John: Yeah.   Speaker 1: Aside from that, what's some other ways to maybe balance the facts?   John: Yeah. I think it's ultimately looking at your situation, not just what a particular stock or index is doing that day. Like I said, last week, when someone was a little nervous and when we looked at their year-to-date return it was like, "Oh, that's not bad." It's like, "No, it's not bad. This doesn't affect you whatsoever, you can go ahead and travel." It's like, "All right, good to know that."   I think it's always going back to your personal situation, and how does it affect you, and how can you adapt. And in some situations, how can you take advantage of what's happening currently? Is there something you could do that would actually be beneficial to your overall over the next two or three years, or overall throughout your whole strategy?   Speaker 1: Good point. Yeah, definitely. You've got to get some facts in this situation because again, so many people just see the headlines, they run with it. They assume that's what's happening to them, and it may not be at all.   I guess the final piece here is, Nick, does that play back to have you talked with one another about your-   Nick: Sorry to cut you off.   Speaker 1: No, that's fine.   Nick: I'll give you one example of this. This was what the news will do to people. I have one client who's very risk averse and is concerned about the markets. It was good she checked in because she was getting pretty upset over what was happening. When we checked in it was, "Hey, everything you have is in fixed income." It was, "There's really not much risk." She was like, "Oh, it's just this news, I'm watching it, and it's all this stuff." It's like, "No, you're in really good shape. Nothing is affected." But again, it's just a matter of knowing the facts for her situation. Not everyone's like, obviously.   Speaker 1: Yeah.   Nick: She's extremely risk averse. It was good that she's in the right asset allocation based on her risk tolerance, because she wouldn't be able to handle what's happening right now.   Speaker 1: Yeah, that's hilarious. I'm glad that she got that sorted out too, so that she didn't have to stress. Nick, I was getting ready to ask you that. Is it time for you and your loved one, you and your spouse, to talk about your risk tolerance? Do you assume you're on the same page, are you on the same page? Or does your advisor even know what your risk tolerance is? Have you gone through and updated that stuff and had those pulse checks?   Nick: Yeah, it's really interesting because we'll have clients, for example, clients that are still working. Depending upon their personalities, I have a lot of clients that, if it's a couple, one person picks their own 401K investments, the other person picks their own 401K investments. Sometimes they might compare or look, and they'll pick their investments based upon ... These are, often times, people that, when they come in before they become clients, pick based upon what their own set of fact that they're using and all that sort of thing. When they shift to the phase of, okay, maybe retire, and now they're making more decisions together and trying to get on the same page.   Where we'll literally have situations where it's like, okay, say it's a couple, he's got his rollover into an IRA, she's got her rollover into an IRA, and then they have a joint account. The joint account's invested completely differently than either of the IRAs because they have to come to an agreement on it. It's interesting, the dynamics of how that works and how they slowly have to get on the same page often times. But having that conversation, those I would say that are more advanced at having those conversations earlier on, definitely end up in a better position.   Speaker 1: Yeah. At the end of the day, guys, it all comes down to conversations and chatting with one another, and being honest, about what you need to do. Especially with you and your loved one, if you're thinking that your retirement or your financial dreams are dissipating, well, A, are you on the same page with each other? And B, are you on the same page with your advisor and do they know that? It's important to sit down, have a conversation, have a chat. Reach out to your advisor, especially in these times.   I saw a line the other day, I don't know if I'll remember it exactly what it is. It was like, "Advisors, you're really earning your keep in times like these. This is when discipline and consistency beats brilliance." You're not trying to time the market and things of that nature, because there's always going to be these ups and downs. It's having a good, consistent plan to help you get to and through all kinds of different environments that are going to happen if you're retired 20, 25, 30, 35 years.   Get yourself a plan, get yourself a strategy. Reach out to John and Nick today at pfgprivatewealth.com, that's pfgprivatewealth.com, to get started on your situation or to tweak your situation and dive into that process with the guys. You can reach out to them at 813-286-7776. Or again, find them online at pfgprivatewealth.com. Don't forget to subscribe to us on the podcast on Apple or Spotify, or whatever platform you like using. We'll see you next time here on Retirement Planning Redefined with John and Nick.

The headlines are loud, the markets are messy, and your gut might be telling you to do something — anything — right now. But what should you actually do when your portfolio takes a hit?   Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com   Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. The topics and information discussed during this podcast are not intended to provide tax or legal advice. Investments involve risk, and unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial advisor and/or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed on this podcast. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Insurance products and services are offered and sold through individually licensed and appointed insurance agents.     Marc: The headlines are loud, the markets are messy, and your gut might be telling you to do something, anything. So what should you actually do when market downturns happen? Let's get into it this week here on ‎Retirement Planning - Redefined.   Welcome onto the podcast. Thanks for hanging out with John, Nick, and myself as we talk investing, finance, and retirement. And, guys, with all the volatility and stuff happening, I thought it'd be a good idea to maybe address some of this stuff. And we've got four key questions maybe to ask ourselves when we're going through some of this volatility and let you guys give some people insights on what you're seeing and what your thoughts are when it comes to this kind of stuff. So welcome on this week, John. How you doing, buddy?   John: I'm doing all right.   Marc: Yeah? A little busy?   John: Just getting ready to start a kitchen remodel, which is bringing its own gut check, but doing all right.   Marc: That is true. Very true. And Nick, how are you doing, my friend?   Nick: Good, good. Staying busy. Obviously a little chaotic right now, but knee-deep in wedding planning. So that's fun.   Marc: So let me ask you guys, before we get into this, when we're seeing this kind of volatility, do you get many calls? I've talked with all kinds of advisors and most of them say a couple, a couple panicked people, but for the most part, their clients have a strategy and a plan in place and it makes it a little easier to handle when there's volatile times like this. Is that kind of the same for you, or what are you seeing out there?   John: Yeah, I'd agree with that. As we mentioned quite a bit in our last podcast, our last sessions, our practice is generally planning based. So a lot of times people are comfortable with where they are, and we do a good job of reinforcing here's where you are, here's your asset allocation, here's how we structure things for a downturn or some volatility. So I think we do a really good job of making sure people are in the right asset allocation, and not only that, but structuring their assets where when they are using their funds for retirement, we have a plan in place to draw on specific accounts when we are expecting this type of volatility.   Marc: Makes sense. Yeah. Gotcha. Well, as you mentioned, gut check as that kind of goes. So let's jump in and do these four items here. And that's the first one. Nick, I'll let you start if you want to. So when is the last time you checked your strategy? When's the last time you checked your plan? I hear people saying, "Oh, the market's down year-to-date, the S&P's down 13%." Well, are you down that or are you only down maybe two or three because you hopefully were properly diversified, right? So when's the last time you checked in on your plan and do you need that gut check? What's your thoughts?   Nick: Yeah, so we try to make sure we're updating plans. We'll go over general numbers each year. And then one thing that we focused quite a bit on last year with clients was updating expenses. With having the inflation like we did for a while, the expenses are obviously a huge driver for clients, and so a lot of our clients are updated. And I know John kind of touched on how many are reaching out. And I would say obviously compared to the clients that we have, there are some that do. And I think the good part about the planning, those that had the planning, we're just reinforcing and reviewing what we've discussed in the past.   I had a couple conversations earlier today with similar thoughts and sentiments, and even though most clients know that they have some sort of mix between stocks and bonds, they rarely think about the bond portion not being as volatile. And so that's something that even where in our minds it might kind of feel basic, these little things, and just kind of talking through and reminding clients about what they actually have, why they're positioned the way that they're positioned and why we did the plan. It's also a reminder for us. We've had some clients that maybe six months, 12 months ago, like, "Hey, should we get more aggressive," et cetera, et cetera. And we kind of emphasized that we've had a really good run for a really long time, and at a certain point there's going to be some sort of pullback. And so I think those clients that both from a being too conservative or being too aggressive standpoint are kind of happy that they have a plan.   Marc: Gotcha. Okay. And so John, that would probably lead to the second step, which is if you are doing that gut check and you do feel like there's some things you need to do, where are you at with your risk? As I mentioned a second ago, people see the headlines and it makes them panic. It makes them worry, it makes us easily agitated. "Oh, it's down 13%." But if you're not taking 100% risk, you're probably not down 13 whole percent, right? So it's about having that risk tolerance adjusted as well.   John: Yeah, and like Nick mentioned, I just had a scenario where this actually came up. They're watching the news and it's doom and gloom. And I'll tell you, I put it on for a little bit sometimes and it's like, all right, if you're watching this all day, I could see where people are panicking. But when we did their review, the person was down minimal year to date, and they're like, "Oh, that's it?" And it's just like, "Yeah, you're doing all right." And then when you reference the plan and you actually show them, "Hey, based on what just happened this last week, you're still in good shape and here's a strategy if this volatility continues, this is how we're going to handle it if you're withdrawing from the portfolio."   And then I will say that what Nick said there as well of, people, when things look good, it's like, "Hey, should I get more aggressive so I can earn more?" And it's really important just to stay the course because you do have these pullbacks and when you do get more aggressive and let's say all of a sudden the market pulls back like we're in the middle of right now and you can't handle that risk, that's when you jump ship and then all of a sudden there could be some news that comes out. Literally there could be one bit of news, especially in what we're dealing with right now and the market could just completely do a 360 and just be positive quite a bit.   Marc: Yeah. At the time we're taping this, we saw that to open up today. It went up about 4% in the first half of the day, and then it started to cool back off. So there's still a lot of things flowing back and forth, Nick, and that again leads back to strategy, right? So that's the third piece of this conversation. Do you have a strategy and are there some things that we should look at, try to find the positives or the silver linings of downturns? What are some things we could maybe, some smart moves we could be looking at?   Nick: Yeah, just even before we get into that, I wanted to touch on John's last point, just from the standpoint of part of the conversation that we've been having with people is that the volatility in the markets, both good and bad, are so much quicker than they were years ago. There's a lot of people that are used to prolonged just slow bleed downturns. And where from hour to hour, day to day, you can have a correction and then claw half of it back within a few days. And just kind of shifting out during that period of time can be pretty deadly for a portfolio.   But from the standpoint of what can be done now or what could make sense now with what you alluded to, dependent upon, it is a good time to kind of do that check on overall risk, potentially integrating in some rebalancing of the portfolio. We try to have clients have some cash on the sidelines no matter what. And it could be a decent time to average in some of that money if they're looking to reinvest.   For those that are still working, I think the emphasis that we put on is buying at a discount when you're averaging in every month and that sort of thing. And then even from the perspective of, and it's something that we are reviewing, tax loss harvesting in taxable investment accounts can be something that makes sense. I will say that unless there's, so many people's positions are up or vary in the green that it can be a little hard even still with this pullback to get some losses and offset some gains and that sort of thing. But we can also take advantage of some of the losses to offset future gains as well. So those are all things that we're reviewing.   Marc: Yeah. And a lot of people are taught, have been wanting to do Roth conversions, for example, right? Well, I mean, kind of silver lining when your accounts are down a little bit in a 401. Maybe you're doing some conversions over to Roth and you're paying lower taxes because the balances are down. And then when the market comes back, because it tends to do, as long as your plan calls for it, then you're gaining that money back tax-free. So different kinds of silver linings. You have to work with a professional, you have to work with an advisor to find your way through some of these tougher times. And so that brings us to the final point, which is unhelpful behaviors, right? So what are some things, guys, we need to stop doing right now if we're getting stressed out? John, you kind of hit it perfectly on the head, said you watched it for half an hour or an hour and it's like, "Yeah, no wonder people are getting down, right?"   John: Yeah, it's definitely doom and gloom out there. So I would say whatever station you're watching the last couple of weeks, it's definitely everything's negative.   Marc: And that's their job. We have to be realistic about that. That's all they're going... They're not going to talk about the positives very often, right? They're looking for the eyeballs from the panic, right?   John: Yeah, hundred percent. I think negative news typically rates better. So that's why you continually see the negative news drip on everybody. But back to one thing you mentioned there, Marc, about the Roth conversions. I just want to point out that is a great strategy when the market dips down, if you're currently implementing a Roth conversion strategy. It is typically a good time to do it when we're having a pullback.   Trying to time it perfectly is obviously going to be difficult to do, but you just try to do your best with that. But when you are converting, just want to make it clear to anyone listening, you typically want to, when you're converting for the strategy of a lower balance and paying lower taxes on the specific shares, you want to do a Roth conversion, that's you keep your shares. So you're doing kind of a transfer of shares over to the Roth versus cashing out and sending the cash over and then rebuying it. So just be careful. If you're working with an advisor, just understand, hey, if we're doing a Roth conversion, are you cashing it out? Are you transferring over the shares? Because we feel it's best to transfer over the shares so that we don't have to rebuy them.   Marc: Yeah. No, definitely. I just was thinking that that was another little piece, so thank you for kind of taking it a little deeper, if that's part of your current strategy. So yeah, turning off the news is certainly a helpful behavior. What else, Nick, you got anything else that you'd like to chime in on that topic?   Nick: Yeah, as somebody that has sometimes a tendency to doom scroll a little bit and try to suck in as much information and try to be able to understand different points of view and all that kind of stuff, it is important to take a break. Something as simple as getting outside, going for a walk, having a conversation. One of the things we try to emphasize with our clients is that if you're getting to that point where severe high level anxiety, maybe concerned about starting to make poor decisions or overreact to anything, is just reach out. Usually the feedback that we get when we just have a conversation with somebody is that able to give perspective. And realistically, what happened yesterday in the markets, which we had a fake post about a change to the tariffs and the market swung like 7 or 8% in five minutes and all this other stuff, really kind of emphasizes the fact that volatility is different than it used to be and overreacting can be something that really hurts you and your overall position.   Marc: That's a great point, right? I mean, we're certainly, the doom scrolling, the second by second feedback, you have to have a strategy, right? And our own worst enemy is ourself. We tend to jump out and do things and then we lock in those losses. So again, before you take any action on something you hear from even our conversation or any other thing that you hear that they're financially based, you should always run that past a financial professional as it relates to your specific unique situation, as the guys pointed out numerous times today in the show.   So if you need some help with that, stop by on the website or give them a call and set up a time to chat, pfgprivatewealth.com, that's pfgprivatewealth.com, or call 813-286-7776. Guys, thanks for hanging out and breaking it down a little bit. Hopefully people keep their heads and we'll see how this plays out. It could be short-lived, it could be a little longer term. So get a strategy. At the end of the day, that's what's important. So the guys can help you with retirement planning redefined. We'll see you next time here on the podcast.

Ever wonder what other people talk about with their financial advisors? A new survey of nearly 400 experienced advisors reveals the biggest concerns, challenges, and financial goals their clients are facing today. From retirement planning to healthcare costs to working longer than expected, we're breaking down the key takeaways and how they compare to what we see in our own client conversations.   Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com   Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. The topics and information discussed during this podcast are not intended to provide tax or legal advice. Investments involve risk, and unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial advisor and/or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed on this podcast. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Insurance products and services are offered and sold through individually licensed and appointed insurance agents.     Marc: Ever wonder what people are talking about with their financial advisors? Well this week on the show we're going to discuss a new survey of nearly 400 experienced advisors revealing the biggest concerns, challenges, and financial goals that their clients are facing. We'll see how that compares with what the guys see here on the show. Let's get into it this week on Retirement Planning - Redefined.   Welcome to the podcast, everybody. Thanks for hanging out with John and Nick and myself as we talk investing, finance and retirement. And guys, we're going to share this survey. We'll put a link into the show descriptions as well for folks that want to check it out, but want to run some of this information past you guys and see does that correlate with what you're seeing, do you think it's accurate, not accurate, and just spitball and talk a little bit about some of the stuff out here.   The survey was done of nearly 400 experienced advisors all with around 20 years or more of a business, practicing business, so interesting. They didn't really say exactly the age bracket of all the people they were talking to, so there could be some folks that are not necessarily retirement age. They could be younger as well as older, but I want to run down some of this stuff and just get your guys' take on it.   How you doing this week, John?   John: I'm doing well. Daylight savings is messing with me a little bit, but I'm adjusting pretty well. And one of my kids, actually both my kids, they're testing for an honor belt in karate.   Marc: Oh, nice.   John: So they're excited.   Marc: They're going to whoop on you. Be careful.   John: It's funny you say that. They're running around the house kicking me now. It's like I wanted to get them into some self-defense stuff, but now I'm getting kicked.   Marc: So now you got to walk around with some pads on.   John: Pretty much.   Marc: Make sure you're not getting beat up too much. Very cool. Well watch the shins, man. They'll get you in the shins.   Nick, how you doing, buddy?   Nick: Good. We're staying busy.   Marc: He's like, "Good." Well, let's break this down a little bit, guys.   John: That's the sound of a guy that's in the middle of planning a wedding.   Marc: Right? That's what I was just thinking. He's like, "I got to make another decision. I don't want to make a decision." Let's jump into this and we'll see if we can make this easy for you this week, Nick.   So seeking out a financial advisor, the first part of this survey, advisors in the survey said 52% of their clients have sought out financial advisors to help with the retirement planning. About 34% surveyed were just looking for somebody to build wealth with. And in an era where everybody can call themselves a financial advisor, does that strike you as interesting? What do you guys think about that, 52% looking for retirement planning versus 34 just looking for some sort of wealth building, whoever wants to start?   John: Yeah, those numbers seem accurate to me. Well, I guess I'm a little surprised it's not more looking for help with retirement planning.   Marc: Okay.   John: I'd say the majority of our clients are retirement planning based, "Hey, I want to make sure my plan's good. I want to make sure I don't outlive my money." As far as building wealth, that does come up quite a bit, and Nick will jump in as well, but I'd say most of our clients are looking for retirement planning and just making sure they're on track and making sure that they're making the right decisions.   Marc: And it's two different mindsets too, right, Nick? I mean, so you need to decide what it is that you're looking for. I mean, not to say that you couldn't work with a retirement planner who also can help you with some of the wealth building, but it is a different skillset as well. If you're just looking for someone only to help you build the wealth, that's a little bit easier, I would think.   Nick: Yeah, and I would almost, if I were to say maybe put that in other words, we talk with people at the three phases of money as far as their life goes are accumulation or growth, distribution, taking their money in retirement and then transfer when they leave money. And so I would say from that initial, that wealth building, that's most likely accumulation focused. And because so many people accumulate their money while working in their 401(k)s and that kind of thing, I think it tends to be a little bit of a different conversation and it's those people that as you get closer to retirement. So without having ages, it does make it, the numbers are interesting, and I agree with John, I would've thought maybe it'd be a little bit higher from the standpoint of the retirement planning side, but-   Marc: Well, I mean, if you're just trying to grow the money, again the market's been, obviously we haven't had a prolonged downturn, and it's been choppy here lately, but we haven't had a prolonged downturn since '08, '09, so there's a lot of information out there about saying it's a little bit easier to build the wealth. But the preservation stage, which retirement is a little bit more complicated. There's more things going on than just the portfolio.   But with that in mind, check this out. Over half of the survey of financial advisors said the average client asset minimum was 760,000. I found that to be good. I know different areas are going to be more or less depending on the economic state of the area, but when you often hear that people aren't doing a very good job saving for their retirement future, three quarters of a million dollars is not bad.   Nick: It's definitely interesting to see the numbers and how they've changed over the last five to seven years where, and you mentioned it earlier where we've had a long prolonged period of time with the market going up, and so there's quite a bit of people meeting with us or ending up with more money than they had thought that they would or that sort of thing. There's a little bit of concern with that that only lasts for so long and that there's some correction and all that kind of stuff to happen. But absolutely, definitely that puts most people in the wheelhouse of where they need to be to have a successful retirement.   Marc: I mean, it's not bad. John, do you guys have a minimum? I mean, I know different advisor firms do different things. You can't service everybody. There's only so many hours in a day. So you'll hear something where somebody says, "Well, we work with people with 250,000 who have saved or more in assets," or some or a million or whatever. Do you guys have a breakdown?   Nick: We don't have a set minimum that we advertise or market.   Marc: Okay.   Nick: I would say that the majority of the people that meet with us tend to have what many institutions have as their minimum. So in other words, a lot of places will tell people, like you referred to that, they're looking to work with clients that have 250,000 or more just from an efficiency standpoint of trying to make sure that they can service their clients and that sort of thing, and so we end up above that with most clients. But the reality is, is that the conversations that we have with clients are really we don't keep that rule set in stone because for us, it's more of a relationship-based.   Marc: Individually based kind of thing? Okay.   Nick: Yeah, and really it's something we're looking for people that are serious about planning. I would say if you were to draw a line between what we were talking about earlier where a growth or retirement planning in a more broadly focused strategy, so they're focused on that. They're serious about it. We reference like, "Hey, we don't want to convince you that you needed an advisor. We want you to know that you need one and we want to interview for the job," kind of concept.   Marc: No, that makes sense because I mean if you're giving suggestions and someone's not willing to take them, you're just wasting each other's time versus... Yeah.   Nick: Exactly, and we found that that'll waste more time than in theory working with somebody that maybe isn't where they're going to be yet. And also-   Marc: It needs to be a reciprocal relationship.   Nick: For sure. Communication's super important for us because we've also found that we've had people come in that maybe are under that 250, but their parents are wealthy and they ended up being a teacher or something that maybe didn't allow them to save as much money as some sorts of jobs, and they're going to inherit money and they need assistance that way. So I'd say we're pretty comfortable with our process and how we approach that sort of thing and really look for it on a relationship basis, communication basis, and how we all get along.   Marc: That makes sense. And it's got to be a two-way street. I mean, when we do the podcast, it's not designed to turn every listener into a client if they're not already a client, but it is designed to say, "Hey, if it's the right relationship field going both ways, then we're happy to help if we can." That's pretty cool. So that's a good way of looking at that.   John, check out some of these top concerns. Let me know what you think here. So no surprise, number one, outliving their assets, 38% of the people surveyed. That's pretty much always number one, right? Outliving your money.   John: Yeah.   Marc: 31%, generating reliable income streams, a pretty high number as well.   John: Yes.   Marc: Okay. Then it drops off to a pretty stark, down to 12% for a future stock market crash. Now with some context here, this survey was completed at the end of last year, so it was December of '24. Do you think that number's gone up recently?   John: I would willing to bet that number's gone up. I think we were talking about the market, the last real big downturn was '08, and I think in the last 10 years, we've only had two years of the market being down, the S&P 500. I think it was, what, '22 and 2014, I believe.   Nick: I'd almost say that's a leading indicator that there's going to be, it's one of those things. Once people get that comfortable, that's usually when it comes.   Marc: I mean, it's been a while, right? So because nobody's worried about it whenever it's riding high. We only seem to worry about it whenever we're in the middle of it falling a little bit. But the one that really surprises me is all the way down to 8% for healthcare costs. Now if you guys are focused more on helping people with retirement planning and strategies, that to me, again depending on the ages of the people that answered this survey, healthcare costs at 8% seems awfully low because it's pretty costly, and we need to be having those conversations when we're, especially as we're getting older.   John: Yeah, for sure. This one, it is very important, and I think it's same thing we're talking about the stock market where it's been doing well. And when you're healthy-   Marc: It's great.   John: ...you think you're going to be healthy for a long time.   Marc: You don't think about it. Right, exactly.   John: You don't think about it all. It's back of your mind. I'll tell you where we see a lot of people concerned about it is if they had to do some care for their parents. Then it becomes top of mind of like, "Hey, this was a lot that I just went through." And taking care of them or seeing, whatever, if they have to go into a facility, and then in turn that's where we see the most of our clients that are concerned about healthcare costs is if they had to take care of a loved one.   Marc: Nick, according to the survey on that topic, advisors that were surveyed in this, were saying that clients should be more concerned about healthcare costs at around 54% unanticipated healthcare cost. Will you agree with that as well? Because I mean, obviously it comes out of the blue, it can totally derail the whole strategy.   Nick: Yeah, I think part of that is, from an advisor perspective, the whole concept of long-term care, obviously I'd say many advisors have a good grasp on long-term care, but I think it's become increasingly difficult for advisors to help clients plan for that with insurance or certain products that are out there. If we went back 10 years and from, let's just call it 2015 back through maybe 2005, that was the golden era per se for clients to be able to secure a reasonably priced policy from a long-term care perspective. So I think maybe that ties into the concern that advisors have is that at the end of the day it's a really expensive problem that clients can have, but it's also an expensive solution that a lot of clients are reticent to spend on something that may not be an issue, especially in a state like Florida where all of the insurance, people have serious insurance fatigue here.   Marc: Oh, I'm sure.   Nick: So it's a funny thing. The one time I actually answered a soliciting call earlier this morning was from State Farm calling me to, and they asked me if they could shop my car insurance for me, and I said, "Sure, let's try it." And sure enough, it was going to be $1,400 a year more than what I'm currently paying.   Marc: Thanks for the help.   Nick: And she laughed too, and she's like, "Well, can I call you in six months?" I was like, "You can try."   Marc: You can try.   Nick: I don't think you guys are going to come down that much. And so it's just crazy with what people are paying here. And so I think, long story short, I think that really ties into it as well for advisors.   Marc: And I'll hit you with this last one, John. I'll let you start and then I'll let Nick jump in if he wants to. And again, this survey was completed at the end of last year, so you can't take the current market downturn into this conversation. But according to the survey, an average of 63% of clients age 55 or older intended to work to 65 and beyond. 63% of people wanted to continue working up to 65 or beyond, yet only 30% of those clients are actually still doing it. So I guess my question is, does this surprise you that people want to keep working longer? And if so, what are some of the main reasons why you guys are seeing people want to work into their older ages?   John: It doesn't surprise me. I think with the shift really since COVID of being able to work remote, I've seen a lot of people that sit there now thinking like, hey, I work from home. I can travel still and log in. And it's given them a comfort of just saying, yeah, I'm making good money. I can continue to do this.   Marc: Feather than nest some more, right?   John: Yeah, so it's just building up the nest egg and allows them maybe to feel comfortable doing some more travel that they otherwise maybe wouldn't have felt so comfortable doing. We talked about the fears of outliving your assets, so I've seen a lot of that. And then there's a lot of studies out there saying, just keeping sharp of mind. So I've seen that where people are like, "Hey, I don't want to retire because I want to stay active. I want to have a purpose and continue to do things." So I think I'm not surprised by that number.   Marc: Interesting.   John: Because we're having more conversations of people wanting to work longer because they enjoy what they're doing. And with Zoom, it's become very easy to continue to work longer.   Marc: Well Nick, I'll give you this last piece here. 48% of those people feel like they don't have enough saved to live on through retirement. I mean, you're talking about half. So half of the people surveyed don't think they have enough, so that sounds like it just comes back to just not truly having a plan or even really knowing what it is that you've got. They've probably never sat down and really pulled this stuff together so they don't feel confident.   Nick: Correct. I think you nailed it there. The uncertainty of not having a plan and not knowing and understanding what things look like really oftentimes causes procrastination, and then all of a sudden it's 5, 7, 10 years later and there could have been a couple of small tweaks or a couple of small adjustments. I mean, in reality, there's been so many times when within 30 minutes if John and I meeting with somebody the initial time, we can tell three to five things that they could do that wouldn't have a significant impact on their life, but would have a significant impact from a positive perspective on their overall planning. And so whether it's informing themselves and holding themselves accountable or working with an advisor, which we have found, and there's been a ton of studies that have found that having that partner to help guide them through the decision-making process, that there's significant value there and the average rates of return and all that kind of stuff show that because of the decision-making.   Marc: Well, think about what you're going through with the wedding planning stuff. So there was a thing a couple years ago we were talking about, some of the most stressful events we can do in life, one of them was planning for a wedding. One of them was planning for retirement, right?   Nick: Yeah.   Marc: There's a lot of decisions to be made. And so having somebody to lean on I think goes a long way into removing some of that stress because it does get overwhelming. And at some points you're just like, ah, screw it. I don't even know what to do anymore. So being able to talk with guys like yourselves and say, "Okay, look. Here's some thoughts we had," or, "Here's what we were afraid of," or whatever the case is, it gives you that sounding board to bounce some ideas off of and maybe get some reassurance.   Nick: Yep, fully agree.   Marc: Yeah, and so are you having that same problem from the wedding standpoint?   Nick: Right now we're interviewing planners-   Marc: There you go.   Nick: ...and the prices have gone up, so it's-   Marc: But you're looking for help, right, because it's a lot.   Nick: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely.   Marc: John, you don't want to be the wedding planner?   John: No, no. I did that 12 years ago-   Marc: I got you.   John: ...and I want no part of that.   Marc: I got you. Well, all right, guys, good conversation as always. Thanks so much for hanging out. So at the end of the day, I mean you find these surveys are pretty interesting. And I think a lot of this stuff comes back fairly similar each time, is that people are looking for some assurance. They're looking for some clarity in some of these situations, so that's the point of running through the planning process is finding out what do you got, where do you stand and how's it working for you, and do you need to make some changes?   Often people feel like we're going to have to do some major overhaul, and it scares them. But a lot of times when you run through the planning process, many people are in better shape than they realize. You just need some tweaks here and there. So if you want to have those conversations for yourself, reach out to John and Nick and get started today at pfgprivatewealth.com. That's pfgprivatewealth.com. Get yourself onto the calendar for a consultation and a conversation.   And don't forget to subscribe to us on Apple or Spotify, whatever podcasting app you like using. Retirement Planning - Redefined is the name of the show with John and Nick, and we'll see you next time here on the program. Thanks, guys. Take care of yourself.

Finding what you love doing beats chasing money every time. Today on the IC-DISC Show, we're talking with John Sacco, owner of Sierra International Machinery, a trailblazer in the recycling industry. Starting as an agri-packaging business, John transformed the company into a recycling equipment powerhouse, moving from marketing Italian made machines, to designing their own balers and conveyors, and now offering a comprehensive range of recycling equipment with renowned service quality. He's been a lifelong industry advocate. Serving as past ISRI chairman and creating the "Repurposed" docuseries on Prime Video, a series showcasing how 75% of new American steel comes from recycled materials. Activities that help companies recruit talent by highlighting the environmental benefits of an industry often misunderstood by policymakers and the public. It's a great conversation revealing how critical recycling is for disaster recovery, processing debris, and supplying rebuilding materials. Listen in to hear why John believes finding your passion, as he did at age 59, brings more satisfaction than any bank account.     SHOW HIGHLIGHTS We explore Sierra's transformation from a leader in agri-packaging during the 60s and 70s to a pioneer in recycling machinery, sparked by the introduction of an Italian machine in the 1980s. John discusses the significance of Sierra's involvement with trade associations like ISRI, now REMA, emphasizing the role of advocacy in correcting industry misconceptions and celebrating milestones such as serving as chairman. John and I delve into Sierra's innovative marketing approach, highlighting their docuseries on steel recycling that unexpectedly gained popularity on Prime Video, enhancing the industry's image. He addresses the broader industry challenge of attracting and retaining talent, drawing parallels to Mike Rowe's advocacy for essential yet undervalued jobs. We highlight the environmental advancements in the U.S. steel industry, including its leadership in recycling and the significant role of recycled aluminum in the automotive sector. John shares advice on prioritizing passion over profit, emphasizing personal growth and the rewarding aspects of the journey, including attending industry conferences and personal milestones. He reflects on Sierra's collaborative team effort in expanding product offerings, driven by customer needs and market opportunities, while maintaining a strong reputation and high-quality service.   Contact Details LinkedIn - John Sacco (https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-sacco-8a8a1b10/) LINKSShow Notes Be a Guest About IC-DISC Alliance About Sierra International Machinery GUEST John SaccoAbout John TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) John: And there's a lot of misconceptions about our industry. So staying involved is, you know, I've done it and that's kind of why I've also done a lot in regards to the docuseries on our industry and stuff like that. Dave: Good morning John. How are you today? John: Doing good. Doing good, that's awesome, not bad. Dave: How are you today Doing good? John: Doing good. That's awesome, not bad. How are? Dave: you doing Dave. That's good, I'm doing great Now are you a? Native of California. John: Yeah, I was born and raised in Bakersfield, California. Dave: Oh, wow, Okay. So did you grow up around the scrap business? John: Well, actually I grew up more in the agri-packaging side of Sierra. We used to have a company called Sierra Bag and we used to supply agri-packaging products. We were at one point the leader in selling bagging and ties to the cotton industry. Years ago in the 60s and 70s, there used to be over 2.2 million bales a year of cotton grown in the San Joaquin Valley and we used to sell the bagging and use bags and make potato bags and onion bags. We had the recycled materials facility but I really wasn't involved with that. I was more involved during the summers as a kid working in the bag plant. Dave: Okay, so how did the transformation then go on your end to where you get more involved in the recycling space. John: Well, it started when my dad had found a machine out of Europe, out of Italy, and he thought that the market in America could use these machines. Which he was right. And at 19, by late 1985, his partner, 42 years, a buddy of his, who he met during World War II, was, he was ready to retire, he had some health issues and he was just ready to call it quits. And so, in early 1986, what he did was sold the Jagger packaging, bought his partner out and had me start marketing the machines. So, not knowing a whole lot about Ferris and non-Ferris, quite frankly, I was forced to learn it kind of on the fly and getting involved with selling the equipment. Dave: Okay, and did you get involved with the company right after you graduated from USC? John: I did. For two years I was on the agri-packaging side, traveling around to potato sheds, onion sheds, selling the products that we had, and then in 85, started going to the cotton gins. Also, we held a at the time a patent on the cotton module which when they harvested cotton in the field they'd make these big well, for lack of a better word a big log of cotton before they sent it into the cotton gin and we had a tarp for it into the cotton gin and we had a tarp for it. So when it if it rained because the harvesting of cotton was late September, early October and so if it rained it could ruin the grade so we had this cotton module cover and we had a patent. So we sold a lot of those throughout America to the cotton industry. Dave: Okay, and then it was shortly after that that you got more involved in the recycling machinery. John: That's correct. Yeah, when my dad sold all the agri-packaging in 86, all of that went away. So that was when he wanted me to market the machines, because I had taken marketing at USC. So I just basically said, hey, market these machines. Dave: That's what I've been doing ever since and there's a little more to it than that because at some point you all started developing your own machinery. Is that correct, that's? John: correct. We you know our clientele base also was in need of two-ram balers for the processing of non-ferrous materials, you know, aluminum, copper, and also in the fiber industry for paper. And so we decided to start building two-ram balers and hired an engineer who was at the time unemployed and got involved and built a plant down in southern Georgia and expanded today. So we finished, we opened up in October of 2008 and building two ram balers and conveyors for the metal side and also the waste sector. So that's grown nicely over the years. Dave: That is great. And then you guys have expanded your product offering. Then beyond that to other aspects, right? John: That's correct. Yeah, so you know, for recycled materials facilities we offer a wide variety of products from 2-ram balers, conveyors, shears, shear balers, portable balers, grapples and material handlers, so it's a wide variety of equipment that can go into a lot of different aspects of the waste sector and the recycled material sector. Dave: Okay, and then at some point, you became involved in the Trade Association. Was it ISRI then, or was that? John: Yeah, it was ISRI back. It was in the late 1990s that I got involved and you know I got involved, I enjoyed and it was fun for me on a personal level and then in two I was elected to be secretary-treasurer of at the time it was ISRI. It's now REMA, the Recycled Materials Association. So I did that stint, you know, as secretary-treasurer and you move up to chair, and I was chairman in 2011, 2012,. But have stayed involved with the Trade Association because I believe in having a strong voice for an industry in the states and in, you know, in the nation's capital. You know policymakers don't really know what we do and there's a lot of misconceptions about our industry. So staying involved is you know there's a lot of misconceptions about our industry. So staying involved is, you know, I've done it and that's kind of why I've also done a lot in regards to the docu-series on our industry and stuff like that. Dave: Okay, I can't believe that it's been 12 years ago. 13 years ago I guess that you were the chair. I think that's when I first met you in San Diego, I think on the aircraft carrier at a social function. John: Yeah, when we met on the aircraft carrier, that was 2010. Excuse me, that was 2000. Yes, it was 2010. And that was the final night party of ISRI at the time on the USS Midway, and at that party I was officially at that moment, the chairman of ISRI. So yeah, as long as it was, it does seem just like yesterday, david, and it was a great party. But yeah, it just seems like yesterday. Yeah, the sound of it is a long time ago. Dave: Wow, yeah, the time does go by. Now I'm curious, as your product line expanded, I'm curious was that more of a case of you just saw an opportunity and that's kind of what drove it, or was it more your customers coming to you saying, hey, we really need help in this area. Would you guys develop something? Or is it a mix of the two? John: Well, it's a little bit of everything. I have a great team here and the people at the time who was on the team, you know, said well, we should get involved with this type of equipment because we have a need for it. You know our customer base asked for it and you know I won't take the credit for it and you know it's I won't take the credit for it because in the end it's a team here at Sierra and you know I have a brother involved who's my partner now, his son, my nephew's involved and so over the years it's just it's about discussing what we can do, how we grow. How do we you know you got to grow your revenue. How do we grow it? And by adding different products into the mix. And then the manufacturer out of Italy, the Tabarelli family, they have a wide, they had the material handler. So we just started just a couple years ago starting to really, you know, push into that market and you know we'll gain our traction. It takes a little time but it's a team effort here and it's just a lot of people have. You know my general sales manager has been with us since 1988. And you know he has a lot of great ideas as well. So, as a team, we've worked together to develop the products we needed to come into the market. And what's really unique is when you deal with our company. There's, like I say, a wide variety of equipment that you can handle or you can purchase from Sierra and that we service. So we have the ability to sell a lot of different machines, yet we have the ability to service each and every one of those machines with the same intensity. So it's been good. Dave: No, that's excellent. With the same intensity, so it's been good. No, that's excellent. Do you? Is it that aspect of that ability to you know service, all that equipment? Is that one of the main reasons your clients choose you? What's the feedback you receive from your customers, as far as you know why they end up choosing you? John: Well, there's a lot of reasons. We have built, you know, a really good reputation and we work on it every day to improve. In our service department we carry the parts and we have the technicians, but we also have a very high quality piece of equipment. Series repurposed season one, season two really tells the story of our industry and, as the former chairman of israel, now rima, I keep advocating for the industry with what I do with our social media and you know, when you have two seasons on prime video, people notice that. So there's a lot of things involved. We have good people, we try to do the right thing at all times and that's our motto the Sierra way is the right way. It's not fancy. So I think there's a lot of things that we do that enhance our image and you know people like to do business with us because of all the above. You know, is it just one thing? You know, one customer may like the service, one customer may like our advocacy, which I've heard. A lot of people like our equipment per se, and there's just a lot of things that go into it. So I think it's multifaceted, dave, and it's just not one item. We try to just try to build everything we do, improve our marketing, our brand, improve our service. You know that's our motto is to try to get better every day. We don't want to be the best, we just want to be better, because being better is a journey that every day, if you come in the office and you say how can we be better, you don't rest on what you did yesterday. So it's, you know, we got a good culture, we got great people. You know our technicians also are a great face to the company, our salespeople as well. So I think it's just a multitude of things. Dave: Well, that's an insightful answer. I appreciate that. As far as that docuseries, I've always been curious what's the story behind that? Did you just wake up one day and say you know what I want to be on TV, or was it a little different than that? John: Oh, it's a lot different than that. Interesting how it all came about. A gentleman I've worked with Darren Doan for over a decade on creating content and stuff we've done together. We had this idea back I don't know 22, early 22, to do a thing called the Sierra Summit. We were going to bring in Mike Rowe and the top 100 metal processors in America have this big event and the Ukraine war broke out and what happened with that is a lot of processed steel out of Europe was handled through in Ukraine and our supplier of the Shears, portable balers, had a supply chain issue plus a pricing increase. That was dramatic. And so we decided well, we better keep our powder dry and not spend this money for the summit. And so about a month later things you know, the steel market for europe started settling, and I don't know. I just had this idea of doing this docuseries on steel making being made from recycled steel and start changing the narrative, because I got tired of hearing the word junk, waste, trash. And I think that was one of the biggest obstacles to our industry. And I don't know, I've been in front of the camera with my social media posts, so being in front of a camera didn't bother me. But telling the story of a steel mill using recycled steel as the raw materials coming from out facilities like our own here at Sierra was a fun thing. So I thought, well, you know, we could put our equipment in this, we can tell the story. We're going to advocate for the industry, we can get this out there. I never had any intention of getting it out to Prime Video. My whole intention was to tell a fun story in a cinematic way that people would like and find entertaining and educational. And it turned out to be just that. And so we did season two, where we actually what we learned from season one. So then we weren't focused on the output of rebar at cmc and the construction projects needing rebar, so we showed a lot of projects that had rebar. And where did the rebar come from? So you backtrack it all into the recycled materials and so, uh, it just kind of grew from that. I don't mind being in front of a camera, you know, wanting to be in front of a camera or not minding it, or I think are two different things, but the fact is that I enjoy creating the content. It's fun for me to get into a steel mill. It's fun to tell the story, to talk to people and you, you know, when I released the series, there's so many people who've used it to show their families what they do. You know there's so many people who don't understand what our industry is about. And then you got schools and you know companies using it, even like SAB they were season one. They used it for recruiting and safety and telling their story and CMC is the same as well as telling their story of how their steel mill is really the foundation of infrastructure, because you have to start with rebar and any hospital and school and manufacturing plant. You've got to start with rebar in any hospital and school and manufacturing plant and you know you got to start with rebar and rebar comes from recycled metal, so it's a good story and they've been able to educate people to draw, you know, to attract and retain talent. Our industry isn't the sexiest, so it's shed a light on our industry that our industry actually is doing more to reduce CO2 emissions than any other industry in the world today and it attracts people who want to do something good for the mother earth and have a good paying job at the same time. Dave: That's awesome. Did that surprise you when, like CMC and some other companies, use that as like a recruiting and education of themselves? John: No, that was part of my sales pitch to them. Dave: Okay, okay. John: I knew, for whatever reason, why I knew that our industry has we have an image problem this I know, and it was still there. And attracting and retaining talent is a struggle, and it's not just our industry. If you talk to any facility, any company in America today, they all have the same issues. You know, I've just finished filming at the Toyota Motor Plant in Troy, missouri, where they make cylinder heads and their number one issue is attracting talent in the mechanics. They can't find them. And steel mills same thing. Every industry in America is struggling to find talent, and so I know that if you don't tell your story, if you don't make your company look cool, who wants to come to work for you? Dave: Yeah yeah, it seems like Mike Rowe is kind of on a similar mission from a little different perspective, really trying to encourage, you know, more people to come into the trades. John: Well, mike Rowe, yes, and you know, look, mike Rowe is an incredibly successful human being and you know, he has to show. You know, dirty jobs and I think kind of that's what we are. We're dirty jobs but we're networked. You know, I don't say we're essential. Essential is a COVID word that the government used to pick winners and losers. You know, you go to the hospital, david. Do they take your essential science or do they take your vital science? Sure, they take your vital science, right. So our industry is vital for the health of the nation. You don't build a hospital with us, right? You know, if you build a hospital, expand a hospital, you got to start where, on the ground floor, you have to start with the foundation, and that starts with rebar that starts. That comes from our industry. You want to build a school? Same thing. You want to build a highway. You know the steel used in the highway. You know, when you think this, 75% of all new steel in America is made from recycled steel Three quarters, that is a monstrous percentage and it's only growing. And you know another thing that is vital to national security is a vibrant steel industry. Okay, you don't build Navy ships with plastic. You don't build a military without steel, right? So you better have a very vibrant and strong steel industry, at the same time saying that America's steel industry is the cleanest steel industry in all the world. Over 75% of our steel mills are EAS electric arc furnace steel mills that use recycled steel to make new steel. Well, why is that important One? We're producing the steel a country needs for our infrastructure, for our military, healthcare, education and our farming and food industry. We also do it in the cleanest way, because recycled steel at EAF reduces CO2 emissions in the 60 percentile. And now that there's more micro mills coming online, more straight line casting of products and steel mills, with the new mills coming online, which reduce the energy consumption and reheating and continuous casting, so you're actually starting to see the numbers improve versus the BOF furnaces that you see that are heavy in China and India and Russia and Europe, south America yes, there are new EAFs going to those parts of the world, but their main steel production comes from the integrated steel mill that uses coking coal and iron ore, which is far greater pollutant, gives us far greater CO2 emissions. So not only is our steel industry vibrant in the United States, we are the cleanest in all the world. So we really are leading the way and I think people. That's kind of why I want to tell the story because people don't. You know we did man on the streets. You know you get me started on this, but you know people don't know steel's the most recycled item in America today. People don't even know what a steel mill is. They don't even know where new steel comes from. You drive a car. You don't have any idea. The majority of the metal in that car comes from recycled steel or recycled aluminum, for that matter. So people don't know this. So it's been kind of fun telling the story with Repurpose and we're getting ready to. We just finished filming everything we need for season three of repurpose. It's going to be on aluminum recycled aluminum and our focus will be on driving the auto industry okay, because you know this, david, that you cannot build an aluminum motor block transmission housing or casings differential casings with virgin aluminum I did not know that. Dave: And it has to be made from recycled aluminum. John: So see this. People don't know this and why is that? because of the alloys, the strength of the material. To take virgin aluminum and then make all, put in all the additives to make the motor block the strength, you, um, you can't do it. So they use recycled aluminum, and you know toyota is a big user. And also recycled aluminum, you know it goes into the light weighting of um automobiles, which gives you much greater miles per gallon and you know produces co2. So again, people don't know this and so I'm enjoying telling the story and getting it out there. Dave: I can tell you have a real passion for the education and helping change or improve the image of the whole industry. John: Well, I think that our policymakers, like in California, we have a real problem in the state of California the automobile shredder they want to deem it hazardous waste facilities and that's just not fair. It's not accurate to recycle for recycling in its own right, but it's hugely detrimental to the raw material supply chain for our industry here in america. That makes all these products that we need. You know we talk about when you take it in the life of an automobile, what do you do with it? And the end of life of an automobile. When you shred it, you gain the, the steel, the aluminum, the copper, stainless and plastics. And what do you do with that? You recycle it and that gets repurposed into new steel, new aluminum, new copper products, new stainless, and it's so. You know. It's just detrimental because our image, because I'll guarantee you, if you walk the halls in Sacramento and you told people, do you know the car you drive that has aluminum transmission housing, that has the aluminum motor block can't be made with virgin aluminum, they wouldn't know that. And this is part of the education process and I think once people know more about what our industry is, they'll realize how vital we are and that's really been a lot of fun for me and you know season three, as we're getting ready to do it gonna use. You know our facility here in bakersville is. You know where we process aluminum? We bail it in the bailers we make. And it's a lot of fun to be able to say the bailers we sell, that process that bail aluminum, are made from steel that comes from recycled steel from ssab. That we did in season one. So it really shows the circularity of our industry and what real sustainability really is. You know it's a buzzword and people, quite frankly, just have no clue what it really means. So I'm trying to bring out the real identity of our industry and try to really change the narrative because it needs to be changed. Once we were heroes during world war ii by supplying the mills with all the metals they needed to fight tyranny, and now we're the bad guys. Dave: Um, that's, we got to get back to being the good guys again I agree, could I mean I, you know just general building anything in California has become more challenging and regulatorily limited. Do you think somebody could even put in like a new shredder operation today, or would it just take? Them Wouldn't even be able to do it Because it's considered hazardous waste Is this considered hazardous waste? John: Yeah well, it's just the process. Nobody, you know, it's just a really crazy process, but you know you reminded me of something. So we have these just absolutely horrific, devastating fires in LA right, and we saw the whole Pacific Palisades and Altadena, the Pasadena area just devastated. What industry is going to rebuild those neighborhoods? Dave: Yeah, the steel industry. John: Well, so when you clean up these neighborhoods and we have a new piece of equipment down there processing the metals and sending it down to a company at Long Beach to process, it's our industry that's going to rebuild these neighborhoods. We're cleaning it up because what's what is left after the fires? Metal products, and all these metal products are being processed and going to be repurposed and sent to mills, steel mills, aluminum copper foundries, and all this new material that they're making from that raw material is what's going to go into rebuilding these neighborhoods. And you can't rebuild a neighborhood without us because we're the raw material suppliers for all that stuff that goes into the housing from the rebar, from the foundation, steel stuff. Now you're going to see a lot more steel being used in the manual in the building of houses in this area because of the fire. What about appliances? You don't build appliances with plastic. Easy-bake ovens aren't how you build refrigerators and ovens and toasters and coffee pots. And all the copper that's going to go into the electrification of these neighborhoods will have 36% recycled copper content into it. All the window panes that'll have aluminum windows and brass, you know, forurposing in it, getting into the consumers to make new products so you can rebuild, wow that's. I haven't thought about that for a second. Dave: Yeah. John: You know. And so the policymakers need to hear this. They need to understand that this is what we do. They need to understand this the most vital. Because, let's say, we don't exist in California. Well, what would you do with all that material? Can't ship it to China. China doesn't take containers of steel anymore. They don't buy bulk loads of steel anymore from the West Coast of the United States. They don't. That's just a misnomer. People, oh, you're sitting in China. They don't, that's just a misnomer. People, oh, you're sitting in China. No, we're not. And people think that, again, it's the ignorance Not calling people ignorant in a negative way. They just don't understand what we do. They don't understand where our materials are going, and I like to say CO2 emissions have no borders. So if Our materials are exported to an EAF steel mill somewhere maybe Malaysia, vietnam, korea, japan, if you will Well, our materials are also going into EAF. So what is that doing? It's reducing CO2 emissions. So our raw materials, be it used here in the US or be it used anywhere in the world, is actually helping to reduce the CO2 emissions in the world. Sure, actually helping to reduce the CO2 emissions in the world? Sure, you know, aluminum reduces CO2 emissions and energy consumption in the 90 percentile, copper's in the 80 percentile. You tell me an industry that's doing that today. You can't the recycled material industry. It's our raw materials that we process. So this is why this narrative, this is why these type of conversations, hopefully are heard by people who will now understand. Wait a minute, I've got this industry all wrong. Dave: Yeah, yeah. No, that's your your passion for trying to educate as many people as possible. It really shows through and you can see it really. It really drives you, so I appreciate it. Well, I can't wait to see season three. I can't believe how the time has flown by. Just wrapping up, I have just three remaining questions. John: Yes, sir. Dave: One is in your role with Sierra. What gives you the most satisfaction and enjoyment? John: Great question. Well, I think we have some great people here and I enjoy the people in the company I've seen in our, for instance. This is an example only and this is, you know, this could be had in every department, but we just have some really high quality people who really are fighting for the same cause. You know fighting, I call it fighting for the same right. And you know I get great satisfaction seeing these young kids who are growing. You know are technicians, for instance, who are growing, who've committed themselves to this culture and you see them growing and they're growing in their abilities and they're growing in their pay scales and you see their cooperative nature and how nature and how they have the can-do spirit. That gives me great pleasure. I enjoy doing this content as well. This gives me great pleasure making the REAP series. So those are my answers to that. Dave: That's great. That's not surprising. So the second of the three is imagine if you had a time machine and you could go back and give some advice to the 25-year-old John. What advice might you give with the benefit of hindsight? John: look, I didn't find what I really loved doing until I was about 59 years old. I'm 63, okay, so find what you love doing, that that beats money all day long. Yeah, and the money I just think, chasing money. You know it's great. You know I mean sure it's. You know I've done well, I'm not gonna begrudge it. But I think the one who smiles and is happiest wins the game of life, not the one with the biggest bank account. I look at Warren Buffett a guy worth just oodles and oodles. I've never seen that dude smile. He is just a grumpy old man. That's my perception of him, my point. And maybe he is a gregarious guy in person, but God, his persona is just grumpy. And my point to you is money doesn't buy happiness. Sure, it makes misery more tolerable, as my dad used to say. But I would tell a 25-year-old me stop chasing money and find happiness through what you love doing. Dave: A great answer. So the last question is is there anything that we did not discuss today that you wish we had? John: Well, no, I you know, I think, david, you know your, your company, with what you do, with your IT desk and helping with consulting. You know that's important. You know there's so many facets of our industry that people can improve upon, and I guess what we didn't talk on are areas in which how can an individual who sees this and is in the recycled materials industry capitalize on stuff that they don't know exists and what you do? I mean, I get what you do and so how do people really, where do they go to learn more about this industry and how they can improve their business? You know there's a lot of things that can be done. You got to be careful how you say this, because you know taxes are burdensome, especially when you live here in California. How can you have a legitimate business concern that can reduce your taxes legally? Because you know avoiding taxes is one thing, evading is illegal. You go to jail for evading taxes, and so you know it's hard because I'm not an accountant and I don't understand the whole time. But there's so much more, I think, for people to learn about our industry and I think, david, with what you're doing, with your setting up companies that are exporters, to understand the benefit of the laws that are out there for companies that export. People need to learn more about that, and I think that's you know. I wish I could have touched more on it. I don't know it like you do, but it is something that I think that's what I would say is to help people learn. There's other avenues to make your business grow and save some of your money, and when you save legally on taxes, you're saving money, so you can invest that in your company. Dave: No, I appreciate you mentioning that. And you know, my most satisfying part of my role is helping our entrepreneurial clients, you know, increase their after-tax income. It's really just. It's such a privilege to be, you know, kind of in the stands watching these amazing entrepreneurs do their magic. And you know, we have scrap metal clients who have, you know, the last decade have, you know, increased their business 10X. And I'm not saying that's because of the IC disc, it probably has little to do with it, but it's just a great. It's just very enjoyable to see the best and the brightest entrepreneurs, just, you know, do their magic. So that's why I love, why I'll be at the REMA conference in May. I can't spend enough time with those people. It's a blast. Well, john, thank you again for your time and I look forward to seeing you in San Diego in a couple of months. John: I presume, yes, sir, I'll be there. I'll be coming for my son's graduation at TCU, so I'll arrive. I'll miss some of the governance you know, as a former chair you're always involved with that but I'll be there for the show and I'll have my. My son is will be a graduate and I will have no more kids going to school. Dave: That's awesome. Well, that's also a landmark event. Well, hey, john, thank you again for your time. I really appreciate it, Thank you. Special Guest: John Sacco.

April Fool's Day is all about jokes and pranks, but when it comes to retirement planning, getting fooled can cost you real money. Today, we're uncovering the beliefs that fool retirees and pre-retirees into making bad financial moves.   Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com   Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. The topics and information discussed during this podcast are not intended to provide tax or legal advice. Investments involve risk, and unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial advisor and/or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed on this podcast. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Insurance products and services are offered and sold through individually licensed and appointed insurance agents.     Host: April Fool's Day is all about jokes and pranks, but when it comes to retirement planning, getting fooled can cost you some real money. So we're going to talk about that. A little early for April Fool's, maybe, but we're going to still talk about it this week here on the podcast. So let's get into it.   Hey, everybody, welcome to the show. Thanks for hanging out with us here on Retirement Planning Redefined, with John, and Nick, and myself, as we talk investing, finance, and retirement. And we're taping this a couple of weeks before April Fool's Day. It should drop right around there, but we'll have a conversation with the guys. What's going on, Nick, buddy, how are you?   Nick: Good, good. Staying busy.   Host: Yeah. Well, that's always good. Good stuff. John, I know you and I were just chatting before we got rolling, we're worn out. But you hanging in there?   John: Yeah, doing all right. And don't let Nick fool you, he's got a lot going on.   Host: He's got a lot going on.   John: You tell him the news.   Host: He did. Yeah.   Nick: John's favorite topic. Got engaged a little over a month ago.   Host: Awesome, awesome.   Nick: Yeah, in the full throws of wedding planning, which is, of course, extremely exciting.   Host: That you're doing a little of, or a lot of, or zero of?   Nick: I would say some impact. My fiance is originally from Columbia, and the way that they do things for weddings there is a lot different than here.   Host: Okay, cool.   Nick: So yeah, so there's a little bit of translation from that perspective.   Host: Nice, nice.   Nick: Yeah, that's interesting. But it'll be good.   Host: Very cool. Nice.   Nick: It'll be good.   Host: Well, congratulations. Very, very cool.   Nick: Thank you. Appreciate it.   Host: All the best to the newlyweds. Very good stuff. We won't pull any April Fool's Day pranks on you then, in that regard. We'll just take to the financial stuff here this week.   So the idea, guys, being that, look, the media is nonstop, the onslaught of social media, internet, whatever. There's always something out there. And you just want to make sure you're vetting some stuff before you... Fool's gold, right? Before you just jump into something and maybe make a mistake.   So we'll start with tax conversation. So as at this time that we're taping the podcast, we don't know if the TCJA will get extended or not. Odds are fairly good, we'll see how the year plays out. But if they don't, they expire at the end of the year, the current tax code that we're under.   So are you taking that information and maybe thinking, hey, I don't have to do any tax planning for the future, because maybe the taxes are going to stay really low like they have been historically? Or are you being proactive and saying, "Well, there's a chance that taxes could still go up, because we owe a lot of money"? So whoever wants to jump in, get started on that. But what do you think about the tax situation and not fooling yourself into just thinking everything's going to stay exactly the same?   Nick: Yeah, I can start with this one. So one of the things that we really emphasize with clients and people that we work with is, especially when it comes to taxes, that the best thing that you can do is to expect change. So whether it's something changing at the end of this year, a couple years from now, whatever it is, the goal is to allow yourself to be adaptable to whatever's happening.   So the easiest way to do that is to have different types of accounts. So to have Roth accounts, pre-tax accounts, and more of a traditional brokerage account where we can factor in capital gains instead.   But even more specific, when it comes to the whole concept of potentially underestimating taxes, there's still a lot of confusion for people on how much of their social security is going to be taxable, or include-able in their taxable income. I had a conversation with my parents about it, and I had to convince them that I was correct and knew what I was talking about after 20 years, because of a way that something that they heard on the radio or saw on TV was phrased, made it very confusing to them. So just-   Host: Sure, I mean, there's the conversation that they might get rid of it, but they haven't done it yet. So you still got to be planning for stuff.   Nick: Yeah. But even outside of that, the way... It was interesting, and I do want to bring it up now that I remember it.   Host: Sure.   Nick: The way that it was being marketed was that the concept of, "Hey, most people don't know that your social security, how much you pay in taxes on your social security will go up at age 73." And so, really, the concept of that was, "Hey, when required minimum distributions kick in, and you have more taxable income, there's a chance that more of your social security income will be include-able in your tax and how much you pay in taxes." So it was kind of a roundabout way to scare people. So it allowed us to have the conversation about, for a huge chunk of people, 85% of their social security is going to be include-able in their taxable income, at least how the law is now, and just how other types of income may impact that.   Host: Oh, and that's a great point though. That really highlights exactly the point of this conversation, is that depending on how you phrase things, it's very easy to get misled by stuff. And so that's a great illustration of that, Nick. So thank you for sharing that.   And it definitely walks that... And that's what all these are going to do. John, like the next one around Medicare misunderstandings. So my mom's forever, she's 83, she's forever going... And my brother's now, he's over 65, so she's educating him. She's schooling him on the stuff she's been doing for a while with Medicare. And it's like, it doesn't cover everything. And people still sometimes think that, "Hey, at least I've got to 65. Now I've got this Medicare thing. I'm in good shape." And it is a great program, in a lot of ways, but it doesn't cover everything.   John: Yeah, that's accurate. And a lot of people, unfortunately, don't realize that. And a big thing that, when you get Medicare age, age 65, Medicare has a lot of moving parts to it, and there's a lot of different options.   Host: Oh, yeah.   John: So depending on whether you go, let's say, on an Advantage Plan, if you're on Plan F, or G, you get the supplement, it's going to determine what is covered. And then, also, you want to look at, do your current providers even take Medicare? So you might be looking at it and think that you're going to be all set-   Host: Great point.   John: ... And then you come to find out that your provider who you like doesn't even take it. So yeah, it definitely does not cover everything. So when you're doing your planning, when we do it, we always try to make sure, "Hey, this is our set price for Medicare." Then we adjust as we determine what plan the client's going to go with or help them determine what's their best option. But also, you want to plan for some out-of-pocket medical expenses for what it doesn't cover.   Host: Yeah, I think she's changed her dentist a couple of times just because they don't take it anymore. They changed or whatever. And of course, dental being one of those things that people often don't realize is, a lot of stuff's not covered there.   John: And prescriptions.   Host: Yeah, and eye. The eye stuff is really interesting. Some of the eyeglass stuff, like going to the eye doctor for just basic optometry stuff is not covered. But then the cataract stuff, some of it was. So it's very strange. So you want to make sure you're understanding what is and what isn't taken care of there with Medicare. So that's certainly a good one as well.   Nick, what about the set it and forget it retirement plan strategy. When you're talking about things getting kind of mis-sold or kind of mislabeled out there, some people will be like, "Hey look, you got to get a plan together. You put stuff in there. You let it ride and you roll from there." Right? Well, some things can set it and forget it, but some things can't either.   Nick: Yeah. So kind of a good example of maybe the set it and forget it concept, saw come up a little bit more in the last couple of years, where had some clients that were moving towards retirement, and they had done a good job of saving and building up the nest egg, and they were somewhat familiar with, maybe take 4% a year and I can live off of 4% a year.   But with rates being in that point of time where we clicked up, where they could get four to five, five and a half percent in money market CDs, et cetera, they had kind of just said, "Hey, want to shift to the sidelines, want to avoid the market. I'm just going to take my 4-5% and live off the interest." And the conversations that we had to really have were, conceptually, that'll be good for now, for the next year or two. But most likely, there's going to be a point in time within the next three to five years that rates are going to change, and that 5% might turn into 3%, or two and a half percent.   And even on, let's just use 2 million bucks. So maybe they could do 5% on 2 million is a hundred grand a year, good to go. Now if we shift to two and a half, 50 grand a year off of the portfolio, with their intention of trying to maintain principle, that starts to rewind a little bit.   And so, it's a good example of realizing how the dynamics of a plan change, and that if you're only factoring in what's happening now, or in the next short term, next couple years, that not understanding updating and adjusting your plan to current circumstances, or maybe a broader sense of what could happen, could really put somebody in a difficult position.   Host: Yeah, that's a great point as well. So there's so much stuff you got to think about when you're factoring all these things in. And John, the market's been choppy. The time we're taping this, it's been a little choppy out there. So some of the tariff conversations-   John: Just a little bit.   Host: A little bit, or whatever is kind of making the market uneasy. But chasing and obsessing, not necessarily just over the market highs, but also high dividend stocks. So sometimes people will say, "Well, a good alternative to doing X or Y is to get high dividend stocks." What's some thoughts there?   John: There's different strategies for what you're trying to accomplish. And one of the problems with this one, especially if you're going to retirement and you're thinking of, "Hey, I'm just going to have high dividend paying stocks," is that those things can change. If all of a sudden we have a recession, or the economy's not doing well, or that particular company's not doing well, guess what they could do? They could just change your dividend.   So if you had a plan, going back to what Nick's example, they're like, "Hey, I've got this stock. It's giving me 4- 5%," and you think you're okay. And all of a sudden some news comes out and that dividend drops, and now your whole plan just slightly changed. So with dividend paying stocks, they're not guaranteed. And depending on how high of a dividend paying stock it is, the higher sometimes could be correlated with a little bit being more aggressive and more risk.   So I've seen, this actually reminds me of a meeting I just had this week, where someone was in talking to a friend of theirs, and they were trying to say, "Hey, just put all your stuff in these high dividend paying rates," and all these things. And I'm looking at it like, "Hey, this is pretty aggressive. You're getting a good yield. But if we have some type of pullback, not only will your dividend potentially go down, but the value of this stock could also drop."   Host: Sure. Yeah.   John: So it's just important to understand what you're in and what could change.   Nick: I think I'd also like to jump in on that.   Host: Sure.   Nick: Because I've had this conversation with some clients quite a bit. And one of the things that I tried to emphasize is that if we look over, because a lot of times the generation that's been drilled with dividend paying stocks is a generation now that's kind of entered into retirement, where they were really starting to invest in coming up through the period of higher interest rates, when dividend paying stocks perform better.   And frankly, if you look over the last 10, really post recession, post '09 and 2010 recession, in an environment with lower rates, if somebody was invested the last 15 years in only dividend paying stocks, then the returns that they have gotten are pennies compared to being involved in-   Host: Wow.   Nick: ... growth related investments. Think of tech, think of the Magnificent Seven now, think of all the areas of the massive growth over the last 10 or 15 years, and there was significant opportunity cost. So the environment that we're in, where those companies were really rewarded for, the cost of borrowing was low, the ability to reinvest and grow was high. Even when you factor in stock buybacks, I mean, you had companies that were making more money in stock buybacks than they were in producing their own products. So the environment of what's happening has a significant impact on that as well.   Host: That's great points, guys. So it's easy to get lulled into whatever kind of marketing, or whatever kind of news headline, or whatever the case is. So just make sure that you're not falling for it. Or at least not without vetting some things out and talking with your financial professionals.   So if you've got some questions, as always, you need some help, you should always run anything you hear by on our podcast, or really any other, even the big talking head shows, talk with someone local in your area about your unique situation so that you're getting some hands-on advice and conversation. And if you need some help, John, and Nick, and the team are available at pfgprivatewealth.com, that's pfgprivatewealth.com. So you can subscribe to the podcast. You can find it there. Of course, you can get some time on the calendar through the website, lots of good tools, tips, and resources. And of course, you can subscribe to us on Apple, or Spotify, or whatever podcasting app you like using.   So again, pfgprivatewealth.com. That's going to do it this week. Guys, thanks for hanging out, as always, and breaking it down. Congratulations once again, Nick, on the upcoming nuptials. And John, buddy, have a great week. We'll see you next time here on Retirement Planning Redefined.  

This Manager Minute episode spotlights how the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind and MassAbility are leveraging AI to improve service delivery. Host Carol Pankow discusses innovative AI applications with guests Lola Akinlapa, Nathan Skrocki, and John Oliveira. They explore an AI-assisted intake platform designed to streamline processes, enhance multilingual support, and enable faster access to services. The conversation also highlights AI-powered tools like policy lookup systems and data visualization platforms like Tableau. Emphasizing accessibility and transparency, the episode showcases AI's potential to alleviate administrative bottlenecks, support staff, and empower consumers while preserving the human touch in service delivery.   Listen Here   Full Transcript:   {Music} John: We were looking for items that might be helpful to our staff. As many of our veteran counselors move on to retirement, it became imperative that we find a way that the newer counselors could find access to information quickly.   Lola: We're not looking to reduce workforce. We're not looking to reduce your day to day operations, right. We're looking to streamline and to make the consumer's journey at MassAbility more accessible to them.   Nate: What we're doing is just enhancing and streamlining the process to better understand and strengthen their policy knowledge, to make their jobs a little bit easier.   Intro Voice: Manager Minute brought to you by the VRTAC for Quality Management, Conversations powered by VR, one manager at a time, one minute at a time. Here is your host Carol Pankow.   Carol: Well, welcome to the manager minute. Today joining me in the studio is Lola Akinlapa, director of strategic initiatives in Massachusetts. Nathan Skrocki, Policy director at the Massachusetts Commission for the blind. And John Oliveira, Commissioner for the Mass Commission for the blind. So how goes it, Lola?   Lola: Oh, everything is good. Thank you for having me, Carol. I think this is a really great forum to kind of spread the word on what we've been doing at the state of Massachusetts.   Carol: Excellent. How about you, Nate? How are you doing today?   Nate: Happy new year. Doing well. Glad to be here. Thank you.   Carol: Excellent. And last but not least, John, how is it? How are things? You got a new role.   John: Everything is great. A very cold day today, but we'll get through it. Uh, it's close to zero wind chill. So very cold day here.   Carol: Ah, it's like you guys are in Minnesota...   John: Yeah, I think so.   Carol:  Joining Jeff and I...   John: I think so.   Carol: Yeah. We were three below today. It was fabulous. Well I'm super excited about our topic. So artificial intelligence, although it's really not a new concept, it's gained significant attention in the recent years and the field of AI research was officially established during a workshop at Dartmouth College in 1956, where researchers optimistically predicted that human level intelligence machines would be achieved within a generation. However, it became clear the challenge was really greater than anticipated. But today, you know, we have AI everywhere seamlessly integrated into our life. You know, we've got Siri and Alexa. I rely on them all the time to your biometric scanning at the airports and the list goes on. And I had the good fortune to find out that Massachusetts is really standing out as a state that has embraced the broad implementation of AI and incorporating it extensively across various aspects of daily life and governance. So I want to dig in and learn some more from you guys. So I'd like to start out because our listeners like to get a little insight into all of you. If you could tell us about yourself and your role. And for our my two friends from the Blind agency a little bit. How you got into VR? And Lola, I'm going to start with you first.   Lola: Thank you, Carol. So a little bit about myself, as you mentioned, Lola Akinlapa, I am Director of Strategic Initiatives at now, formerly what used to be the Mass Rehab Commission and now known as MassAbility. I came into the agency back in 2014. I actually started in research and development, doing a lot of the analytic work. I actually was voluntold, I would say, to assist in a new project that we were implementing. It was a statewide case management system for our different divisions at MassAbility. Through that process, I was able to kind of take a step back to say, well, what do we need at this agency to push us toward the future?   Carol: Yeah, Lola, it is great being voluntold, because that leads to some of the best things when you're working on different things. So, Nate, how about you? How did you land at Mass Commission for the Blind?   Nate: I landed at MCB about eight years ago. At this point. I've been a manager within state government for many years and ended up at MCB. Hopefully this is where I'll be staying for many more years. I really like the mission of MCB and the work that we do as an agency to provide services to residents of Massachusetts.   Carol: Good stuff, good stuff. And John, you've switched roles, so I've known you for a while. But tell our listeners a little bit about yourself.   John: All right. Carol, I've been with the agency for, wow, 37 years.   Carol: Oh my gosh.   John: And started out in services and worked with the senior staff, senior consumers, and was in vocational rehab for a while, worked as director of staff development and training for a while. I headed up the assistive technology program for a while. I was deputy commissioner for something like 12 years, oversaw the programs, and I've been commissioner now for a year and a half.   Carol: Good for you. Well, sure good to see you again. So in the fall, I had the had the chance to attend an AI convening with Tony Wolf, who is the MassAbility Commissioner. And Tony was mentioning she kept talking about all these really cool things happening in Massachusetts. And I just I needed to learn more. So now, Lola, like, how is MassAbility moving in this AI space? And I know you're doing some things that are helping the consumer experience be quicker and easier. What's that look like?   Lola: Oh my God. It's been quite a journey to say the least. At our agency, we as many other agencies identified bottlenecks, identified issues with maybe the bureaucratic side of things where it takes longer to get someone from point A to point B. It was through, actually, our centralized intake unit where we discovered there's area for improvement here. And that area of improvement could be resolved through an assisted intake form. So at MassAbility, we're developing an AI assisted intake platform that's meant to support our staff at MassAbility, who are doing the intakes to allow them to have more leeway on doing what's more important to the work, which is getting our folks to the services they need. Through this intake form, we're actually removing the repetitive task. We're looking at some speech to text technology and then also some guided workflows. And we're also able to get multilingual support. And through the intake, it's meant to guide a lot of our consumers to feel a little bit more empowered to get from I'm stuck here, how do I get services that I need, whether I'm going to work or looking to live or transition into the community, instead of waiting months before someone can speak to you to get you through the process.   In this platform, we're actually able to allow our staff to have more time to be dedicated to more personalized interactions with our clients. So it's been a journey to kind of develop what that roadmap looks like. But we are super excited about this. We actually will be going live early this year through our MassAbility site, through our consumer portal, where it will be housed, and individuals will be able to go in, log in and fill out the form, and the form would guide them through the entire process without human interaction. And for us, I think it's really important to take a step back and really understand the purpose of this. Right. It's not to remove the individual from their work, right. It's to make some processes a little bit more streamlined, but then have our staff, our counselors, our case managers be able to focus on more of the human interaction. It's been quite a journey for us, to say the least.   Carol: So, Lola, are you working on that with your own state IT folk or who kind of is helping you mastermind all this?   Lola: So this is in collaboration with our IT folks at Executive Office of Technology. Also, we're working with a contractor who's been helping us build this platform out. They've been super great. It's been a very collaborative effort across the board. I would even have to throw in Microsoft because there's some work that they're assisting us doing, and it's been a team effort to get it to where it is today. And we're actually very proud of what we've done in such a short period of time.   Carol: Very cool, I like it. I know Lola, you had talked to me too, you were interested in doing something kind of in this data realm because I know data isn't cool always. But you were trying to do some stuff with Tableau and AI. So what does that look like?   Lola: Tableau. For folks that don't know, it's a visual data tool that we've been using at MassAbility for a little bit over four years now. The really cool thing about technology is as the years go on, the tools get better. Tableau was another way that we were using to kind of drive our data decision making at the agency. You know, things that are really core to the MassAbility beliefs in our missions. With Tableau, we're able to have a chatbot, and the chatbot would be utilized something similar like ChatGPT, where you could say, show me how many individuals are getting X services, or show me how many individuals are served in certain parts of the region. Right?   Carol: Yeah.   Lola: very cool things like that where you don't have to be a data analyst or a data science...   Carol: right.   Lola: to use Tableau. It kind of makes it more user friendly and at your fingertips. I think of it like on demand data. So that's something that we've been looking at that is in collaboration with an initiative that we have over at Northeastern. And we've submitted a proposal for that. So we haven't started, but we're looking forward to some of the cool and innovative things, because I think many state agencies will agree. Data is really, really interesting to look at, especially when you're looking to tell a story, when you're looking to improve just the overall outcomes of your agency, depending on what you're looking to achieve. So it's really been something great that we're looking forward to getting started. And then also on the back end, kind of showing and empowering our own staff as to what this data means, right? Because not everyone is a data scientist. Not everyone enjoys. It's a very dry subject, but I think this is a way to keep folks engaged in terms of what's really going on at the agency, and it kind of tells a story without having to truly understand the data to tell the story.   Carol: I love that. I think you'll find if you guys can make that all happen, there's going to be a lot of folks across the country that are going to be super interested in that piece because data has been so critical, especially as WIOA passed, and we're looking at so much more of the data and what really is happening for individuals with disabilities and getting into employment. And so I feel like sometimes we're data rich, but we're analysis poor. And people are like, I don't know what all this means. You get a little bit overwhelmed by the data. So I think that would be great for people to be able to do the old ChatGPT kind of thing and just ask a question and get the answer.   Lola: Absolutely.   Carol: I love that, that's very cool. So when you look at AI, there really has been considerable impact, too, for individuals who are blind and visually impaired. And Nathan and John, I mean, what are you guys seeing with the customers you serve? Just in general, when you think about AI and the work you're doing now?   John: Well, obviously in the assistive technology field, there's always been a lot of talk about incorporating AI to serve consumers. And over the past 4 or 5 years, many of the wearables have become very popular. And every year when you see these items, they get better and better. And that's benefiting a lot of our consumers tremendously. I'm sure that you've all heard about the meta glasses. Tremendous assistance for our consumers. You put on this pair of glasses, you can take pictures of the environment you're walking through. You can use it with description services such as Aira and Be My Eyes. And it works great for someone who doesn't know the area. For someone who's trying to do some work and needs to access print immediately, a great way to do this. Many other things are coming down the pipeline, but we were looking for items that might be helpful to our staff. As many of our veteran counselors move on to retirement, it became imperative that we find a way that the newer counselors could find access to information quickly. We do the trainings the usual way, but that takes quite a bit of time. And if you have questions and you want answers right away, we were looking for a solution and we came across this solution in Outlook Insight. I read about it somewhere, I called them, I spoke to an individual at the company and we agreed that we would meet at the NCSAB Conference. And I turned them on to Nate and his policy team. And he can give you more of the story about that journey going forward here.   Carol: So what do you know, Nate?   Nate: Thanks, John.   Carol: John is the idea guy and he's like, Nate, go do the thing.   Nate: And it works out great. So what we did was we connected with Outlook Insight, and we wanted a tool that would allow kind of a quick reference lookup for our case managers. So it could be that they have questions themselves and the policy or procedures. And making sure a case is executed properly or consumer may have a question and they want a quick reference for that. So what we did with Outlook Insight is develop a tool that takes all of our internal policies and all of the other policies that govern us, and kind of housed it all in one place and very similar to ChatGPT or some of these other AIs out there. You can ask it a question and it will provide a response. And when it provides a response, we have the ability to really take a look at where it's coming from. So it will include all the resources that it's pulling from with the response. So it will cite the documentation. So it might be some direction from RSA or some of our internal policies or another piece of policy that is out there, another piece of guidance that is out there. And it will cite that particular piece of policy where it's coming from. You can click on it. When you click on it, it will bring that policy up and you can read further, but it will also provide that response. So if you ask it what form is needed at this step of a case procedure, it will bring up what form is needed. Bring up the form and you can go from there.   Carol: Nice. So where are you at in the process with this rolling out?   Nate: We have rolled it out to some staff. It's not officially rolled out yet as an agency. It's something we're still testing. But we did roll it out to some staff to test to really kind of understand what they're using it for. Another piece of it is we're allowed to add tiles to this particular system. We can create these buttons or tiles above the search bar that will have preloaded questions. So say a consumer is going to college and we you know we might have a button that has the question on it. What is college reimbursement for a student at MCB. You can click on that and we'll bring up all the information about what's appropriate for college reimbursement, how much that college investment can be, so on and so forth. We wanted to get an idea of what people were asking it. We wanted to get an idea of what they're using it for, so we can kind of load in those different tiles on the top as well. And as we go through certain cycles in case management, those will change over the year, in the future when we do roll this out. And we also just were curious on what people were looking up for quick reference. And people are using it. It is a very good tool. It's been helpful for us in the policy unit. We're not getting as many questions for people that are using it, because they're going to that first to see if they can look up the policies on their own and get a response on their own. We do caution people though, because it is AI, so sometimes it does not provide the full picture. I guess is the best way to put it. It might give a partial answer. We haven't seen where it's giving any wrong answers yet, but sometimes it doesn't fill in the whole picture. So that's why we include the policies with the response, because people can go in and search further within that policy if they need to formulate a decision a little bit better.   Carol: Yeah, you bring up a really good point. You always have to trust but verify, even ChatGPT you throw something in there. And I use it a lot because it's super helpful and it'll be going along. It's really great. It gives this response and then you have some kind of wacky line comes in there and you go, I don't really know where that came from, but that isn't right. So you can't just turn it all over to the bot. You still have to use your own kind of critical thinking skills and take a look to apply it.   Nate: For sure. The advantage that we have, as opposed to like an open source AI, is we control what goes in and out of where it's pulling from. So we're the ones putting the policies in. Or as Lola had mentioned before, if you want statistics or something like that, you can put it in a document with certain statistics and it can pull from that. But we control everything in there. So it's not pulling from this open source where it might recognize something as helpful, but it really isn't. It's everything in there. We've kind of vetted and we understand it's something that is needed by the agency.   Lola: Absolutely. And just to Nathan's point, open source, we're talking about like Google, you know, you can get millions of results back and very true at MassAibility. Similarly, we obviously have regulations that we're following with RSA. And there are things that we have to control just to make sure the language is correct. So we're putting in what needs to be said at the bot kind of just follows that logic. So that's kind of the nice thing where you can still have that control, even if it is kind of AI, but it's still guarded. It's not as loose as just an open source would be.   Carol: Yeah, absolutely. It's a great point, Lola. And I know for the both of you, you know you're doing things that are impacting the staff. So staff can definitely have a reaction to this. Sometimes positive, sometimes not. Like we're all super excited. I see your smiling faces like, yay, we're doing the thing. And then they're like, you know, people feel like back what I was saying in the beginning, like, we're going to replace everybody with robots or something. And so staff can get concerned. So I'm going to kick this to you first, Lola, what's been kind of the response from staff about the things that you guys are trying to do?   Lola: Well, I'm very fortunate to work at an agency where folks are very open minded. Change is a little different, but we're very open minded at MassAbility. I think it's all about the messaging and the purpose on why we're doing certain things right. For sure. There are people that are going to have, you know, pros and cons about it, but I think how we message it is we're not looking to reduce workforce...   Carol: right.   Lola: We're not looking to reduce your day to day operations, right? We're looking to streamline and to make the consumer's Consumers journey at MassAbility more accessible to them. The option that we have right now and how we've messaged it to staff is it's an option, right? We're not removing the human aspect of it, but it's an option for individuals who are in certain circumstances that need to get something done a little bit faster, right? It takes a little bit longer to talk to individuals, but if it's something that they feel like, you know, I'm just going in and I'm looking for a job, I know everything I need to have. This is another outlet that they can use where the system itself is like, I'm not a person, but I can guide you like an individual, right? At the end of it, you will be meeting with a person. You will have that personalized experience, that interaction, but mostly for the admin and the data entry, right? We can repurpose that. We can shift that burden to some of the tools that we have available to us, like the AI assisted intake form. So that's really the messaging behind it, right? The messaging is not to impact staff. It's not to scare staff.   Carol: Right.   Lola: But it's more to help think of allowing people to have different options to come into the agency that aren't so impactful or don't feel like a bottleneck.   Carol: Yeah, I love that. I love that point. How about you guys, Nate or John? Have you seen any initial responses from staff, maybe different than you thought or how has it been going?   Nate: I think for us it's a little bit different too, because we're providing human services, so we're not replacing that in any way with an AI tool. We're not going to be replacing us, going out and sitting with a consumer and meeting them where they're at and providing the services that they need to be successful. What we're doing is really just enhancing and, like Lola said, streamlining the process to better understand and strengthen their policy knowledge to make their jobs a little bit easier. We haven't really explored any type of AI that would help with case management work or anything like that, and it's really tough because like I said, in the human service field and in Lola can probably also agree with this. Every consumer is so different. We're meeting with them a lot of times in person, especially at our agency, and providing the services that they need. A lot of it's hands on services, something that we're not going to be able to do with AI. What we're really looking at is how do we enhance their ability to provide and streamline services and make the experience better for the consumers and for our workers. And that's what we've done with this first policy tool. And I think it's been successful. I don't know if you have anything to add there, John.   John: Yeah, we're supporting the staff at this point. So it's not that we're trying to take staff out of the process. We're making it easier for you to do your job and for you to answer questions that you may have about the process of moving the client through the system, or even questions that a consumer may ask you, and you can explain to them. And if you're missing any of that data, you can pull it up on your laptop. And that tool is always with you. You can ask it at that point, or you can refer to other resources we have on that machine. So you could certainly help them get the information they need faster and help yourself process the information they've given you faster.   Carol: Well, having done technical assistance for years with state agencies, and I see the hundreds of pages in all your policy manuals and all this craziness, I'm sure staff will greatly appreciate anything that streamlines some of that work that they have to do, and all the things they have to retain. And you've got your policy and your procedure and your desk and your 14 other directions. It's a lot. I mean, it's a lot to keep track of, as well as just paying attention to the individual that's sitting before you. And so I think anything you can do to streamline that is great. I'm wondering if you all have other ideas. I know Lola, when I talked to you before, you are full of lots of thoughts. Do you have any next steps for accessibility that you're thinking about?   Lola: I have a couple of next steps right now. I have to rein myself in. We're for sure right now really focused on getting our automated intake form out. We're at the tail end of testing and everything has been looking great on the up and up. So we've been really trying to get our messaging around what that looks like, especially to our constituents that are looking for services. So folks just understand the purpose, the why and how we're trying to make this a little bit better. I'm hoping eventually one day I can take this to phase two where the eligibility pieces may come into play, but we're not there yet. Right. We're taking baby steps.   Carol: Yeah.   Lola: I'm really excited we've gotten this far. I know Nathan and I have had conversations a few months back about looking at something similar to what they're doing with the policy, because we have our own policies, right, that are kind of everywhere. They need to be updated and staff need to reference them or individuals are looking for them. So I think definitely what MCB has been doing has been in the back of our minds a little bit. But like we said, we're taking baby steps and hopefully we can get there. But I think across the board, these are all great initiatives.   Carol: Yeah, absolutely. How about you Nate and John are you guys looking at, you thinking a 2.0 on anything or some other areas you'd like to dabble in with AI?   Nate: I think it's rolling this out first and kind of once we get this completely rolled out to staff and kind of understand how well it's working, I think we can take those next steps. We're always keeping our finger on the pulse of technology and how it's advancing, and if it can assist us in any way, and we'll continue to do that. I think an interesting, it kind of fits in with AI is, you know, one of the biggest barriers for our consumers is transportation. And as far as AI goes, one of the big conversations in that community is automated cars and those type of things. And we have in the past provided some input about automation. And when they're creating those type of things for transportation, how to think about how it would benefit people with disabilities and those type of things. It's a long way off, but it's something interesting and something I personally get asked about a lot when I'm out speaking in different areas is, where is that? You know how close that is?   Carol: Yeah.   Nate: That's nothing we'll ever do as an agency. We're never going to be providing, you know, services. But we have provided some just some input in the past on that. But as far as like case management and service to consumers and those type of things, like Lola says, eligibility is something that's very interesting. If there's something that can help with that, it's for different programs within our agency. You know, when you're coming to MCB, we're a little bit different than MassAbility. By law, you have to be registered with us if you reach the threshold of legal blindness in Massachusetts. So you're registered with us. It's the law. But depending on what services you're receiving and what programs you're in and those type of things and maybe something interesting to look at in the future.   Carol: Yeah, definitely. Blind agencies have a lot of moving parts and pieces. So how about any advice you all might have for states that are starting to think about this? Because states are in all different, you know, places and people are kind of, their administrations. Some are very proactive, some are not. Do you have any advice, as you've been working through these projects that might help other people that are starting to dabble? Lola, I'll kick that to you first.   Lola: Yeah, I think that's all dependent just on where you are as a state agency, right? It's taken us a while to come to the realization, like, maybe there's something more we can do to kind of help the process that we're in. And it just so happened some of the things that we've identified as pain points, it looks like AI and technology would really help alleviate. And I'm not going to say remove because we're always going to have issues, but it would help alleviate some of those pain points. I think one of the things that would be insightful for folks to know, and just because the disability community loves the community, it's just when it comes to technology, we have to be very careful, right? We need to be mindful of some of the biases that come along with that. We need to make sure that the accessibility is actually accessible. It's usable, right? To Nathan's point, we serve various consumers ranging from different types of disability. And I think sometimes that gets lost in the conversation because we're so much let's get it to the next level and let's make it work for us and automate it. And I think we forget to take a step back and remember who we're doing it for, right? We're doing it for the folks that maybe don't have mobility, the folks that can't always read or have low vision, or the deaf or hard of hearing individuals. We really try to make this form all about the people. So I think as agencies are probably trying to embark on technology, those are some of the things that they might want to keep in mind. And it depends just where you are in the process. Just it was great timing for us, and I'm sure Nathan would agree. It was probably great timing for his agency to start some of the discovery process around how we can utilize AI.   Carol: Good advice. John, do you have anything you want to add?   John: Yeah. When you're going down this road, be prepared that you understand the process that your state has, because there's many other departments that come in and want to take a look at what you're doing and ask for a lot of different documentation. And so that all has to be done before any product can be deployed. And depending how bureaucratic the state is, it can be different. A large state might have a whole bunch of departments Moving in and wanting to take a look in a smaller state may not be as complicated or as cumbersome process as it can be. So just be aware. Once you understand the idea and you think of a potential product, make sure that you've understood all the steps you have to do at the state level to be able to deploy that product and not have it pulled when you're halfway through, or you've spent money on development so that it gets scrapped in the development stage. So just be very aware of how to get that process through the state.   Carol: Yeah, that's  very good advice. Nate you get the last word on this.   Nate: Patience. For a lot of reasons and pointing at both what Lola and Commissioner Olivera talked about here. You got to have patience to go through the process. But you also have to have patience to make sure that it is accessible. Here at MCB, we obviously have a myriad of different folks using it and with different abilities and ways that they approach the system. We got to make sure it works for all those different ways. And that wasn't easy either, but more so for the process. It's a long process. We're still in the middle of that process, but it's worth it. I do want to say that have the patience, but it is definitely worth it. AI is extraordinarily able to just provide a way to save time. You know, a question that may come up to us where we research a question, decide on what the answer is, reach back out to a worker, give them the answer and they go to a consumer. Give them the answer. It could be days. This is seconds. The time that it saves. And maybe even if you, depending on how it's deployed, the cost it could save in the long run. It's extraordinary and worth the time put in.   Carol: I love that you would mention that. There used to be something that I compared every year that came out from RSA, and I'd compare to the previous year, and so I'd always look at, you know, I'd do this side by side, kind of mark up what all change, what language changed. And it used to take me hours, you know, just to look through the document. Now I send it through a tool and literally in a minute it highlights everything that changed from one year to the next. I'm like, boom, done. You have it. People always are asking us questions as a TA provider, and I'm like able to immediately tell them what change they're like. How'd you do that analysis so fast? Well, I used my friend, you know, an AI tool that was able to do it. It really is an amazing Time saver. So how can our listeners find you guys? Could you leave us with like, an email address or something? Lola, would you mind saying your email address for the listeners in case somebody wants to reach out to what you're doing there?   Lola: Yeah, absolutely. I can be reached at Oluwafunke.Akinlapa@mass.gov. The spelling is o l u w a f u n k e dot a k I n l a p a at mass.gov.   Carol: Oh that's great. And then Nate or  John, do you both want to give your email or who's the contact there.   Nate: It's Nathan.w. Skrocki@mass.gov and I'll spell that out. It's n a t h a n dot w dot s k r o c k I at mass.gov.   Carol: Oh, that is awesome you guys! I really am looking forward to seeing your stuff roll out. You need to give me an update. I am super happy about this. In fact, we were having an AI conversation the other day on our GW team and I said, hey, I'm doing a podcast this week and they're like, you got to give us the names of the people, because some folks are working on something, they like, they're gathering up information from across the country. So I said I'd be happy to share. So thanks so much. And please do keep in touch. I wish you the very best with your projects.   Lola: Awesome. Thank you Carol.   John: Thank you Carol.   Nate: Thanks.   {Music} Outro Voice: Conversations powered by VR, one manager at a time, one minute at a time, brought to you by the VR TAC for Quality Management. Catch all of our podcast episodes by subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening!

Are you and your spouse on the same page when it comes to what retirement is going to look like? If not, it's time to talk. Listen to this episode where we'll explore why it's so important for couples to have detailed conversations about their finances and retirement futures. We'll cover exactly what you need to discuss, and how to handle any disagreements.   Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com   Disclaimer: Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. The topics and information discussed during this podcast are not intended to provide tax or legal advice. Investments involve risk, and unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial advisor and/or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed on this podcast. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Insurance products and services are offered and sold through individually licensed and appointed insurance agents.     Mark: Are you and your spouse on the same page when it comes to what retirement is going to look like? If not, it's time to talk. So check into this episode where we explore why it's important for couples to have detailed conversations about not only their finance, but their retirement futures and their dreams, this week on Retirement Planning, Redefined.   What's going on? Welcome into the podcast. Thanks for hanging out with John, Nick, and myself as we talk investing, finance and retirement. And we're going to go to couples therapy this week here on the podcast a little bit, or maybe we'll make it more manly, I guess, and call it a team sport.   However you want to look at it, you want to be on the same page with your spouse, with your loved one when it comes to retirement. I wanted to talk a little bit about that this week, guys, to see how many people generally are on the same page by the time they sit down with professionals like yourselves, financial professionals, or if it's happening a lot in real time, right in front of you. So we'll get into it this week.   What's going on, John? How are you bud?   John: Hey, I'm doing good. How are you?   Mark: Doing pretty good, hanging in there. Looking forward to chatting about this a little bit.   Nick, I hope you're well.   Nick: All good.   Mark: All good as usual. Well, that's very good.   Nick: Good start to the season for the bills, so I'm happy.   Mark: All right, well there you go.   Nick: It's early. It's early, but...   Mark: My lions, my lions are all right for right now. We'll see. I don't have a lot of hope. 40 years doesn't bode well when you have one good season in 40 years, but we'll see.   Nick: I get it, [inaudible 00:01:33].   Mark: All right, so let's dive into this couple stuff here. Why is it important for couples to work together on their retirement plan? I mean, you come in, somebody sits down for the first time with you guys for a consultation, and they're just not even remotely on the same page. That's got to be a bit more problematic, yeah?   Nick: Yeah. Not being remotely on the same page is tricky. I would almost say we probably, at least for John and I, we probably don't run into it too much where they're completely on separate pages.   Mark: Well, that's good.   Nick: I would say that there tend to be different ways that they think about money and kind of communicate about money. To be honest, that's one of the reasons that I would say that John and I like working together as a team with clients is because oftentimes one of us will kind of pick up more on the vibe that one of the people in the relationship is on, and then vice versa the other way around.   And so I'd say it's pretty rare that people in a couple tend to think about finances the same way. Even though they might end up having similar goals on the backside, they kind of attack it a little bit differently. And really it's, I think we joke sometimes, I think at this point we're 80% therapist, 20% financial advisors.   Mark: Right.   Nick: And really it's just trying to get people closer to the same page, and realizing that a lot of the things that they're talking about are pretty similar and they're just going about different ways to attack that.   Mark: Well, John, to expand on that, when somebody sits down for the first time, do you guys, if they haven't really discussed some of those big issues, is it important that they maybe try to knock some of that out before they come in to see an advisor? Or does it not really matter as long as it's getting done?   John: Yeah, I don't think it really matters. I think sometimes they're not even really sure exactly what to be knocking out prior. So to delay meeting with someone just to try to figure out, "Hey, are we on the same page?", I don't think makes sense. I think what tends to happen in our meetings is we'll ask some questions that kind of get them thinking a little differently. Like, "Oh, I didn't think about that." And ultimately, I think what we do when we do our planning, they tend to have some things come out and then they tend to kind of understand where the other one's coming from and that kind of lines up.   Mark: Yeah. Well, I mean, I talk to advisors all across the country and I certainly hear stories often about people saying, one person will say something and the spouse will go, "Since when? I never heard of that."   Nick: It definitely happens sometimes for sure. I would say almost that tends to be more on the lifestyle side of things.   Mark: Okay, all right.   Nick: Versus almost purely financial.   Mark: Like "I want to go scuba diving in every major ocean or something." And the other one's like, "What?"   Nick: Yeah, when the husband pulls, "I want to drive across country in the RV" card, that's where I've seen a lot of the sideway looks where... My parents are a good example, it's like my dad doesn't like to drive to Publix, but then he said he wanted to drive-   Mark: Across the nation.   Nick: ... In an RV, because that's going to be more relaxing. And I remind him that a thousand miles is a lot worse than five. So there's things like that absolutely. How to spend that time, or even just the extra time together. I've almost seen it where it tends to be a little bit of a smoother process for couples when one person retires first, and maybe there's a year or two lag, where they kind of have a little bit of a staggering on spending an extra 50 hours a week together, which can be a little bit of a shock.   Mark: Sure, yeah, it's a totally different animal. Yeah.   Nick: Yeah, a totally different ballgame. So I would say from at least my experience with clients, it tends to be more in the lifestyle side of things. What I've seen most often with couples are it's rare that it's a 50/50 input on finances.   A lot of times I'll see it where one person might be a little bit more strategic on expenses, and then the other one might be a little bit more focused on the actual investments, things like that. But they end up being kind of having the same goal or outlook, but the lifestyle and how they're going to spend their time in retirement and how much they're willing to spend to do those sorts of things tends to be a little bit different.   Mark: All right, John, well let me throw this one your way. So my wife and I are not usually on the same page when it comes to certain different things in a relationship, like most couples. And when it comes to risk, we are completely different.   So how can couples navigate if they are in different places risk-wise? Because let's be honest, I mean the statistics are what they are. Typically, us fellas tend to want to take a little bit more risk, and a lot of times the ladies tend to want to play it a little safer. Not always, but that's kind of the average.   So how do you guys handle that and what's some advice there?   John: So we'll do risk tolerances for each client when that comes up. And we we'll find that someone, again, might be more aggressive than the other, so maybe their accounts are invested, maybe a moderate where someone else's, the spouse might be invested conservative. So that, having separate accounts makes that a little bit easier.   It becomes more difficult when it's the, a joint account. And what we'll do at that standpoint is we kind of go back to the plan. So a lot of the times it's what type of rate of return are we trying to achieve from the planning standpoint. We kind of have conversations, and we'll try to blend the two of them together.   I'd say for the most part, I don't want to speak for Nick, but he could jump in, have never really had this come up as an issue. It's kind of like, "Hey, this is how you want to do it. This is how this other person wants to do it." And for the most part, the spouses are okay with it as long as they're achieving their goals.   Mark: Interesting.   Nick: For the clients that tend to be, for the ones that have a little bit more of that risk appetite, we found through conversation that they have the risk appetite when things are good.   Mark: Sure. Everybody likes it when it's up, right?   Nick: Yeah, for sure. And not necessarily when things are bad. And so we're big fans of almost having, for lack of a better term, like a petty cash drawer or just kind of a smaller investment account that will carve out. So when there are clients that want to have that higher risk appetite, want to take opportunities to really kind of get some big upside.   Mark: So that's your speculative casino type money, right?   Nick: Yep.   Mark: If you will.   Nick: Yup, yup, exactly. And really too, because I would say the majority of our clients are pretty close to retirement or in retirement, they tend to, at least in our experience, be a little bit over that phase with any sort of larger amounts of money. Oftentimes they come to us and they're like, "All right, we had our fun and we're ready to be a little bit more in line on the risk side of things with the investment decisions that we're making." And oftentimes when we have that conversation of, "Hey, if you get an itch, let's have this off to the side and it'll help you make better decisions with the rest of the money." That tends to be kind of a winner for everybody.   John: No, I was going to say, yeah, that's kind of what we reference sometimes as a cave, this is kind of your play account where you want to buy some individual stocks and things like that, where the fluctuation won't really make a big impact overall on your plan. So as Nick mentioned, that kind of satisfies some of the very aggressive clients.   Mark: Okay. Well, so you mentioned the fact a second ago that a lot of your clients tend to be nearing or into retirement, and with a different demographic comes different feelings and mindsets about money.   So with that in mind, we tend to find that, which is really weird if you think about it this way, a lot of times you tend to find that in couples, going through the life, building of the life, raising the children, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, typically the wife tends to budget the money, handle the money, so on and so forth. She's doing all that stuff in the house. But when it comes to retirement, it tends to seem like us guys tend to take the lead there.   Is it okay for one person to handle all the financial matters? Or do you guys really prefer that both people have a good understanding, even if it's not your bag, do you still prefer them to have a general, I don't know, 10,000 foot view of what's going on?   Nick: Yes. I would say too, more and more that, again, from our experience, and maybe it's our clientele where you've got a lot of households that are both people work, both have retirement accounts, and although they may make some differences from the perspective of risk in their portfolios and stuff like that, it tends to be a collaborative effort. Again, I would say we have, anytime we do planning, we have clients fill out an expense worksheet. It's rare that they both fill it out. It's usually one of the two that are filling out the expense worksheet.   And so it does tend to get kind of broken up a little bit from who focuses on what. But it's definitely important that they're both on the same page and have a good grasp and an understanding. And I would say too is the easiest example of that, and the people that work with us kind of know this is there's one report that we go over with clients, it's like a cashflow. It's in detail, wall of numbers, lots of columns, can be kind of intense. And then there's an area called the decision center, which takes all those columns and it puts it into kind of a graph format and it's more interactive.   And I think that's kind of almost the best illustration of the different sides of the brain where one person in the couple sometimes likes the details and likes the column report and they like to, because they can go in on their client side of the portal and go through that and re-review it. And the other one is, "Hey, let's zoom out. Give me the broader picture. Are we good? Are we not good? Give me an idea of a couple of decisions that we need to make moving forward and let's go from there."   Mark: And there's no right or wrong to either one, it's just what is your personal appetite? But I think neither, like if both of you don't have a good understanding, John, that's a recipe for trouble later on too.   John: Yeah, no, I'd agree with that. It's important for both to at least have an idea of what's happening and working as a team, whether one takes a lead and one takes a backseat, we encourage everyone to have a general understanding. Because this past year has been interesting where I've had some clients have some health issues, pass away. And you got to make sure that both pistons are aware of what's happening because you don't want that situation where it's like, "Hey, I don't know where anything is. What do I do?" So [inaudible 00:11:43].   Mark: That's exactly the point, right? Yeah, that's the worst case scenario. And it often, it happens more times than people realize. So you both want to have a decent understanding, even if it's not your thing. And again, no gender roles there. It tends to be the case, but I mean, my wife is way smarter than I am, and she actually deals with, she's very analytical and deals with money and numbers all the time for work. And it's one of those things where when it comes to our retirement, she's like, "I don't want to deal with it. So you deal with it."   And it could just be as simple as, "I deal with numbers all the time, I don't want to deal with it yet another way." So no matter what it is, you find a way to make it work, but not having a decent understanding of what you have, and why you have it and who to turn to in the event of a catastrophe, is a recipe for disaster. So obviously if you're working with a financial professional and a team like the guys at PFG Private Wealth, then at least you also have that resource to turn to when something does happen like John just mentioned.   So one final question here, I'll let you both kind of jump in and chime in a little bit here. What final piece of advice would you give to couples who are maybe just beginning their retirement planning journey, when it comes to making sure that they both are feeling comfortable?   Nick: I think it depends on what phase they are in life, but in general, I think it's hard to screw it up long-term, if you're saving money. So even if you are very conservatively saving the money and you're not getting much return on your money, that kind of instills an ingrained habit of saving money and being used to living on the rest. That will lead you to better habits and better outcomes.   You can always take the next step in, whether it's working with an advisor, whether it's doing research by yourself and then making better and smarter decisions on how you invest that money that you saved. That tends to be kind of the easier part. But the behavior of saving that money first and then going from there, is the number one thing, I think that's important.   Mark: Okay. That's his advice there. What do you about you, John, what do you think?   John: Yeah, it's really similar. You can never go wrong saving. And it's really just kind of the words that just get started. Just get started saving, just get started planning, get started with any of it. Whether you have kids, you want to make sure that estate documents are in place, insurances are in place.   So depending on what phase, it's just a matter of getting started with the overall planning, and saving is definitely where you want to be the forefront. Because like Nick said, you can't go wrong. You're never going to be mad looking back saying, "Man, I saved way too much for retirement."   Mark: Right, exactly. Taking the forward steps and doing something to quote the rush song, right? If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. So don't make that choice to do nothing. Do something for yourself and your future self and get started today. Make sure that you are planning for retirement and having conversations with your loved ones so that you guys are on the same page.   And of course, as always, if you need some help, make sure that you get onto the calendar with qualified professionals like the team at PFG Private Wealth. You can find them online at pfgprivatewealth.com. That's pfgprivatewealth.com to get yourself some time on the calendar to sit down with John and Nick and get started today.   This has been Retirement Planning, Redefined. Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast on whatever major podcasting platform app you like to use. They're on all of them. So you can just type in Retirement Planning, Redefined in the search box, or just go to pfgprivatewealth.com.   We'll sign off for this week. For John and Nick, I'm your host Mark, and we'll catch you next time.

Remember the thrill of shaking a Magic 8 Ball to get answers to your childhood questions? Would we ace that math test? Would we be famous someday? Well, today, we're bringing a bit of that magic back. But instead of asking about pop quizzes and playground crushes, we're turning to the Magic 8 Ball for advice on something much more important: your retirement planning! What would the Magic 8 Ball have to say about these common retirement questions if it had the wisdom of a financial advisor?   Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com   Disclaimer: Speaker 1: PFG, Private Wealth Management LLC is an SEC registered investment advisor. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. The topics and information discussed during this podcast are not intended to provide tax or legal advice. Investments involve risk and unless otherwise stated are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial advisor and or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed on this podcast. Past performance is not indicative of future performance insurance. Products and services are offered and sold through individually licensed and appointed insurance agents. Speaker 1: You all remember that thrill of shaking the Magic Eight Ball to get answers to those childhood questions we couldn't wait to find out? Would we ace that math test or be famous someday? All those crazy fun questions we had when we were kids. Well, this week on the podcast, we're going to do the Magic Eight Balls Guide to Retirement Planning with John and Nick here on Retirement Planning Redefined. What's going on everybody? Welcome into the podcast. Thanks for hanging out with John and Nick and myself as we talk investing, finance, and retirement. And we're going back to our childhood with the Magic Eight Ball. Going to have a little fun with these things and shake it up and see what kind of answers we get for retirement. Then of course, let the guys give us some proper answers just in case the Magic Eight Ball gets it wrong. But guys, what's going on this week? Good to talk with you as always. Nick, how are you buddy? Nick: Good, thanks. Just staying busy. Speaker 1: Staying busy, rocking and rolling. Very good. John, my friend, how are you? John: I'm doing all right. Getting ready for this upcoming storm we have, so. Speaker 1: Oh, big fun. Yeah. John: Getting to the grocery store quick, so all the crazies don't run me over. Speaker 1: Nice. Now you got little ones. Do they still sell the Magic Eight Balls in the store? I think they still make them. Don't they? John: They do. I think we had one at one point. Speaker 1: Nice. John: And it didn't work very well, so anytime they asked a question, it would end up on the side and they're like, what does it say? And I don't know. Speaker 1: I can't see it. You got to reshake. John: It was definitely something good that entertained them for a little bit. Speaker 1: Yeah. John: But like any little kid nowadays, it lasted all for about 20 minutes. Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Yeah. John: Like, all right,- Speaker 1: Well I'm a wee little kid of the 70s, so I thought they were great. That and the Etch A Sketch and the Stretch Armstrong, I was a happy dude, so. But anyway, let's have a little fun with this, this week here and I'll toss you guys out a question. You kind of give us the Magic Eight Ball and your answer to it, or at least what it maybe should be, so to speak. Right. So we'll make it easy to kind of get things started. John, I'll toss this one to you. Should I start saving for retirement now? What's the Magic Eight Ball say? John: Magic Eight Ball is going to say yes, definitely. The sooner you can start the better. And that goes for anybody, whether that's you in your 20s. I have some clients that right out of college started and now they're in their late 30s, and when we do reviews occasionally, it's always like, "Hey, really appreciate you kind of getting on me for starting to save," because as life happens, expenses are going up, they have kids and stuff like that, it's harder to save. But when they didn't have too much going on in their early 20s expense wise, they were definitely built up a nest egg, so. Speaker 1: Yeah. John: If you haven't started at any point, wherever you are, 20, 30, 40, it's good idea to start. Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean 50 as well, right? I mean it doesn't make a difference at this point. Waiting yet another day only causes you more problems, right? So should you start now? Definitely. And I'll give you guys kind of a little primer on the Magic Eight Ball. So we kind of looked through some of the stuff. They have, I guess what you'd call the green, kind of the positive answers, right? Stuff like the one John just got there, yes, definitely, most likely, out look good, that kind of stuff. Then they had that kind of middle of the road, nah, not so sure, right? Reply hazy, ask again later, better not tell you now, that kind of thing. And then of course they had the negatives, which was my reply is, no, very doubtful, don't count on it. So on and so forth. So we'll use those answers to kind of kick things off with each one of these episodes and then let the guys expand on it like John just did. All right Nick, so your turn, give it a go. Is a million dollars enough to retire on? What says the Magic Eight Ball? Nick: That's definitely a reply hazy, try again answer on that one. A consistent conversation that we have with people, whether it's somebody that we've worked with for a while or somebody that has come to us and we're kind of taking them through the planning process is that everybody's situation is different. Speaker 1: Sure. Nick: People love to compare things with each other, whether it's cars, houses, finances, whatever. And we try to make sure that people understand that comparing themselves even to a sibling or a neighbor or friend doesn't necessarily make sense. Some of the most common examples that we'll see are people that maybe they have pension plans because of the sort of job that they have. Speaker 1: Yeah, they saved a million, but they got a pension versus someone who saved a million and doesn't. That's a dramatically different setup, right? Nick: Correct. Speaker 1: Yeah. Nick: Correct. Yeah. And so assets are important obviously, but really the end game for assets in retirement is to generate income. So ideally people will have the combination of both, but having an arbitrary number like a million dollars is something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And I know that recently there's been some kind of articles in the news about, I think we just hit the highest percentage of millionaires in the US. Speaker 1: Right. Nick: And even from that perspective, dependent upon the situation, again, a million dollars isn't what it used to be. So it really just all depends. We've had clients that have had five or $6 million going into retirement that when we look at their plan, they're going to burn through that in 15 years because they spend too much. And we've had clients that are retired with five or 600,000, but they have their expenses very much in check, they have no debt and they live within their means and their plan looks great. Speaker 1: Yeah, there you go. I mean there's three of us here on this podcast and it might take a million for one and 500,000 for the other and two and a half million for the other. Right. It all just depends on where you live, how you live, all those sorts of things. So yeah, reply hazy, try again. And really what it comes down to is get a strategy, get a plan, and get the numbers crunched for your specific situation and then you're going to understand exactly what you need to get to. You're going to have a better outline versus just kind of a shaking the Magic Eight Ball. And I think the idea behind some of this too was fun. You know how you guys in the industry know this. There seems like there's always advisors out there that have a little crystal ball on their desk and they like to say, "Let me check the crystal ball," when somebody asks them a question and they're like, "Well it doesn't work today." And that's because it's not a sound way of doing things. So we thought we'd take that kind of analogy and apply it to this week's podcast. So back to you, John. Can I rely on social security for my retirement? John: Say out look not so good. Speaker 1: Right. John: Yeah, definitely not what you want to be banking on. It's a good source to have. Speaker 1: Sure. John: But you do not want it to be your only source. Speaker 1: It's big dollars. I mean it can be big dollars for a lot of people. And I think an interesting question, and I put it this way, is I've got a family member, a loved one who totally survives on social security only, but it's not what she wanted, right? So could you do it? Yes. But is it ideal? No. John: Yeah, no. I think on average social security covers maybe 30, 40% of someone's retirement income. So you have to look at where's the other money coming from. So just planning on social security I would say is not a very good plan. Speaker 1: Very true, very true. Well following that up there, Nick, give us the Magic Eight Ball answer here. Is it wise then to have multiple sources of retirement income? Nick: It is absolutely as imperative as you can get to try to have different sources of income. A conversation that we have with people consistently is that from the perspective of planning, the one thing that we know and that we can absolutely count on every single year, year after year, is that there's going to be change. And so anything that you can do to build in options, build in flexibility, allow yourself to adapt and pivot to what's going on is essential. And part of that is income streams, not only diversifying assets, but diversifying income streams. Speaker 1: Definitely. Right. So you definitely want to have those. Social security is a big piece of it, but it doesn't need to be the only one. You need to have multiple sources of income streams. All right, John, back to you. Can I expect to have fewer expenses in retirement compared to when I'm working? What's the Magic Eight Ball say? John: I'd say don't count on it. Again, I don't know, we've kind of preface this quite a bit and we've even said it today, everyone's different. So we've had some people where expenses have gone up during retirement because they want to vacation more, they want to do more things with the family. So I wouldn't say plan on that necessarily. And the only way to really find out is to do a comprehensive plan, but then there's going to be curveballs that come at you, whether it's health expenses. That tends to not go down as we get older. So maybe something could be dropping off. Speaker 1: Right. Right. John: But you never know what's going to get added. So do your plan as best you can and try to be as accurate as can. But I wouldn't have that be like the bulletproof, like, hey, my expenses are going to drop so I should be good. Speaker 1: Well, that's a great point because a lot of times people say, hey, here's our back of the napkin math. We think if we curtail this a little bit and this a little bit, we can make it work. Right. We can kind of squeak into retirement. But then you get there and you think, I don't want to do that, right? And there's certainly a lot of conversation around regrets that people have when they're talking once they get to retirement and they go, boy, I wish I would've spent more in those early years when my body would've let me go out and do some things that I wanted to. Right. So can I expect fewer expenses? Yeah, probably not, right? Because like you said, things are going to drop off, but other things are going to add and of course don't count on it. I think that was the answer Rhonda Thomas gave me when I asked her to the seventh grade dance, I think she said don't count on it. I think she must have got that from Magic Eight Ball as well. Nick: That's stuck with you. Speaker 1: Yeah, right. Exactly. It stuck with me. I'm still wounded Rhonda, if you're listening. All right, so let's do the next one here. Should I review my retirement plan annually? Nick, what says the Magic Eight Ball? Nick: Without a doubt on that one. Going back to what we talked about earlier, things constantly change. So updating the plan is really important. The most recent example of why that's important has been inflation over the last couple of years. So when we do a plan and we put in an inflation increase every year in expenses, the software still requires us to kind of update those baseline numbers. And so what we found and what we've tried to emphasize to people is that us capturing and updating those baseline numbers every two or three years is really important and gives us a much more accurate projection from the perspective of planning. So,- Speaker 1: Gotcha. Nick: Those annual reviews are important. Speaker 1: Yeah. And that's how you kind of keep track of the expense changes or the income source changes or added a grandchild, want to change this, whatever the case is. So all those annual things are certainly important. Your life's going to change, your plan has to change along with it. All right, John, will my retirement plan be affected by future changes in tax laws? Not to get political, but you have to talk policy and certainly when it comes to taxation, that's going to be part of the conversation. I mean, seems like everything is political these days, but if you're thinking about future changes in tax laws, you're going to have to certainly think along those lines as well. So what says the Magic Eight Ball when it comes to will your plan be affected by it? John: Signs point to yes. Speaker 1: 35 trillion? Maybe. Yeah. John: Yeah. So you definitely want to take that into account. I mean if you look at maybe people that retired in the 70s and then all of a sudden the 80s, your social security is getting taxed, you weren't really anticipating that happening and then,- Speaker 1: Oh yeah, the IRMAA tax, right? That gets a lot of people blindsided. John: Yeah. So you could count on taxes changing. Whether it's going to go up or down, again, we don't have our crystal ball, but we have the Magic Eight Ball here. Something's going to happen and you should be planning for that. One thing you could do when you're running retirement plans is you can have the ability to stress test it, to take a look at it. So definitely plan on it. Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean you figure, look, regardless of where your political bent is, we've got a lot of debt and so taxes are going to have to change. And even if it's not this particular administration change, this current election, right, God willing, you live long enough in retirement. If you last 20, 25, 30 years in retirement, you're going to see multiple administrations come and go. And that's going to mean multiple tax law changes because they do that every so often. Right. So the odds of that happening are pretty great. So signs point to yes, you should consider how taxation is going to affect you because it is one of the biggest pieces of your retirement strategy. What is that old saying? It's not what you make, it's what you keep, right? So make sure you're talking with qualified professionals like John and Nick when it comes to dealing with all this stuff. Let's do one or two more and then we'll wrap it up. Nick, let's toss this over to you. Let's see here. Should I focus on paying off debt before increasing retirement contributions? Nick: So I would say depending upon the debt, most likely. Speaker 1: Okay. Nick: From the perspective of consumer debt like credit cards, all that kind of stuff,- Speaker 1: Bad debt, right? Nick: That can absolutely, it's hard to argue that that's not unimportant. One thing that can be a slippery slope for people is it kind of tends to depend on their behaviors. We've had clients that have been good income earners but have at different times had debt problems. And in certain ways, whenever they pay off the debt, the debt comes back up and then they kind of find themselves not saving at all. So it's oftentimes kind of a balance of both. One of the most common sorts of comparisons from a perspective of debt is mortgage. We found that over, we had a lot of those conversations when interest rates were really low and we kind of emphasized with people to take advantage of those low rates and that's come to be a pretty beneficial sort of decision. So I would say in order, consumer debt for sure, trying to do both consecutively, both at the same time, obviously ideal, and then just kind of working through the plan and prioritizing what makes the most sense and how to deploy the money. Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely, right? I mean, debt's going to be a big component of that as well, and certainly getting rid of that, the higher interest stuff is always a good idea. So the final piece then here guys, and John, we'll let you wrap it up since you started it. Should I consider working with a financial professional as I near retirement? This is kind of a layup for you, but I'll give it to you anyway. What do you think? John: Appreciate that layup. Answer is yes. As you're getting closer to retirement, it becomes even more important to make sure you're working with someone to update the plan or start a plan and take a look at it. I would say you don't have to wait until you're near retirement. I think the answer is yes at any point. Speaker 1: Yeah. John: Even my younger clients, they always appreciate having someone they could talk to and bounce some ideas off of, whether it's not always comprehensive planning, but it's someone you could talk to discuss things. Speaker 1: Exactly. Because there's so many nuances out there and it just continues to grow and get more complex. So certainly not a bad idea at all to get qualified professionals on your side. So if you need some help, reach out to the team at Pfgprivatewealth.com. That's Pfgprivatewealth.com and don't forget to subscribe to the podcast on Apple and Spotify or whatever platform you like using. It's Retirement Planning Redefined with John and Nick from PFG Private Wealth. And we'll see you next time here on the show and enjoy the Magic Eight Ball. We'll catch you later.   Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. The topics and information discussed during this podcast are not intended to provide tax or legal advice. Investments involve risk, and unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial advisor and/or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed on this podcast. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Insurance products and services are offered and sold through individually licensed and appointed insurance agents.  

Join host Norbert Wilson and co-host Kerilyn Schewel in the latest episode of the Leading Voices in Food podcast as they dive deep into the world of small-scale fisheries with two distinguished guests: Nicole Franz from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and John Virdin from Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment, and Sustainability. Discover the significant role small-scale fisheries play in food security, economic development, and community livelihoods. Learn about the unique challenges these fisheries face, and how community-led climate adaptation alongside top-down national policies can help build resilience. This episode also highlights collaborative efforts between academia and organizations like FAO, painting a comprehensive picture of the state and future of small-scale fisheries. Interview Summary Kerilyn - So, Nicole, let's begin with you. Why is your work at the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization focused on small-scale fisheries and fishing communities? And could you share with us how they are different from fisheries more broadly? What's unique about them and their role in food production? Nicole - Yes. Let me start with the latter question. And I think the first thing is to clarify actually what are small-scale fisheries, no? Because sometimes if you think about small-scale fisheries, what most people will have in mind is probably that of a man in a small boat fishing. But in reality, it's a sector that is much more diverse. There are, for example, women in Indonesia that are collecting clams by foot. Foot fishers. Or we have examples from small-scale fisheries that are fishing boats in Norway, which are comparably small, but if you compare them, for example, with how small-scale fishing looks in a place like Mozambique, it's a very different scale. But all of that, however, is comprised in what we understand as small-scale fisheries. It is also important to understand that when we talk about small-scale fisheries in FAO, we don't only limit it to what is happening in the water, the harvesting part, but we also include what happens once the fish is out of the water. So, once it's processed, then, and when it's traded. So, so it's a whole supply chain that is connected to that small-scale fisheries production that we understand as being small-scale fisheries. And with Duke University, with John who is present here, and other colleagues and other colleagues from World Fish, we did a global study where we tried to estimate the global contributions of small-scale fisheries to sustainable development. And what we found was that at least 40 percent of the global catch is actually coming from inland and marine small-scale fisheries. And that's, that's enormous. That's a huge, huge amount. More important almost is that, that 90 percent of all the people that are employed in capture fisheries are in small-scale fisheries. And that is the human dimension of it. And that's why the community dimension is so important for the work. Because it is that big amount of people, 61 million people, that are employed in the value chains. And in addition to that, we estimated that there are about 53 million people that are actually engaging in small-scale fisheries for subsistence. So, if we consider those people that are employed in small-scale fisheries, plus those that are engaging for subsistence, and all their household members, we're actually talking about close to 500 million people that depend at least partially on small-scale fisheries for their livelihoods. We also looked at the economic dimensions of small-scale fisheries, and we found that the value from the first sale of small-scale fishery products amounts to 77 billion. So, these numbers are important. They show the importance of small-scale fisheries in terms of their production, but also in terms of the livelihood [00:05:00] dimension, in terms of the economic value that they generate. And, last but not least, we also looked at the nutritional value from small-scale fisheries. And we estimated that the catch from small-scale fisheries would be able to supply almost 1 billion women globally with 50 percent of the recommended omega 3 fatty acid intake. So, I think with all of these numbers, hopefully, I can convey why the focus on small-scale fish is, in the context of food security and poverty eradication in particular, is of fundamental importance. Kerilyn - Thanks, Nicole. That's really helpful to get a kind of global picture. If I could follow up to ask, what regions of the world are small-scale fisheries more common, or do economies rely on them? And in what regions do you see them disappearing? Are they common in countries like the US, for example? Well, they're certainly more common in what is often considered as a Global South. In Asia in particular, we encountered the largest total numbers, absolute numbers, in terms of people involved in terms of production. But also in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean. In the Pacific, obviously, they play a crucial role. They are more and more disappearing in the US, for example, in Europe. We see that it is a livelihood that is no longer very common. And one of the features we see there that it's an aging sector, it's a shrinking sector, for a number of reasons. But they still define the characteristic of certain areas where they really are part of the identity and of the local culture, even in the U.S. or in many, many places in Europe. Norbert - Nicole, this is really fascinating. Thank you for sharing this broad overview of what's happening and who are small-scale fishers. What are some of the common challenges that these small-scale fishers and fisheries face? And what is FAO's response to those challenges? Nicole - Well, where to start? There are so many challenges. I think one fundamental challenge that is common across all regions is securing access to fishing grounds. But not only to fishing grounds, but also to the coastal areas where operations, where they land the boats, where they, where the process of fish, where the fishing villages and communities are located. In many areas around the world, we see expansion of tourism, expansion of urban areas and coastal areas. The increase of other industries that are competing for the space now, and that are often stronger economically more visible than small-scale fisheries. So, the competition over space in those areas is quite an issue. But there are also many challenges that are more outside of the fishing activity directly. For example, often small-scale fishing communities lack access to services. We had basic services such as education or health services, social protection. And in many cases, women are particularly disadvantaged in relation to access to these services. For example, women that are involved in harvesting or in processing of fish in small-scale fisheries, they often do not know where to leave their children while they are at work because there's no childcare facility in many of these villages. And there are 45 million women that are engaged in small-scale fisheries around the world. Another set of challenges relates to the value chains and the markets. Often there's limited infrastructure to connect to markets. The processing and storage facilities are not adequate to bring the product to the market in a state that allows it to then fetch good prices and to benefit from the value chain. Often small-scale fishers and fish workers are also not well organized. So, they become more subject to power imbalances along the value chain where they have to be price takers. Now they have to accept what is offered. That also relates often to a lack of transparency in relation to market information. And of course, then we have another set of challenges that are coming from climate change that are becoming more and more important. And from other types of disasters also. One thing that brings together all these challenges, or makes them worse, is often the lack of representative structures and also institutional structures that allow for participation in relevant decision making or management processes. So that small-scale fishers and fish workers don't even have an opportunity to flag their needs or to propose solutions. So, FAO has facilitated a process to develop Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries in the Context of Food security and Poverty Eradication. Quite a mouthful of a name. In short, we call them small-scale fisheries guidelines. In which all the major challenges in a way are compiled in one document together with guidance on how to address them. And these guidelines are the result of a participatory development process. So, they are really informed by the involvement of fishing communities from around the world, but also other stakeholders. And they have been agreed on and have been endorsed by the almost 200 members of the FAO. We are now working with countries, with the small-scale fishing communities around the world, with other partners, including Duke University, to help implement these small-scale fisheries guidelines. Norbert - Oh, this is really fascinating and it's important work. I'm intrigued with the participatory process. How are small-scale fisher organizations involved in this? Are you working with different organizations? Or is this more individuals who are just interested in this issue coming to the fore? This is through organizations at all levels. Be it at the national level where we are, for example, facilitating the formation of new women organizations in a number of African countries. Be it at the regional level, in particular in Africa, there are existing structures in the context of the African union, which has established so called non state actor platforms for fisheries and aquaculture, which we are supporting in order to bring their voice into the processes and to facilitate peer learning. And then there's a number of global social movements and producer organizations for small-scale fisheries that we are working with and using them as a facilitator to involve as many as possible. And gather as much insight that is coming from the membership of those organizations to then bring into global, regional, national processes from our side. Norbert - This is really important to hear how different forms of governance and at different levels are playing a part in developing these guidelines. Thank you for sharing that, Nicole. I'd like to turn to you, John. You have more than 20 years of experience in studying and advising government policies to regulate human use of the oceans. With a particular focus on marine conservation practices. How has your thinking about marine conservation changed over the last 20 years? John - Yeah, it's changed a bit. As you mentioned, my interest in work has been on ocean conservation and how it can alleviate poverty. A lot of times that has meant managing fisheries to address poverty. And I think in the past, that meant that I was really focused on what governments could do to increase the efficiency of fisheries. The economic efficiency. How do we increase incomes, how do you increase revenues for communities? All very important, but for all the reasons that Nicole mentioned, I spend a lot more time now thinking about the process rather than the outcomes, and thinking about what institutions are in place, or can be created, to help empower small-scale fishing communities to have much more of a voice in the decisions that affect them. In how the resources are used. How the space is used. And Nicole outlined really well a lot of the challenges that are facing communities from increased industrialization of ocean use to the squeeze from climate change and the effect on resources. And even the fact that climate change may be driving people to the oceans. I mean, as farms and agricultures maybe fail or face challenges, oceans are often open access, and can even be a sink for people to make a livelihood. And so, yet more pressures coming from outside these fisheries. How can fishers have a greater voice in making the decisions that impact them and safeguarding their livelihoods? Norbert - Thank you for that. I'm interested in understanding how do these fisher folks, who are trying to organize and are organizing, how does that interact with sort of larger markets? I mean, I would imagine a number of these folks are catching fish and other seafood that goes into global markets. What's the interaction or challenges that may happen there? John - As Nicole mentioned, because small-scale fisheries are so diverse you have markets in many places. These may be located near an urban center where you can have easy access. You can get fresh fish in a cooler and put it on a plane and off it goes to an export market. We found that, what may be surprised us, is a significant number of small-scale fishers are exporting in some cases. So, then that can be challenging because you might get higher prices, which is a good thing. But it might drive, for example, more fishing effort. It might drive higher levels of exploitation. It might change traditional practices, traditional rules for fisheries. It might really change how fishers organize in a given place. So, the access to export markets, even say an island setting, has kind of scrambled past fisheries management in some places and can be an outside force. Kerilyn - John and Nicole, I want to ask you both a question now about painting a picture of these communities that you're working with. You both mentioned how diverse small-scale fisheries can be. I was wondering if you could just share what one community in particular looks like that you've worked with? What are the challenges that a particular community faces, or alternatively, where do you see things actually working well? So Nicole, could I ask you to respond first? Nicole - I'm working more with global processes and the global level. So, through that, I have the privilege of working with representatives from many, many communities. So maybe what I can share is the feedback that I'm getting through that, in terms of the change that we can observe, and that is affecting fishing communities around the world. I think one thing that is being brought up as a concern by many is what I mentioned before. It's a process of aging in fishing communities and often a lack of capacity to retain young people in the sector. And that has different reasons. Now there are all of these challenges that small-scale fisheries have to face and that are difficult to overcome. So, that often drives people, in particular young men, to leave the communities. Or within the communities, to look for other alternative livelihoods now and not to take on the skills of fishermen or getting engaged in small-scale fisheries more broadly. So, in some cases, yes, it's not only other activities within the community, but really leaving the community and leaving in some cases also the country. What we see there is that sometimes people that have the skills, maybe still as a fisher, they have tried to fish. So, they have a knowledge of fishing. They emigrate out into other countries. And in some cases they are then hired into industrial fisheries where they work on industrial boats that go out fishing for longer periods of time. But where they at times end up in situations that can be called slave labor, basically, that are subject to serious violations of human rights. And that is in a way generated by this vulnerability to the poverty that is still there in those communities. The lack of being able to make a living, a decent work in the fishing community. So, that is something that we have seen is happening. We have also seen that in some cases, there's an involvement of fishers into say more illegal activities, be it in drug trafficking, be it also into the trafficking of people. I'm thinking even about the Mediterranean. I'm working out of Italy, Rome. We have a lot of immigration from North African countries, for example, coming through that route. And oftentimes it happens that the transport of migrants is actually carried out by fishers and their boats because they have the skill to navigate the sea. And they make a better living by transporting illegal migrants than going fishing. So, those are some of the challenges we hear. And the other one is there in relation to what is now a concept that is getting more and more traction. It's often known as the blue economy, which is, in a way, looking at the ocean as the last frontier for economic development. And that includes on the one hand, the expansion of previously existing industries, such as tourism. But also the expansion of newer sectors such as alternative energy production. Think wind parks now in coastal areas. So, what happens here is that in many cases, this adds again, additional pressure on the available maritime space. In the water and on the land. The expansion of marine aquaculture is another example. So, that also is something that we hear is becoming an issue for small-scale fishing communities to defend the space that they need to maintain their lifestyle. Kerilyn - John, is there anything you'd like to add on this question of how fisheries are changing? John - Very, very briefly. Taking the example in West Africa where I've spent some time over the years, you certainly have some communities there where it actually doesn't seem as if the fisheries are changing as much in the sense it's quite static and stagnant. And this could be caused by a lot of the reasons that Nicole mentioned, but the community, the economy, the fisheries aren't growing. People, young people may be leaving for a number of reasons, but it doesn't have to be that way either. I mean, there are positive examples. I was in Liberia last week, and there, from the numbers that the government has, small-scale fishing communities are growing. The number of fishers are growing. They've actually made a conscious effort to protect a certain area of the ocean just for small-scale fisheries. And to prohibit trawling and to give the communities more space to grow and operate in the 20 years since the conflict ended there. So, again, it doesn't have to be sort of stagnant or grinding on in some of these communities as they cope with competition for resources, for example, competition for space from others. Where they were given that space, in some cases in Liberia, they've grown. That may have its own challenges but. Kerilyn - Interesting. In the back of my mind, when thinking about these communities and aging and migration of younger generations away from these livelihoods, you know, as someone who studies the relationship between migration and development, I think it's a common trend where, you know, as countries develop, young people leave traditional economic activities. They get more educated, they move to cities, they move abroad. To what degree is this somehow just part of these countries' development? Should we expect young people to be leaving them? And to what degree might we think differently about development in a way that would enable more young people to stay? And I think, John, you mentioned a really interesting point about how protecting the space For these small-scale fisheries to operate is one thing that seems to have kept people engaged in this livelihood. I'd be curious if there's other things that come up for you. Other ways of thinking about enhancing the capability to stay in small-scale fishing livelihoods. John - Sure, and I'd be curious what Nicole's seeing from her perspective. I think, to some extent, it's a different question if small-scale fisheries are economically viable. And so, what I think Nicole and I are referring to in many cases is where for a lot of these external pressures upon them, they may not be as viable as they once were. And that has its own push on people, whereas where fishers are empowered, they have more of a voice in what happens to the fisheries and controlling those spaces and resources, and it can be more economically viable in these fisheries. That presents a different set of choices for young people then. So that's where we've really focused is: okay, what is the process by which small-scale fishing communities have their voices heard more, have much more of a say and much more power in the use of the fisheries, the use of the coastal areas, the things that affect those fisheries and their livelihoods? And then we can see what those choices might look like. But Nicole, I'm not sure if that's consistent with what you've seen in a number of places. Nicole - Yes, and maybe to also rebalance a bleak picture I painted before. Like John said, there are obviously good examples. I think an important condition is probably a linkage to markets. Non-economic viability in many ways does play a role. And there are examples of how that can happen in different ways. For example, in Morocco, the country has made quite a significant investment to build a whole series of ports for small-scale fisheries. Specifically, along the entire coastline of Morocco where they are providing a port that is not just a landing site for small-scale fisheries, but it provides like a system of integrated services. There's an auction hall. So, the fish comes in, it's immediately kind of weighted. They get the information, the label for what they have brought in, then it goes into an auction that has set rules and everybody is tied to. But in that same area, for example, there's also a bank or there is an office that helps with the access to social protection services, for example. So, it's a whole integrated service center, and that really makes a difference to help make the sector more efficient. But at the same time, also really keep the tradition. So, it's not only economic efficiency, but by having all these different centers, it allows to maintain many people employed and to also maintain the characteristics of each of those different lending sites. That's one example. I was in Korea last year and there, they were doing something similar. They are reviving some of their traditional fishing villages where they are also investing in those fishing communities and providing them with funding to set up, for example, restaurants that are run directly by those involved in the fishery. Those are particular places that are close to cities. In my case, I was in Busan. So, it's very closely connected to the consumers now that come out there. They are focusing on certain products in these villages that they are famous for traditionally. They have little shops and they're starting e-commerce for some of the products. So, the way they package, and the label has become much, much wider than before. So again, that has revived a bit those communities. In Italy, it's a country that's famous for its food, you know. And they are in the region that's called the Amalfi coast. There's a tiny village and it's famous for the production of a value-added product made from tiny sardines that are fished by the small-scale fisheries boats. And they are processed in a very particular way. And there is like a label of geographic origin of this product, and it can only come from that village. And it has a high price and has it's like a high-end product, so to say. And in a way these are also approaches that provide dignity to this profession. And a sense of pride which is really important and should not be underestimated in also increasing the willingness, for example, of young people to be part of that and maintain the viability of the sector. John – I'd like to just add, I think that's a really important point on the dignity and pride and the importance of these fisheries in so many places and cultures. I mean, I'll never forget talking to a minister of finance in one country and starting to try to make the economic case for supporting small-scale fisheries. He cut me off in about 30 seconds and started talking about growing up fishing in the village and going back home for vacations, and just the importance to the entire community of fishing to him and just how much it was a part of the fabric of the culture. Kerilyn - I love that. That does seem so important and wonderful to hear those very specific examples that do give some hope. It's not just a bleak future. Norbert - You know, it's great to hear how government policy is helping shape and reshape these fisheries in a way that allow for economic viability and also these are opportunities to connect communities to these traditions. And so, I find that really fascinating. I want to kind of push a little bit beyond that and bring back the idea of how to deal with climate that was mentioned earlier. And also change our focus from government policy to sort of what's happening within these small-scale fisheries and fishery organizations. So Nicole, a lot of your work focuses on building more inclusive policy processes and stakeholder engagement. And so, from your perspective, how does community-led climate adaptation, rather than top down adaptation agendas, lead to different outcomes? Nicole - Well, I think one way that seems quite obvious, how community-led adaptation can lead to different outcomes is simply that in that case, the traditional and the indigenous knowledge that is within those communities will be considered much more strongly. And this is something that can be really critical to crafting solutions for that very site-specific context. Because the impact of the climate change can be very different in every region and every locality not due to that specific environment that it's encountering there. And holding the knowledge and being able to observe the changes and then adapt to them is something that certainly a community-based approach has an advantage over something that would be a coming from a more centralized top down, a little bit more one-size-fits-all approach. And this can then imply little things like, for example, if the water temperature changes, we see a change in the fish behavior. Now we see how certain stocks start to move to different environments and others are coming in. So, the communities obviously need to adapt to that. And they do that automatically. Now, if it changes, they adapt their gear, they adapt to the new species that is there. So, in many cases, there are solutions that are already happening, and adaptations that are already happening that may not carry that label, that name. But if you look at it, it is really what is happening, no? Or you can see in some cases, that for example, there are initiatives that are coming also spontaneously from the communities to replant mangrove forests, where you can observe that there is a rising seawater level that is threatening the communities and where they have their houses, where they have their daily lives. Now, you can see that through NGOs and often there is support projects for that. But you can also see it happening more spontaneously when communities observe that change. So, the top-down approaches often they lack that more nuanced, site-specific considerations in their approaches and the consideration of that specific knowledge. On the other hand, it needs to be said though, that the top-down approaches can also play an important role. For example, countries develop their national adaptation plans. And those plans are usually, you know, developed at a higher level, at the central level. And often fisheries and aquaculture are not necessarily included in those plans. So that is something where the top-down level can play a very important role and really make a difference for small-scale fisheries by ensuring that fisheries and aquaculture are included in a sector. So, I guess that in the end, as always, it's not black and white. No, it's something that we need to take into account both of it and have any climate change adaptation approach to small-scale fisheries being grounded in both. And have a way to bridge the top down and the bottom-up approaches. Norbert - I really like this idea of bridging between the top down and the bottom-up approaches, understanding the local knowledge that's there. I would imagine that's also knowledge that when used to make decisions makes it easier for people to stick with those decisions, because it's a part of their voice. It's who they are. And then the other side, it's critical to make sure that those plans are a part of a larger national move, because if the government is not involved, if those higher-level decision makers are not involved, they can easily overlook the needs of those communities. I really appreciate hearing that. I think sometimes we hear this tension. It needs to be one or the other. And you're making a really compelling point about how it has to be integrated. John, I'm really intrigued to see from your perspective. How do you see this top down versus bottom-up approach working in the work you've done? John - I'll do what I typically do is echo and agree with Nicole, but just to give an example that I love. I teach this one in my classes. There's an old paper by Bob Johannes, a marine ecologist. And the standard practice in managing fisheries as government scientists is you count the fish, you then set limits for them, often from the top down. And his point was in the case of Indonesia, if you look at the reef fisheries that go through most of the communities, one tool to assess the fish stocks is to do a visual census. You swim transects along the reefs and you count the fish. So, he did a back of the envelope estimate and he said, well, if you're going to do that through all the reefs throughout Indonesia, it would probably be finished in about 400 years. And that would give you one snapshot. So, he's saying you can't do this. You have to rely on the local knowledge in these communities. I don't want to romanticize traditional knowledge too much, but I just can't imagine how policies would effectively support adaptation in these communities without building upon this traditional ecological knowledge. Kerilyn - John, since coming to Duke from the World Bank, you've regularly collaborated with non-academic partners like the FAO as well as the UN environmental program. Can you tell us more about how your partnership with the FAO and your work with Nicole more specifically began? John - Sure. I think more than anything, I got really lucky. But when I first came to Duke, I started working with a colleague, Professor Xavier Basurto at the Marine Lab, who I think is one of the world's leading scholars on how communities come together to manage common resources like fish stocks. We organized a workshop at Duke on small-scale fisheries. We got talking to Nicole, invited her and some of her colleagues at FAO to that workshop, together with others, to think about a way forward for small-scale fisheries for philanthropy. And I think from those conversations started to see the need to build a global evidence base on how important these fisheries are in society. And Nicole could probably say it better, but from there, she and colleagues said, you know, maybe you all could work with us. We're planning to do this study to build this evidence base and maybe we could collaborate. And I think we're very fortunate that Duke gives the space for that kind of engaged research and allows us to do it. I don't think we knew how long it would be when we started, Nicole. But over five years and 800 researchers later, we - Javier, Nicole, myself, and so many others - concluded with this global study that we hope does have a little bit clearer picture on the role of these fisheries in society. Kerilyn - Nicole, from your side, what does an academic partner bring to the table? What's your motivation for partnering with someone like John or Duke University more specifically. Well, I think as FAO, we like to call ourselves a knowledge organization, but we're not an academic institution. We don't conduct research ourselves, no? So, we need to partner around that. We work with the policy makers though. So, one of our roles, in a way, is to build that. To broker and improve the science policy interface. So, this is why collaboration with academia research for us is very important. And what we experienced in this particular collaboration with Duke University to produce this study called Illuminating Hidden Harvest, the Contributions of Small-scale Fisheries to Sustainable Development was really that first we realized we have a shared vision, shared objectives. And I think that's fundamental. Now, you need to make sure that you have the same values, how you approach these things. And in this case, it aligned very well that we really wanted to take in a way, a human-centered and multidimensional approach to look at small-scale fisheries. And then it was also very important to understand what every partner brings to the table, no? The different strengths that we have. And then based on that, define the roles and what everybody's doing in a project. And the added value for us was certainly the capacity from the Duke University side to help develop the method that we develop for the country case studies that we conducted in 58 countries. And not only to develop that method, but then we had a postdoc at Duke University for this project, who was actually then engaging with all of the people. People in these 58 countries. And, and she was. coaching them in that methodology, actually in three languages, which was quite amazing. It was very, very thorough. We could not have done that. And we had a lot of other students from Duke University that helped us once we had the data gathered. To then screen that data, harmonize that data, clean that data, obviously under the leadership of John, Xavier and other colleagues, no? So that was really something that was adding a lot of value and actually also helped us to get to know a lot of the students from Duke. And some of those then ended up also becoming consultants working with us more broadly on small-scale fisheries. So that was certainly great, great value for FAO as collaboration. BIOS Nicole Franz, Equitable Livelihoods Team Leader, Fisheries and Aquaculture Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN. Nicole is a development economist with 18 years of experience in intergovernmental organizations. She holds a Master in International Cooperation and Project Design from University La Sapienza, Rome and a Master in Economic and Cultural Cooperation and Human Rights in the Mediterranean Region. From 2003 to 2008 she was a consultant for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). In 2009-10 she was Fishery Planning Analyst at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris, focusing on fisheries certification. Since 2011 she works for the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Division where she coordinates the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines) with a focus on inclusive policy processes and stakeholder empowerment. Since 2021 she leads the Equitable Livelihoods team.  John Virdin is director of the Oceans Program at the Duke University Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability. He has a total of over twenty years' experience in studying and advising government policies to regulate human use of the oceans, particularly marine conservation policies to reduce poverty throughout the tropics. His focus has been largely on managing fisheries for food and livelihoods, expanding to broader ocean-based economic development policies, coastal adaptation and more recently reducing ocean plastic pollution. He directs the Oceans Program at the Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability, aiming to connect Duke University's science and ideas to help policymakers solve ocean sustainability problems. He has collaborated in this effort with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the United Nations Environment Program, as well as regional organizations such as the Abidjan Convention secretariat, the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission of West Africa and the Parties to the Nauru Agreement for tuna fisheries management in the Western Pacific. He co-created and teaches an introductory course for undergraduate students to understand the role of ocean policy in helping solve many of society's most pressing development challenges on land. His work has been published in books, edited volumes and a number of professional journals, including Nature Ecology and Evolution, Ecosystem Services, Environment International, Fish and Fisheries and Marine Policy, as well as contributing to China Dialogue, The Conversation, the Economist Intelligence Unit, and The Hill.    

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.

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.

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.

Anthony Diana and Karim Alhassan are joined by Lighthouse's John Collins to discuss Microsoft's AI-driven productivity tool, Copilot. This episode presents an overview of Copilot and its various use cases, the technical nuances and details differentiating it from other generative AI tools, the identified compliance gaps and challenges currently seen in production, and the various risks legal departments should be aware of and accounting for. This episode also provides a high-level overview of best practices that legal and business teams should consider as they continue to explore, pilot and roll out Copilot, including enhanced access controls, testing and user-training, which our speakers will further expand upon in future episodes. ----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 here in the Emerging Technologies Group at Reed Smith. Welcome to Tech Law Talks. Today will be the first part of a series with Lighthouse focusing on what legal departments need to know about Copilot, Microsoft's new artificial intelligence tool. With me today are John Collins from Lighthouse and Karim Alhassan from Reed Smith. Thanks guys for joining. So today, we really just want to give legal departments sort of at a very high level what they need to know about Copilot. As we know Copilot was just introduced, I guess like last fall, maybe November of last year by Microsoft. It has been in preview and the like and then a lot of a lot of organizations are at least contemplating the use of Copilot or some of them, I've, I've heard have already launched Copilot without the legal departments knowing which is an issue in of itself. So today, we just want to give a high level view of what Copilot is, what it does at a really high level. And then what are the things that legal department should be thinking about in terms of risks that they have to manage when launching Copilot? This will be of a high level of additional series, which will be a little bit more practical in terms of what legal department should actually be doing. So today is just sort of highlighting what the risks are and what you should be thinking about. So with that John, I'll start with you. Can you just give a very high level preview of what, what is Copilot that's being launched?  John: Sure, thanks Anthony for having me. So Copilot for M365 which is what we're talking about is Microsoft's flagship Generative AI product. And the best way to think about it is it's Microsoft which has a partnership with open AI is taken the ubiquitous ChatGPT and they've brought it into the Microsoft ecosystem. They've integrated it with all the different Microsoft applications that business people use like Word Excel, powerpoint and teams. And you can ask Copilot to draft a document for you to summarize a document for you. So again, the best way, think about it is that it's taking that generative AI technology that everyone is familiar with, with ChatGPT and bringing it into the Microsoft ecosystem and leveraging a number of other Microsoft technologies within the Microsoft environment to make this kind of a platform available to the business people.  Anthony: Yeah. And I think, you know, I think from at least from what Microsoft is saying and I think a lot of our clients are saying that this is, this is groundbreaking, this is going to be and frankly, it's probably going to be the largest and most influential AI tool Enterprise has because Microsoft is ubiquitous, right? Like all your data is flowing through there. So using AI in this way, should provide tons of productivity. Obviously, that's the big sell. But it is obviously everyone, if they get licenses for everybody, this is something that's going to impact I think most organizations pretty highly just because it is, you know, if you're using Microsoft M365 you're going to be dealing with AI and you know, sort of on a personal level, large scale and the like, and I think that's one of the challenges we'll see. So Karim could you just give a little bit? I mean, John gave a very nice overview just in terms of a few things that he said in terms of we've got this ChatGPT, what is it that's unique about Microsoft in terms of how it works from a from a technology perspective because I know a lot of people are saying I don't want people using ChatGPT for work.  Karim: Sure, thanks Anthony. You know, as opposed to kind of these publicly web based ChatGPT tools, the I think the big sell and what makes Copilot unique is that it's grounded in, you know, your enterprise data, right? And so essentially it integrates with the Microsoft graph, you know, so which allows, you know, users within the enterprise to leverage their M365 data, which adds context. And so rather than just going to, you know, GPT-4, which is, you know, as everyone knows, trained on publicly available data and has its own issues, you know, hallucinations and whatnot. You know, having this unique enterprise specific data kind of adding context to inputs and outputs, you know, leads to more efficiency. You know, another big thing and, and a big issue that legal departments are, you know, obviously thinking about is that having this data input into the tool, you know, one of the problems is that you're worried that it can, you know, train the underlying models. With Copilot, you know, that's not happening, you know, the instance of the LLM in which the tool is relying on is within your surface boundary. And so, you know, that kind of gives protections that you wouldn't necessarily have when you know, people are kind of just using these publicly available tools and So, you know, that's, I think that the big differentiating factor with Copilot as opposed to, you know, GPT-4,  ChatGPT and, you know, kind of these other public tools.  Anthony: And I think that's critical and John, obviously I'll let you sort of expand on that too, but I do think that's a critical piece because I know a lot of people are uncomfortable using these large language models, like you said, they're public. The way Microsoft built this product is you get your, in essence your own version. So if you get a license, you're getting your own version of it and it's inside your tenant. So it doesn't go outside sort of your firewalls, not technically a firewall, but it's in your tenant. Um And I think that's critical and I think that gives a lot of people comfort. Um And at least that's what Microsoft is saying.  John: Yeah, just a, just a couple of things to point out is some folks might be familiar with or heard about that their Microsoft has this responsible AI framework where if you are using Azure Open AI tools and you're building your own custom uh ChatGPT but using the Microsoft or the Azure Open AI version of ChatGPT, this responsible AI framework. There is, Microsoft is actually retaining prompts and responses and a human being is monitoring those prompts and responses. But that's in the context of a custom development that an organization might do. Copilot for M365 actually opted out of that. And so to Karim and Anthony's point, Microsoft's not retaining the prompts for Copilot, the responses, they're not using the data to retrain the model. So there's that whole thing. The second thing I just want to point out is that you do have the ability with Copilot from 365 to have plugins and one of the plugins is that when you're chatting in Microsoft teams using the chat application, you have the option to actually send prompts out to the internet to further ground. Karim talked about grounding information in your organization's data. So there are some considerations around configuration. Do you want to allow that to happen? You know, there's still data protection there. But those are a couple of things that come to mind on this topic.  Anthony: Yeah, and look, and I think this is critical and I, I agree with you. I think that's one of the, there is a lot of, I don't say dangers, but there's a lot of risks associated with Copilot. And I think as you said, you really have to go through the settings to make sure that is one that I think we've been advising clients at least to turn off for now just because, and, and just to give, we give clarity here, I think we, we're talking about prompts and responses. A prompt is in essence, a, a question, right? It could be summarized the document or you can type in, you know, give me a recipe for blueberry muffins, right? You can type anything. It's a question through Copilot. So it's an app, you make that question. When we talk about grounding, right? I think this is an important concept for people to understand when you're grounding on a document. So for example, if you want to summarize a a document, right? We have a or a transcript of a meeting, right? Like OK, I want to summarize it. My understanding of the way it works is when you press summarize a document, what you're really doing is telling the tool to look at the document, use the language in that document to create, I'll call it a better prompt or question that has more context. Then that goes to the large language model which is again inside the tenant and then that will basically give you an answer. But it's really just saying the answer is this is the likely next word is the best way to describe it. It's about probability and the like so it doesn't know anything. It is just when you're grounding it in a document or your own enterprise data, all you're doing is basically asking better questions of this large language model. That's my understanding of it. I know people have different types of descriptions, but that's the way I think the best way to think about it. Um And then and again, this is where we start talking about confidentiality. Like why people are a little concerned about it going public, you know, to the public part is that those questions, right are gonna take potentially confidential information, whatever and send it to this outside model if it wasn't Copilot, be out there. And this is true with a lot of a a tools and you may not have control like John that of who's looking at it. Are they storing it there? How long? And they're storing it? You know, is it, is it secure all that stuff? That's the type of stuff that we normally worry about. However, here, because the way Copilot is, you know, built, some of those concerns are are less. Although as you pointed out John, there are features that you can go to the internet which could cause those same concerns any other flavor, Karim or John that you want to give again. That's my description of how it works.  John: But yeah, no, the thing I was gonna say, no, I think you gave a great description of the grounding. Um Karim had brought up the the graph. So the graph is something which is underlies your Microsoft 365 tenant. And Karim alluded to this earlier and essentially when the business people in your organization are communicating back and forth, sharing documents as links, they're chatting in Microsoft teams sending emails. This graph is a database that essentially collects all of that activity, you know, it, it knows that you're sharing documents with. So and so and that becomes one of the ways that Microsoft surfaces information for the grounding that Anthony alluded to. So how does it, how does Copilot know to look at a particular document or know that a document exists on a particular topic about blueberry muffins or whatever, you know, in part that's based on the graph and that's something that can scare a lot of people because it it tends to show that documents are being overshared or people are sharing information in a way that they shouldn't be. So that's another issue. I think Anthony, Karim that we're seeing people talk about.  Anthony: Yeah. And that is that is a key point. I mean, the way that Microsoft explains it is copilot is very individualistic, I'll say so if it's it's based and when you're talking about all the information could be grounded and it's based on the information that someone has access to. And this is, and I think John, this is the point you were saying as we start going through these risk, one of the big challenges, I think a lot of organizations are now seeing is Copilot's exposing, as you noted, bad access controls is the best way to describe it, right? Like in a lot of people M365 there's not a focus on it. So because people may have more access than they need when you're using Copilot it really does expose that. I think that's probably one of the biggest risks that we're seeing and big, the biggest challenges um that we're talking to our clients about because, because it, it is limited to the access that the person has. There's a presumption that that person only has access to what they should have. And I think we all know now that's not the case. Um And I think that's one of the big dangers and we'll talk about this and she episodes about how do you deal with that specific risk. Um But again, I think as we talked about it, that is one of the big risks that legal departments have to think about is, you know, you should be talking to your IT folks and saying what access controls do we have in place. And the like, because that is one of the big issues that um people have so to give you, you know, highlight it, you have highly confidential information within your organization. You know, if people are using Copilot, that could be a bad thing because suddenly they can ask questions and get answers based on highly confidential information that they shouldn't be getting. So it, it is one of the, the big challenge that we have. One thing I want to talk about, Karim, before we get into a little bit more on the risks is sort of the product level differences. And we talk about copilot as if it's one product, but I think as we've heard and seen there's sort of different flavors, I guess of Copilot.  Karim: Sure. Uh Yeah, so as Anthony noted, um, you know, Copilot is an embedded tool within the, you know, 365 suite. And so, you know, you're gonna have Copilot for word Copilot for Powerpoint. And so there are different, you know, tools and, and there's different functionality within, you know, whatever product you're working within. And that of course, is going to affect, you know, one the artifacts that are created uh some of the prompts that you're able to use and leverage. And so it's not as simple as just thinking as Copilot as this unified, you know, product because there are going to be different configurations. And I'm sure Anthony will, will speak to this, you know, we've kind of noted that even some of the configurations around where these things are stored, you know, there are certain gaps depending on whether you're using Outlook for example. And so, you know, you really have to dig into these product specific configurations because it, you know, the risks do vary. And just to, to kind of add and uh John kind of point to this, there is, you know, one version of Copilot, which is 365 Chat I believe is what it's called. And that is the probably the most efficient uh from a product perspective because it can leverage data across the user um you know, personal graph. And so again, bigger risks may be there than if you were looking at just kind of Excel. So, you know, definitely product specific functionalities change. And so food for thought on that point.  Anthony: And John, I don't know if you've done lighthouse has done testing on each of these different applications, but what we've seen our clients do is actually test each application, you know, so we have Copilot for word Copilot for Excel. Copilot for teams and stuff because as Karim said, we have seen issues with each, I don't know if you've seen anything specific that you want to raise.  John: Yeah, well, I think you guys bring up some really good points. I think um the like for example, Outlook, the prompts actually don't get captured as, as an artifact versus in Word and Excel and Powerpoint. But then we're also seeing some interesting things in our testing. So we're, we're ongoing, we're doing ongoing testing. But when it comes to meeting summaries and the difference between recapping a meeting that only has a transcript versus a meeting that has a full recording and the artifacts that get generated between the different types of meeting summaries, whether it's a recap or a full what they call AI notes. So that we're seeing some, some, some the meeting recaps aren't being captured 100% verbatim. So there's a lot of variability there. I think the key thing is that you pointed out, Anthony is you got to do testing, you've got to test, you've got to get comfortable that, you know, what artifacts are being generated and, and where they stored and whether you can preserve, collect all of those things.  Anthony: Yeah. And, and I think one of the things that um I'm gonna talk a little bit about this generally and John, I'm sure you're saying the same thing is prompts and responses, or at least Microsoft is saying prompts and responses are generally stored in all these applications in a hidden folder in your um in a person's outlook, right? So their their mailbox, as we noted and Karim noted for whatever reason, outlooks prompts and responses aren't being saved there. Although I'm told that that fix is coming in may have been even this week so that there was a gap, obviously, it came out in November. So there's still gaps and I think, you know, as is true, everyone's doing testing, John's doing like Lighthouse is doing testing. I'm sure you're talking to Microsoft note these gaps, they're filling in the gaps. So it is a new product. So that's one of the risks that everyone has to deal with is if anybody telling you this is the way it works may not be absolutely correct because you have to test and certainly you can't really rely on the the documentation that Microsoft has because they're improving the product probably faster than their updating their documentation. So that's another challenge that we've seen. So, test, test test is really important. Um So I just think some things to think about. Okay, we're almost out of time. So we're getting too much in the risk. But I think we've already talked about at a high level, some of the risks as we've talked about, there's the confidentiality and access issues that you should be thinking about retention and over retention we'll get into later. But there is obviously a risk. A lot of litigation teams are saying I don't want to keep this around. People are asking these questions, getting responses, they not be accurate. From a litigation perspective, they don't want it around. There's not business case for it, business use for it. Um because usually when you're doing this and like, you know, you're asking to help draft an email or whatever, you're probably doing something with that data, even meeting transcripts. If you get, you know, a recap, some people are copying and pasting it somewhere just to keep it. But generally the idea is the the output of Copilot is usually sort of short term. So that's generally been the approach I think most people are taking um and to get rid of it, but it's not easy to do because it's Microsoft. And so that's, that's one of the risks. And I think as we talked about, there's going to be the discovery risks, John, right? Like we're talking about, can we preserve it. There may be instances you can or can't. And that's where the outlook thing becomes an issue. As I think Karim noted hallucinations or accuracy is a huge risk. It should be better. Right. As I think Karim said, because it's grounded in your data, it should be better than just sort of general. Um, but there's still risks, right and there's a reputational risk associated with it if, if someone's relying on a summary of a meeting and they don't look at it carefully, that's obviously gonna be a risk, particularly if they circulate that this was said. So a lot of things to think about. At a high level, you know, Karim and John, let, let's conclude, what are one of the risks that you're seeing that? Do you think legal department should be thinking about other than what I just said?  John: Yeah. Well, I think that um one of the things that legal departments seem to be struggling with, I'm sure you guys are hearing this, is that what about the content itself being tagged or labeled as created by generative AI? There, there's actually some areas in M365 like meeting summaries will say generated by AI. But then there's other areas like a word document was completely, you know, the person creates a document. They do, they do a very light touch review of it. The documents essentially 99% generative AI, you know, a lot of companies are asking, well, can we get metadata or some kind of way to mark something is having been created by? So that's one of the things that in addition to all the issues that you highlighted Anthony that we're hearing companies bring up.  Anthony: Yeah, Karim, anything anything else from, from your perspective?  Karim: Sure. Yeah, I think one big issue that, you know, and I'm sure we'll talk about this in future uh episodes is, you know, with this kind of emergence of, you know, this AI functionality, there's a tendency on behalf of users, you know, to, to heavily rely on the outputs. And I know a lot of people kind of talk about human in the loop. And so, you know, I heard somebody say, uh you know, these are called Copilots for a reason and not autopilot. And so the training aspect, you know, really needs to be ingrained because when people do sit and rely on these outputs as if they're, you know, foolproof, you know, you can run into operational reputational, um you know, risks. And so I think that's, that's one thing we're seeing that, you know, the training is going to, you know, be integral.  Anthony: Yeah, and I think the other thing that I'll finalize this just to think about and this is really important for legal departments, think about privilege, right? If you're using Copilot for and it's using privileged information, I know I've heard a number of GCs say my biggest concern is waiver of privilege because you may not know that you're using Copilot against privileged information. That's summarizing an answer which is basically privilege, but you don't know it and then it circulated broadly and stuff. So again, there's a lot to consider, I think as we've talked about, it's really about training and access controls and really understanding the issues. And like I said, in future episodes, uh with Lighthouse, we'll be talking about some of the risks more specifically and then what can you do to mitigate those risks? Because I think that's really what this is gonna be about is mitigating risks and understand the issues. So well thanks to John and Karim. I hope this was helpful. Like I said, we'll have future podcasts, but thanks everyone for joining and hopefully we'll listen soon.  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 podcast 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.

Allen   Welcome passive traders. Welcome to another edition of the Option Genius Podcast. Today, I am here with someone that's going to blow your mind. I'll give you his name, you probably haven't heard from him. But what he says is going to make a big difference for you. So John S. Pennington Jr. in 2008, co founded a family of private investment funds that by 2021 had over $28 billion of assets under management and completed a successful IPO on the New York Stock Exchange. John then retired that same year but remains a significant stakeholder and is now partner Emeritus at the company. He has been married 38 years with three sons, five grandchildren, and he recently wrote a book which we're going to be talking about called Dollars, Gold, and Bitcoin. It's right here, I could not put it down, you can find it on Amazon and Audible. You guys need to get a copy of this book, because we are not going to be able to talk about everything in this book on this interview. John, thank you so much for being here. John   Allen, so good to be here. Thanks for having me. Allen   So now I have done. I have heard you speak in the past. And so a few podcasts, I don't should have looked at the episode, but it's one of the past episodes called billionaire lessons. I have talked a little bit and gone over some of the things that you presented on which were covered in your book as well. So it was one of our most popular episodes, really happy that you're here. I just want to get into it. So the book is titled dollars gold and Bitcoin. Now I've already you know, talked about your successful guy you're doing well. Why did you write this book?  John   When I retired, some people asked me to speak on stage. And I, you know, I didn't charge them. And I just went to these masterminds and I thought, What do I want to talk about? And, you know, I just I looked at what everyone else talks about. And I thought, well, I got to talk about something different. So I started talking about economics and the Federal Reserve and the strength of the dollar and how, you know, the dollar is just a fantastic product worldwide. And I actually, you know, followed the Federal Reserve and how they promoted the US dollar over the years, and how they nudged people to make their product more acceptable around the world. And I kind of used that formula. In my company, or me and my partner's company, as we grew, we kind of use the same type of tactics that the Federal Reserve and the US government has used over the years to promote their number one product, which is the US dollar.  And so so it's kind of a, it's kind of reflection of my business history. But it's also a reflection of how I studied and watched the the greatest product ever become the greatest product ever. How did it get there, and then I just kind of wanted to learn from the best. So I just kind of use those tactics with me and my partners to kind of push our business kind of the same way. So that's why I kind of wrote it.  Allen   Cool. Now, you know, the first time I heard you speak, I've heard you speak twice. And the first time and second time, I'm listening to you, and you are taking these what seemed to be very random events around the world. Yes. It's like, Oh, this guy said this, made this comment. And then this person visited this country, and then nothing happened. And then that happened. And then you took all of these to me, they were just random, you know, like watching the news. You story after story. But you took them and you whoa, this intricate, detailed story that linked them all together. And I'm like, Whoa, how does this guy think like this? how do you how do you come up with this? , John   I don't I don't know. I just I just I think as an entrepreneur my whole life, I started my, well, my career, but when I was a young man, I just was really slow reader. I wasn't a good, I wasn't a good student. And I knew that I could not survive in corporate America. I just knew it would eat me alive. It didn't I just wouldn't fit there. And so I knew I had to be my own boss. And that means I probably need to just start my own companies. And so I remember looking in the mirror and this is I think I was 17 or 18. And I said to myself, these words and and I I've repeated this in the mirror, every year, 10 times a year, whatever, I don't know how many for 30 something 40 years, but I said this to myself in the mirror of John, you're not afraid of being poor. And John, you're not afraid of being old, you're just afraid of being old and poor at the same time. And that is stuck with me to push myself in the areas of, I have to start my own business, I have to save money to take risk, right. And so I started 14 businesses in my lifetime ish. And three, I've made a lot of money on obviously, the one I did with the funds and still in it made a lot of money, I three I've lost money on and the rest of them in the middle, you know, I made some money on them, they were pretty good for a while. But you know, so over those periods of time, when you'd make good money on one, you have to save the money and live beneath your means. So that when the next opportunity comes up, you have a war chest to go and try again. Because if you try a business, and it doesn't work, you lose the time and money. And sometimes I might, I've had a couple of businesses in a row not work. So you spend 910 months getting a business launched, and then you wait six, seven months, it doesn't work, and you go on men 18 months later, and now you're kind of out of money if you didn't save, and then you have another idea come up, and then you try that idea. And that's going to take a year, year and a half to figure out and spend all the money. So you always I always live below my means way below my means so that I would always have a war chest to take risk until I really, really, really made it. And when I first started my first fund in 2004, and then my second fund in 2007. And my third fund in 2008. You know, I didn't really know if it was going to work, work, work work work until about 2013. And up until that time, I was driving a car with 200,000 miles on it, you know, so but once I got there, then I got a Mercedes, you know, a small number, say a used Mercedes kind of thing. And so, but I was always I always lived beneath my means because I just knew I had to be a entrepreneur. So what I'm getting at was my business antennas, my business antennas my whole life since I was 17. I had been up trying to read listen to receive things, right? And when I graduated college in 8898, with an economics degree which if you have an economics degree, there's not a lot of really, you're not trying to do much right unless you go on to get a masters or PhD trained. Well, what do you I'm saying, right? I didn't matter I had a degree in and I wanted to start my business. My first business that I started right at night, not my first business but but my first successful business right out of college is in 1989 Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, they took down the wall in Germany, there used to be a wall right down the middle of Berlin, a physical wall, and they took it down. And before that time, kids in Eastern Europe could not get American products. They can watch American TV or watch American movies, but they couldn't get made in USA products. And when that wall came down, there was a flood demand because the US was like this golden child. And everyone loved the US for about 99 About 95 They just love love, love anything made the USA was the best. And they wanted American huge Levi's. Or they want American Levi's jeans because Mr. Levi Strauss in San Francisco was the first guy to ever make denim jeans. And he did him with a button flying and the original was the button fly 501. Well, all over the all over the world. These were being sold for hundreds of dollars. They were a fashion gene but in the Western United States, we'd had them for 100 years they were worth jeans. We grew up with them in high school, right but so anyway, two of my partner's eventually moved to Southern Germany and I stayed in in Utah, and I collected us Levi fiber ones all over the United States, mainly the Western United States, cleaned them up, sewed them had seamstresses, scrubbing them, cleaning them up taking the stains off of them sewing, and it shipped to my partners in Germany, and they sell them to Prague and all over the western eastern states. So I could buy new fiber ones on sale for 1499 in Utah, and they would go for 100 $120 in profit. So I had my antennas up. And so when I found out early on in Ada or early on at nine that we had a friend over there in Europe saying that people were at you know, walking up to him on the street trying to buy his jeans on down for $100 100 US dollars. And we could buy them used at a thrift store over here for $6. What's the probability I can make a business so we I ran this business for nine years From 89 to about 1988 1998. We ran this was my first real big, huge business. And it was booming. I mean, we were doing a lot of jeans. I think our best year total sales was $8.5 million. US Levi's, I think that was 9094, maybe 95. Somewhere in there. But it was the fast business. And I had, you know, seems so what I'm trying to say is, you asked me the question, how do I think this way, right? If you have your business antenna up, always trying to receive some information, and someone tells you, hey, people in Austria are paying $100 For usually buy 501 jeans, and you live in a place where you can buy them for $10. You have to think of how do I make that into a business? What's the probability? Not the prediction? What's the probability I can make that into a business? And that was my first real run into business employees in Germany employees here. It was really a fantastic, great, like classic arbitrage. Yep. Just yeah, that's right. We were value adding we were cleaning them up, right. We were selling them. We were repairing them. But yeah, it was it was a kind of arbitrage. Take a product. That's a  in Nevada, or California or Utah. Move it to a place where it's a fashion gene and charge what the going rate is. Yeah.  Allen   Cool. Awesome. All right. So let's get into the book. Now. I think that correct me if I'm wrong, but the big topic or the big overwhelming subject matter of the book is how the Fed operates and how they boxed in Bitcoin, John   or the US dollar no sorry, or gold or US dollar or the Chinese yuan. The basic point of the book is, I use the example of trying to box Bitcoin in because it appears to be an a competitor to the US dollar. Right. Gold. One point is your was a part of the US dollar and competitive US dollar. And I go in the book, I dip into the Chinese yuan that has become trying to become a competitive US dollar and the Fed, Federal Reserve's  number, the US government's number one product, it sells better than hotcakes, people say it's selling like hotcakes. Well, they should start saying it's selling like the US dollar. So Allen, if I gave you $1 a second, right, like 123456. And I never stopped, never slept Neverland the restroom, it would take me 31.7 years to give you $1 billion. In other words, if you wanted to count to 1 billion, you would still be on the Zoom call this podcast 31 years from now. Right? So I tell them that on stage a lot because a lot of people misrepresent the word 1 billion they misinterpret it. They'll say John, I was just outside. And I saw this huge flock of birds, there must have been a billion birds. And I was gonna know there wasn't, you know how I know. I did the math. You know why I did the math. When my fund hit $1 billion. We started with managing $1 billion. It was like, holy cow, how much is a billion I started calculating it. 31.7 years of seconds. So when we talk about big numbers, I always do that on stage. So people really getting getting their head, how big $1 billion is and how erroneous that a lot of people use the term billion over time. So let me just do a little history for you. Okay. So, in 1914-ish, the Federal Reserve was created because there was a stock market crash in 1907, not not 2007 1907, the stock market crash. So they created the Federal Reserve. And then in 1929, we know there was a huge stock market crash again. So 1929, the country's really, really, really hurting. And then in 1933, two things happen. The SEC was created so that we would never have a crash again, okay. And in May 1933, now get this in May 1933, the president, FDR, he signed an executive order that made it illegal for your grandfather and my grandfather to own gold. So you had to sell all of your gold to the Federal Reserve. Or if you had a gold note, because it used to be that dollars were backed by gold, you had to sell your gold note your gold coin or your gold bars to the Federal Reserve. And they would give you a paper dollar for it. And then they would take that gold and put it in Fort Knox, and that gold would backup the US dollar and help us get out of the recession or the depression. And so if your grandfather, my grandfather was caught with five gold coins in their pocket, they could go to jail. This is United States of America. Okay, but it was patriotic, I think I think if you go back it was kind of patriotic. Like, we're all doing this together. We're all in together. We all have To support our number one product, the US dollar. Okay, so, so in that that was 1933. Okay. And so how long did that last year? 41? Obviously, so 1971 ish. Oh, wow. I'll get there in just a second. Okay. Yeah. So in 1944, we knew we were going to win the war. Why? Well, we were making 96,000 planes a year, and Germany was making 38,000 planes a year. We were making, I don't know if the numbers were making 21,000 tanks, they were making 4000 tanks. We just knew by math, we were gonna win the war. So 1944 44 countries sent 1000 people to a little place called Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. And they went there to reset the dollar. So the dollar was reset by the Federal Reserve in 2019 14. Then it was reset again in 1933, by the gold confiscation, and then in 1944, it was reset again. So what happened was at 1944, everyone agreed all the countries Listen, the French franc is no longer going to be backed by gold. The French franc is going to be backed by the US dollar. And the US dollar is going to be backed by gold. Why? Because this is a crazy Alan, this is a craziest This is in 1944, the United States had 66% of all gold bullion in the world. We had it here. And there are a couple of reasons. In the first part of World War Two, we didn't get involved. We were just selling our tanks, our steel, we're selling steel to Russia, they're paying us in gold. We're selling whatever to France, they're paying a single in a world war, one synth kind of same thing happened, you know, so, and we had a gold confiscation in 1933. It was illegal for a US citizen to own gold, but it wasn't in 1944. Say 1946. Okay, my granddad had a $100 bill. He couldn't turn that in for gold. But if you were a US, if you were a French citizen, and you had a $100 bill, you could turn it in for gold. Okay, so we have like we always do, we abused this thing called the world reserve currency. Okay, we abused it. And by 1971, President de Gaulle of France knew we had been printing too many paper dollars, okay. Too many paper dollars. So he sent two ships across the Atlantic with all of their US dollars. Okay. So he sends the two ships over, and he demands here's my US dollars, give me my goal. And on. It was a Sunday night, August 15 1971, President Nixon came on live TV and announced to the world. He said basically, this, market manipulators around the world are trying to hurt our US dollar. And so he said temporarily, we're going to stop having the dollar backed by gold right now. Right? So he just told to tape your show. You're not getting your gold, right. And that was a temporary fiat currency. And that has lasted till today. So it's 5354 years old ish, right? Our dollars 5354 years old. Okay. So, and it was Allen   supposed to be temporary? It was that it was supposed to be temporary?  John   That's what he said. He said, This is a temporary pause,  Allen   just like like income tax? John   Yes, exactly. So, but in 1990, am I gonna get my dates wrong? I was gonna do a cheat sheet because I don't want to mess my dates up. The 1960. The world reserve currency, the dollar was about 45% of all world reserve currency. Okay. In 2001, it was about 70 plus percent, maybe 78% of all world reserve currency is US dollars. And 19. In 2023. Just last year, my last statistics were 58%. Okay, so in 2023, US dollar is 58% of all the world reserve currency. The euro is 20%. Okay, the Chinese yuan is 2.7% of world reserve currency. Right? So we have a huge huge Headstart and a dominance with with our number one product across the world. And so we we mean you and everyone listening to this in the United States that use US dollars, we have an advantage where we we can go anywhere in the world and just throw our US dollars around and people will love them. Yeah, that's not true for other countries, right? You have to live in other countries. You just can't walk around and use your your fiat currency and just pay for things. And so we have a huge advantage. And so my question in my book is, how did that happen? How did we are the beneficiaries how do we become the beneficiaries of having most of the world use US dollars and In one way, in 1944, the Bretton Woods Agreement. No, it doesn't doesn't say this, okay. But this is kind of what happened. After World War One. Everyone's Navy is gone. China's Navy's gone. Japan's Navy's gone. Germany's Navy's gone, Italy's need is gone, France Navy's gone, everyone rushes Navy's got everyone's Navy is gone, the US has their navy intact, and Britain had some Navy still intact. Okay. And so basically what happened was we basically said, listen, navies are one of the most expensive things for a country to have. And if you just kind of agree to buy and sell your oil in US dollars, you don't even need anymore, we the United States will protect your shipping lanes. And so a little country anywhere in the world, if they buy and sell in oil in US dollars, then you don't need a navy anymore. And that allows us little countries sell their goods all over the world and take take their citizens from poverty levels up to you know, middle class. And so this is a phenomenon that's happened since 1944. Now, in 1971, when President Nixon did this, that's when our dollar became what's called the petro dollar. And that's when it really kind of heated up. And, you know, Saudi Arabia. So let's, let's just go to 1974. Okay, you live in Germany, and you want to buy a container of oil for Germany? You can't, you know, wire your Deutsche Marks from Germany down to Saudi Arabia. No, no, no, no, you have to wire your Deutsche Marks, using the SWIFT system, which will get back into the SWIFT system to the New York Fed, the New York Fed will then change your Deutsche Mark into US dollars, then you can wire US dollars to Saudi Arabia, then Saudi Arabia will send you oil, this creates insatiable demand for US dollars, right. And so to have a the number one product on the planet, by definition, you have to have insatiable demand, right? That's by definition, you have to have huge demand, right? So and the reason I know this, because we will make off the assembly line, we'll make a trillion dollars of our product, we'll make a trillion of them. And you and I will work 80 hours a week to get them more. The other people will lie, cheat and steal to get them right. They'll risk their lives on, you know, some crab ship in north north Pacific, you know, trying to get crabs and almost die trying to get more of these dollars. And then they'll will make another trillion and you Emil work 80 hours a week. Other people lie, cheat and steal. It's an insatiable demand for this product. And how did it get that way? And so to have insatiable demand, there's, I've outlined four ways in my book, one way is you tax your citizens in US dollars. So this year, I have to get us dollars to pay my taxes, I can't pay in cows, I can't pay in gold, I can't pay in Bitcoin. So that creates insatiable demand. Secondly, most countries around the world have to get us dollars to buy oil, because Saudi Arabia is the kingpin. Okay? That's it. That's the second way. A third way that you can attack a great is you create a worldwide Swift, bank to bank transfer system worldwide, where you transfer money back and forth. And it's a huge system, it's guaranteed, you know, bank to bank, and it's $1 based system. So if you want to transfer big large money from bank to bank worldwide, you have to have US dollars. And the fourth way to create insatiable demand is you can flood the world with low interest rate US dollar loans, that everyone has to pay you back for 30 years. So for 30 If you take one of these loans, for 30 years, you're gonna have to find us dollars to pay this loan back. Does that make sense? Now I'm going to stop there for questions. I got a few more things to say on that. But But do you want to any questions there Allen   that yeah, no, I'm totally with you. I mean, the SWIFT system is it's like basically, you know, you're forcing everybody to use your product, because you don't have a choice. I'm giving you money, and you have to use my system. And that's why, you know, when when they put all the sanctions on Russia a couple years ago, it was you know, supposedly, okay, we're gonna take you off the SWIFT system. Yeah. That was a mistake, big mistake. But it's like, oh, that was supposed to be the end of Russia as we know it.  John   But yeah, so I'm gonna get back to that in a minute. But that was definitely a mistake of the United States of America, because that hurt the glorification of their number one product, the US dollar, so let's go back to loans. Okay. Okay. All right. So the date is December 2018. Okay. The Federal Reserve says the economy is doing fantastic. Unemployment rate is low. You know, we're going to do next year in 2019. We're going to increase interest rates three times. Okay, great. Then less than 45 days later in December 2019, this is 45 days, they say, Oops, we made a mistake. We're not going to raise interest rates three times next year. We're going to lower interest rates three times next year. And I went, what just happened? I have an economics degree, right? Something huge just happened. I didn't know what it was. But I knew something big just happened. So I'm reading I got my antennas up trying to read everything I can. So March, a few months later, I read this report that says in Europe, there are $3 trillion $3 trillion of sovereign bonds, trading at negative interest rates. I have an economics degree. I've never read a book. I've never read a paragraph. I don't even know what a negative interest rate is. It's a bond that if you buy it, you're guaranteed mathematically to lose money. Why does that? Why would that even exist? Not in a couple billion, but 3 trillion? Why? That doesn't make any sense. Okay. And then a few months later in July, this is the summer 219, I read a new report. It's no, it's no, it's no longer 3 trillion, it's 14 trillion. What? There's $14 trillion. Okay, so then I think, okay, now I kind of know why the Federal Reserve lowered their interest rates almost to zero really fast. Because they're like, Listen, if you're going to borrow money around the world, you can borrow in Germany at zero. Or you can borrow US dollars at just a little above zero. So we're going to lower interest rates to compete, because we're trying to create insatiable demand for our number and product. And for the next three or four years, if you're just borrowing borrowing German and Spain dollars, right? That means you're not borrowing US dollars, right? And that's, that's not creating  in the future. So what did the Federal Reserve they lower interest rates, but that doesn't just do it, you have to actually go into the market. So think about what I'm about to say here. They lowered interest rates, plus the Federal Reserve went out, and they purchased bonds, $120 billion per month for over 30 months. Because when you buy bonds, buy bonds, buy bonds, buy bonds, buy bonds, the price of bonds goes up. And that means the yields go down. Right. So if every month I'm purchasing 100 billion $120 billion for the bonds, I'm keeping interest rates low, plus the Federal Reserve as interest rates low. So they keep it low for years and years and years, a few years. So that when you borrow money, you're least not borrowing someone else's money, you're borrowing our number one product, and that creates insatiable demand for their number one product. Does that make sense? Any questions? Yep. Yep. So my antennas again, back to your original question my antennas, how do I like this? My antennas are always looking for things that don't make sense. And then I try to read, how does it make sense? And when I keep putting the US dollar in the middle of things that don't make sense? It kind of makes sense. So I tell people, my book, I said, my book look, guys, ladies, I don't know if I'm right. I just I don't really run my life trying to predict the future because I don't think anyone can predict the future, right? I run my life on probabilities. And so I'm just saying the probability of me being right about the US dollar and being the number one product, Federal Reserve, and either US government and the Navy and whatever, I have a high probability of being correct, but I'm not I'm don't think I'm right. I might have a 20% probability I'm wrong. 80% that I'm right. If you don't agree with me that i Okay, fine. I agree. I might be 20% wrong, but just probability, right. So that's, that's where the essence of the book comes from. Allen   Right. Okay. Now, since you brought up the Fed, that was one of my other questions. It was in the book, you mentioned that, you know, the Fed is been out there talking a lot lately about oh, we want you know, our inflation rate to be 2%. We want unemployment to be a certain number, blah, blah, blah. But you're you've basically said that, that's what they're saying. But what they're doing is something opposite, and they actually wanted it to be much higher.  John   Yeah, so this is what happened a few years ago after the financial crisis. 2008 9, 10,  11 Okay. The world realize that the world is a lot more fragile than you think it is. So Germany, not in Germany, sorry, Russia and China started buying gold. And every year they bought more gold and we're going to 1013 they bought more gold 2014 They kept buying gold. And I was watching this going okay. You know it listen, if I if I ran China, I was president of China. I would not like the fact that I have to get us dollars to buy Oil, that. And so I'm not blaming China, I'm not blaming Russia, I'm just saying, I'm on this side of the negotiating table there on that side, I'm just explaining their side. So they might have got together and said, Listen, in the future, we think the US dollar is going to have some cracks in it. And if it ever has a big crack, we can introduce the Russian ruble and the Chinese yuan as alternative currencies. And therefore, then we can start buying oil in our own currency that they're planning in the future. I see US presidents are kind of like temporary employees. They're 40 years, Putin has been president for what 27-28 years, they'll probably be president for another 20 years. We don't know. Xi Jinping is usually I've said his name, right. He changed the Constitution, and allows him the option to be president for Life for life. Yeah, yeah. So these guys are long term strategist, our president has to get reelected. He's a temporary employee, so they have an advantage over us. Okay. So anyway, so then a few years back, China and Russia, say, you know, we should do let's start $1 called the BRICS dollar, we'll call it Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. And these countries will come together and have their own dollar called the BRICS dollar that is going to be backed by commodities. So if you have a barrel of oil, you get so many bricks dollars, if you have a bushel of wheat, you get so many bricks, if you have gold, you get so many bricks dollars, and they've been trying to launch this for years. Okay, so, so obviously, the Fed seeing this, and that's a competitor to the US dollar, and it's going to be a competitor to US dollar. So the Fed is strategically trying to move around to to make sure that doesn't happen. And that might explain why, you know, Putin, one of the reasons Putin took over Ukraine, Ukraine has a lot of oil and a lot of wheat. And he's like, the BRICS dollars going to be real in a couple of years. If I have all this, we know I get more brickstone That might be one of the reasons, okay. So. So the Fed trying to in this last year and a half just or two years, raising interest rates, the Fed to protect their number one product, and this is this theory. And again, I know your some of your listeners are gonna say, John, you're just you're being way too conspiracy. But when there's a lot of money on the table, a lot of crazy things happen because people coordinate a lot of things. Anyway, I think it's coordinate because the US dollar is the waterline in the table. So a few years back, China started to try to buy oil from Saudi Arabia using the yuan, because China is a big oil importer. Okay. And so far, I think we so far, I don't think Saudi Arabia has done it yet. But and not just to convince Saudi Arabia not to do it. The Fed i Okay, let's, let's just hypothecate the Fed wants to hurt China wants to lower their acceptance of the yuan around the world, and you want only accepted by 2.7% of world currency. So it's not that big a threat yet, but it could be in the future. Okay. So China does it to themselves. They have a big huge that in the last two years, they have a big, huge real estate collapse. They have a big huge employment collapse. Hundreds of companies have moved out of China to Germany have hundreds of companies from Germany, Japan and the United States have moved out of China. They've gone to India, they've gone to Thailand, they've gone to South Korea, all countries that purchase their oil in US dollars. China has been trying to purchase oil, not using US dollars. So we got to hurt that we have to hurt that country, because Okay, so how can I hurt that country? Well, one, China has said they're going to de dollarized the world. China said we're going to start selling our US Treasuries. Okay. Okay. So what we can do so let's just say, the Federal Reserve to make sure every time China sells US Treasuries, they lose a lot of money, because they bought US Treasuries back when bond prices were low. So let's just say if the Fed wanted to get interest rates to five and a half 6%. Okay, I thought it was gonna go six and a half, but it went to five and a quarter, five and a half. Okay. They can't tell you and me, Alan, hey, you a US citizens. We're just gonna raise interest rates to 2% because inflation is 2%. And we'd go Yeah, that's okay. That's okay. But if inflation is 2%, they could never convince us that they can raise to five and a half percent. That'd be egregious, right? But wait, if inflation is 9%, then you and I would accept 5% interest rates. Right, right. We don't like it, but we realize everyone has. Okay, so how do I get it? How do I get inflation to 9% when it's been almost zero for years and years and years and years and years? You print a lot of money. You see inflation come along, and it goes from zero to 2%. And you tell everyone with your mouth, on a microphone, it's transitory. It's just transfer Everyone calm down. Then a few months later, it goes to 3% inflation. Now, we're not going to move rates, we're going to keep rates low, at a quarter percent, we're not going to raise them because transitory it goes to 4%. And they let it run, it goes to five, it goes to six. And then they say, Well, maybe it's not transitory, maybe we need to raise interest rates, then it goes to seven, they started raising interest rates, and it goes to nine, and they're able to raise interest rates to five and a quarter percent, the fastest rate in history. And they lit they stopped, they stopped them there. Why? Because if they every time, they have interest rates sitting at five and five and a quarter percent, every time China goes to sell their US Treasuries, they get killed financially, it kills them. So my conspiracy theory is, hey, if the number one job of the Federal Reserve is to protect and promote the US dollar, they have ancillary jobs, low unemployment, high GDP, I get it, but their number one job, their baseline job is to predict or promote the US dollar, then, if they have a competitor to the US dollar, China coming around, we need to crush China's dollar. And right now, China prints more money than we do. Because they're huge depression right now, because of all the things that happened to him. And so they're selling all this, you know, US Treasuries, because they have to, because they don't want to because they're losing money on it. Why? Because they're trying to keep their economy afloat. Now, the Fed is sending a message to Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, aren't you so glad? That a few years back, you didn't start selling your oil in yuan? Because you would have billions of you want in your bank right now? And the yuan is tanking. Right. So people say now, five or six years ago, if you told me, I agreed China was going to take over the world, China was going to be a superpower with us now. I don't believe that anymore. Clearly. Okay. China has had 40 years of the fastest economy growth ever, right? No society has ever grown faster than China has last 40 years. And they're only 2.7% of the world reserve currency. So are you telling me if they have the same growth for next 40 years? They would be 7%? No, I'm saying. Allen   I have to interrupt this message. Because I am super excited. I haven't been this excited about something in trading since I first discovered trading options. Okay, it is that important. Now, look, this is a new strategy that I've discovered recently, that is just out there, kicking butt and taking names. I can't give you all the details here. But if you go to market power method.com and get all the information again, that's market power. method.com. Trust me, you want to know what this is. Now back to the show. John   And so when someone says we're going to replace the US dollar, I give them this example. And I love people in Arizona. I love Arizona, but I'm just gonna give this example. Okay, it's not it's just a hypothetical. Let's just say you and me agree that all the water in Arizona is bad. Okay, we both agree. What do you want to do? Well, we want to, we want to, we want to replace it with Gatorade, okay, so we searched the whole world for all the Gatorade in the world, and we bring it back. And it's not even a drop. We can't even, we can't even begin. So if you want to replace the US dollar, you have to replace it with something, you just can't not have it anymore. You have to replace the water with something. And there's not enough of anything that none of you want in the world, none of euros. There's nothing in the world big enough to replace the US dollar for years and decades to come. So the US dollar in the dominance is going to be around for a long time. Now the BRICS dollar, they're going to chip away at it right. So China, you know, is a net importer of oil, and they're a net importer of food. The United States is a net exporter of oil and an exporter of food. We have a geographic advantage over most countries on the planet. We can have a bad precedent, bad precedent, bad precedent, bad precedent, bad precedent. And we still kind of survived because we have things that other people don't have. The Mississippi Valley is two thirds of the country. Although arbitrary rivers, you can it's a slow moving river, you can put grain on that barge and floated anywhere. A lot of countries don't have that. And we produce a lot of oil and a lot of everything. And we just have a kind of an advantage over most countries. So China has got to, you know, build pipelines as quick as possible to Russia. They have to solve their oil problem, because without solving their oil problem, supply they You can't attack Taiwan. Because our aircraft carriers, our Navy could cut off most of their oil within 120 days. It all comes mostly over the water until China gets that pipeline. Right. And they know it. They know that they are. They're not ready. They have an Achilles heel. So let me give you a crazy thing that happened in in the news just last year. I'm reading the report watching the news. China brokered a peace deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Why? Doesn't even make any sense. But if you put the US dollar in there, it makes sense. So China is trying to de dollarized the world. They go to Iran, they say Iran, listen, who do you hate more? United States or Saudi Arabia? Oh, we hate the United States. Okay, fine. Okay, listen, if you want to really, really hurt United States, we have to de dollarized the world. Okay, how we're gonna do that? Well, one way is you can stop attacking Saudi Arabia, because the United States has an aircraft carrier off the side of Saudi Arabia to protect Saudi Arabia against you. And Saudi Arabia needs the aircraft carrier, and the F 30. Fives on their bases and 5000 troops in Saudi Arabia, they need all that. That's why they can't sell oil from Saudi Arabia to China and the yuan, because they have to keep being in good graces with the United States. Because Saudi needs that military protection. But Iran if you stop attacking Saudi Arabia, maybe this year, next year, Saudi Arabia goes You don't want we don't need military protection anymore. So we're going to start selling our oil to shock to China in the yuan. And then the the domino effect, the US dollar comes crumbling down over years, and the United States power around the world gets demolished. So again, back to my probabilities. The Alan, I don't know if I'm wrong. It just seems when I put the US dollar in crazy situations. It makes total sense. Now, a few months later, President Biden realized he was losing the battle in the the, you know, the whatever battle you want to call it in the Middle East. What does he do? He takes his number one product, the US dollar, and he sends I think about $6 billion to Iran in humanitarian aid. That's his number. I'm proud to say I ran I ran And we're still your friends. If you're gonna trade around the world, here's some US dollars to trade in. Right, Allen   right. Yeah, that came out of nowhere. It was like, what, what's going on? John   Why, why? Why? Why do you do that? Because a few months earlier, there was a peace agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Why? Because they want to de dollarized. They want to convince Saudi Arabia. They don't need us, Doc, but but the Fed is now still sending. There's two messages, right. And so about a year ago, year and a half ago, President Biden flew to Saudi Arabia. The thing about this, President states flies to see the prince. The prince didn't come to see him. He went to see the prince. Now we don't know what he said. Allen   And everybody made fun of him. Everybody, ever they funded media was all I got. I John   gotta give President Biden kudos. Right? Because I think I know what he was doing. I think he was over there convincing the Saudi prince not to sell oil in anything but US dollars. He creates because Allen   they had made an announcement. Before that happened. They had made an announcement that we're going to we're going to switch and we're going to do both or something that I remember something's right. Yeah. John   So if you ever take a negotiation class, okay. There is there's a lot of different ways to negotiate. But one of the ways one of the tricks in negotiation is you ask a question to your opponent, and then you let them try to answer it. So we I don't know what I don't know what President Biden said. But he could have said this. Okay. Mr. Saudi prince, if you start selling your oil to China in the yuan, all right. How am I as the US President going to convince the US Congress to pay for aircraft carriers off your coast 5000 troops on your soil, sell you f 30 fives, and then also give you satellite information from our secret satellites? How are we going to pay for all that? If you start selling your oil in you want then what you do in negotiation? You zip your lip, you shut up, you say no more and you sit back. And you you allow your opponent to try to very uncomfortably answer your question. And they sit there and go. Well, you can no you could you Oh, you know what? You know what, Mr. President, you can't convince Congress to pay for all that. Exactly. So therefore don't sell your oil to China in year one. And then a few years later, guess what? The Yuan is crashing because they're spending so much money. because we got interest rates up to five, because we want to win because we got the inflation to nine. So we five and now the Chinese economy look China did to themselves, we just poured gas on. Okay, one more example. That is. So we know of two people that sold a lot of oil not using US dollars. And that was Moammar Qaddafi of Libya, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Both of these gentlemen, I don't know how else to say it a few years after they did this large sales of oil without using US dollars. Both of these gentlemen were killed. They left the planet. And I'm not saying the US killed them. What I am saying is the US backed away from them, and let other people get them all the way, you know, take them out, right. So the last person that we know of that is doing oil and gas, not using is Putin. Putin said less Jaffa the war, he says, you know, after we took him off the SWIFT system, which we shouldn't have done, we should have left them on SWIFT system to keep them using US dollars. We took them on SWIFT system, we weaponize the US dollar. And that allowed China and Brazil go wait a minute. If the government the United States can seize my US Dollars anytime they want, then the US dollar really isn't a store of value. It's that yeah, that woke the world up a little bit. And we shouldn't have done it. Right, because our number one product is now damaged a little bit. Okay. But anyway, so Putin says, hey, you know, we're going to do so Putin goes into Ukraine and button think about the rhetoric. Biden says, We think Putin, you're a bad guy you gotta get out of Ukraine. Then Putin says, we're no longer selling our oil and gas, we're only going to take rubles and gold. Then Biden changed his rhetoric. Biden said, we now need a regime change in Russia. That's way different than saying we need you out of Ukraine. When you say I need a regime change, I think about Moammar Qaddafi, and Saddam Hussein. Right. That's a big difference. Okay. So what happened was a few months after that, after Putin says we're not selling, we're not selling oil and gas. With us dollars anymore. There's there's a pipeline, there's two pipelines that go under this was this was hilarious, isn't it? Yeah. There are two pipelines. They go from Russia under the Baltic Sea to Germany, and they sell Germany natural gas. Well, a few months after this happened that Putin said, I'm not going to take us dollars anymore. Someone with a submarine blew up. Nord Stream one and Nord Stream to Allen   someone we don't know who know, they claim responsibility, John   no responsibility. And I'm sure I'm sure that you know, President Biden, when he talks to the Saudi prince goes, Hey, Saudi prince, we're so glad you're still you know, selling all of your oil in US dollars. No one by the way. Did you hear about Nord Stream? One Nord Stream two? Yeah, crazy, right? We live in a crazy, crazy world. It's just I'm sure he reminds everyone this right? That you don't mess with the number one product the United States, you just don't mess with it. Right? So this is all these are all chapters in my book, at least the first half of the book, you know, a lot of economics that I'm trying to about. I'm just trying to get people to think on a different level. And a different thing that kids these days like to play these video games all weekend long, they'll go on three day weekend, you know, never go to sleep. Well, this what I've explained to you is the biggest game ever invented. Yep, there is no bigger game. And when I'm explaining to it's the biggest risk game, the biggest global game. It's the biggest game ever. And I'm studying it and watching it. And it is fascinating to me. And I don't even know if I'm right. But man when I keep doing probabilities, and it just seems I'm right.  

Are you planning for your retirement with the confidence that you're making all the right moves? In today's episode, we'll unveil the crucial income planning mistakes that could jeopardize your retirement and show you how to craft a financial plan that's built to last decades, not just years. Tune in to ensure your retirement strategy is foolproof against common pitfalls and ready to secure your financial future.   Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is a registered investment adviser. All statements and opinions expressed are based upon information considered reliable although it should not be relied upon as such. Any statements or opinions are subject to change without notice. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investment involve risk and, unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Information expressed does not take into account your specific situation or objectives and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for any individual. Listeners are encouraged to seek advice from a qualified tax, legal, or investment adviser to determine whether any information presented may be suitable for their specific situation. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Transcript of Today's Show: For a full transcript of today's show, visit the blog related to this episode at https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/podcast/ ----more---- Marc: Are you planning for your retirement with the confidence that you're making all the right moves? Well, on today's episode, we'll unveil the crucial income planning mistakes that could jeopardize your retirement and show how to craft the financial plan that's built to last decades, not just years. Tune in to Retirement Planning Redefined. All that, coming up next.   Hey everybody, welcome into the podcast, John and Nick joining me once again to talk investing, finance, and retirement here on Retirement Planning Redefined with the guys from PFG Private Wealth. John and Nick are financial advisors helping folks get to and through retirement. You can find them online, if you've got some questions, need some help, at pfgprivatewealth.com, pfgprivatewealth.com. And we're going to talk about some income planning mistakes this week here on the podcast.   What's going on, gents? How you doing, Nick? What's going on, buddy?   Nick: Good, good. Just staying busy. Just crazy that we're almost April. I guess we're approaching April at this point. Just had some friends in town, so that's always a little bit chaotic. But no, everything's good. No complaints.   Marc: John, how's it going in the crazy household that is yours my friend? You doing all right?   John: It is crazy. I don't want to get into it. But yes, it is a madhouse. I'll leave it at that. But, yes.   Marc: But having little ones always is, but that's good.   John: Yeah, you know well.   Marc: Well, and it's April, right? It's a busy time of year, too, a lot of things happening with taxes and financial strategies and everything. Anyway, it's spring, all that good stuff.   So, let's talk about some income planning mistakes. Let's kick it off with something simple. I teed it up a little bit in the intro there about being retired for decades, not just years. I know that we all fundamentally think that, John. We're like, "Yeah, of course, we're going to be retired for decades." But somehow or another it disassociates, I think, as we're getting thirties, forties, maybe even in our early fifties. We don't really put as much thought to it, I guess, as we should.   For me, for example, all the men in my family die young. I've already had heart surgery at a young age, so I could easily jump onto that path of, well, I'm not going to live that long, so whatever. I am not going to really worry about planning for decades. But that's just a bad move, especially if you've got people that you love, loved ones that you may want to make sure they're taken care of too. So, ways to think about it, right?   John: Yeah, the worst thing you could do is plan to retire for a few years, and next thing you know, run out of money, you don't know what's happening anymore. But no, we get this quite a bit where I can remember clearly Nick and I were doing a plan and the money around the eighties, it was looking a little tight. The person was pretty excited. We were like, "We need to make some adjustments to make sure it lasts age 100." He is like, "No, I'm good." He's like, "I'm not lasting until 80 or 83." And we were like, "Okay, well, we'll still do our due diligence to make sure your money lasts for a while," but [inaudible 00:02:55]   Marc: What if you're wrong? That's the thing. And did this person have a spouse? Were they married?   John: He had a spouse there. He was semi-serious, but we ended up making some adjustments to it. But that is something we had quite a bit. When we do our planning, we make sure it goes to age 100, because you can't predict the future. And with technology and everything that's going on now, people are living longer.   Marc: For sure.   John: It's just the healthcare industry, there's just always new innovative things happening. But it's a mindset that I will say people need to understand.   And that goes with building a portfolio. Just had a conversation with a client this week, and we're doing some things, and they're just looking at everything short-term. I had to remind them and say, "Hey, you're looking at a 20, 30 year period where there's some long-term money here. Not everything is the next five years." And just talking to her made her realize that of just saying, "Hey, I'm still invested for the long term. I can't make adjustments just based on expecting the next four or five years." So, that is a mindset people really don't understand with the investment portfolio. You still have some long-term money, because your retirement is going to be 20, 30 years, not just four or five.   Marc: No, a great point. Glad you were able to have that conversation with her and get her eyes moving. I think that's a real value add right there that people don't often take into account when working with a financial professional. We tend to think, "Well, it's the X's and the O's. They're going to help me figure out the dollars and the cents." But there's also really thinking through and behavioral analysis a little bit, behavioral changes that we have to walk through, because you guys see this day in and day out.   And Nick, I'll throw number two over to you. Part of that, as John was just saying, "Hey, you've got to set things up for short-term and long-term," social security is going to play a big factor in that. So, starting it too early could really change your long-term numbers.   Nick: Yeah, there's an extra emotional attachment to social security, which we very much understand.   Marc: Whether you're mad at it or not, whether it takes off or not.   Nick: Yeah, and we totally understand that. For us, we always try to integrate the social security decision with the overall investments and the overall plan. Just like with anything, we always approach it from the perspective of, hey, our job is to tell you the impact of the decisions you may make, and then ultimately it's your money.   But, for sure, one of the biggest negatives, especially if they're financial situation is pretty solid otherwise, starting social security too early these days makes a difference. Really the last few years have really played that out. Anybody that started social security before COVID and maybe didn't necessarily need to, between the inflationary adjustments that have happened, which they still would've received, that inflationary adjustment compounds with the delay. And so, the jumps in benefits for anybody that's waited those few extra years have been substantial, and people that are starting it now are pretty happy that they waited, and it's made a difference for them.   Marc: Well, if you don't have a strategy, you could be costing yourself tens of thousands. This could be big dollars over the course of your lifetime. I get it. We're all terrified about what's going on in the world, because every five seconds it seems like there's some new, crazy, weird, wonky thing happening in the world that is 2024. But you've still got to make sure that you're making the right decision so that these planning mistakes don't come back to bite you 10, 15, 20, 25 years down the line. So, good points, for sure.   Hey, John, what about bonds? For years, you'd go 60/40. You'd go standard portfolio. You'd go to bonds as we age for safety. Last couple of years though, they ain't been all that great. So, is it still one of those things where assuming it's a safe source is a good move, or not?   John: Yeah, I would say it's not to assume that that's going to be 100% your source of income. We're going to-   Marc: From a safe side, right?   John: Yeah, yeah. We're going to touch on inflation and things like that. We've talked about being retired for decades, so you want to make sure that you have some equities in the portfolio so you are keeping up with costs of living going up. If you're just in bonds and fixed income, you're going to lose out on a lot of upside. And then, if you look at the past years, although interest rates have gone up obviously the last couple of years, there was about a 15, 20-year period where you get a bond and it's giving you two or 3%. That's nearly not enough to supplement most people's income.   Marc: Oh, for sure.   John: So, you definitely want to diversify, make sure you're planning for the long term for some growth, and also you want to adjust to an environment where interest rates are very low and the bond yields just aren't enough to sustain what you're trying to do.   Marc: And at the time we're taping this here, it's just at the very end of March, it'll probably be out sometime here in April of '24, Powell still saying that even though the numbers came back in, inflation was a tad higher, I think, just last month then what they anticipated core inflation. He's still saying that nothing's changed for him, and that they may be looking at cutting rates throughout 2024. So, who knows?   But Nick, that does play into inflation as John just teed it up. Our fourth point here is it's going to play into it no matter what's going on with the dynamic that we have right now. But even just basic inflation, even if you just go sticking with the normal 3% we've seen for years and years and years, if you don't take this into account, and again, our topic being income planning mistakes, you are seriously messing yourself up, because five grand right now, if that's your expenses, is not going to be five grand in 10 years. It just isn't.   Nick: Yeah. I would say too, especially in this area, I think there's been some studies at the inflation rate in the Tampa Bay area has been higher than other places.   Marc: Okay.   Nick: I've had multiple conversations with clients where there's been this... I think because there was such a period of scarcity in getting decent fixed rates, whatever it was, eight to 10 years, it's like people are just taking a deep breath and just saying, "Oh, finally I can get four and a half or 5% on my money again," which is great, but the issue is that some are assuming that it's going to last for a long period of time. Last year is a really good example from the perspective of that five-ish percent, whether it's a CD or money market or whatever, solidified last year. We had some clients that shifted more over, and we had many conversations about it. But again, it's like the S&P then did, what, around 20% or something like that?   So, there was an opportunity cost there. When the market's up like that, you really don't want to lose out on those years. And so, the inflation is compounded. For example, even just people that are in Florida and live in a condo, maybe they've lived in a condo for a while, all the condo rules and association rules have changed. They're like, "I've seen association fees double in the last two or three years," and it's really putting a lot of pressure on people. Even if their mortgage is paid off, but they've been on somewhat of a fixed income, there's a lot of pressure happening there.   And so, yeah, we try to just keep emphasizing even if it's a small portion of the money, even if it's only 20 to 40% of the overall portfolio where we have something related to growth, more marketed towards that, getting them to understand that, hey, this is for money down the road. No matter where the rates are right now, the one thing I can promise you is they're going to change. And so, that's been a little bit of a different conversation than we've had to have probably, I'd say, the 10 years previous to that. So, it's going to be interesting to see how people start to react when the cuts do happen.   Marc: Yeah, because you're talking about having to keep up with inflation, you need to have some stuff at growth. You've got to have some stuff at risk, basically, so that you can pick up gains in the market, things of that nature, wherever it's coming from. But you've got to have some money out there taking a few chances, because you do have to keep up with or outpace inflation.   I guess that really just brings me to my last point here, John, and you guys can both jump in if you'd like to on this, but you've got to have other income streams besides just social security, plain and simple. That's all fine and good, but you've got to have some other income streams and some of that needs to be safe, and some of that needs to help you with the future money, which is growth.   John: Yeah, 100%, Mark. Social security might cover thirty to forty-percent of someone's expenses, and covers a portion of what they need for income there, but really important to have some other income stream, whether that be real estate, whether it's your investments.   Right now, we're talking about rates, rates are really strong. We have a lot of clients looking into these income annuities, because they look really appealing right now. Because as interest rates go up, those annuity products typically tend to look a little bit better. So, just having that guaranteed income or just reliable income source to put on top of social security really gives a nice buffer.   I don't want to speak for Nick, but I have found when you have your floor of guaranteed income, it helps you make better decisions even with your other money, where if the market's volatile, but you say, "Hey, I have X amount of dollars guaranteed income coming in in this pool of money here that's set aside for growth," even when it's a little volatile, it's just giving you a little more peace of mind to saying, "Hey, I know my baseline expenses are covered, so I'm going to be okay." We find that that does help people make better decisions when they have multiple income streams.   Marc: Yeah, you got to do it, right, Nick? It's just the point of the fact that you want to have that diversification not only in income but also with tax buckets. You just want to have some general good broad diversification in your entire portfolio.   Nick: Yeah, absolutely. The diversification, and I alluded to it earlier, it's just as important as ever. Having the higher floor on fixed rates has been helpful the last couple years, but the phrase that I've used quite a bit lately is zoom out. We need to zoom out and continue to zoom out, because that's really important, for sure.   Marc: That higher view of things versus trying to narrow in?   Nick: Yeah.   Marc: Yeah, I got you. Well, so there's some income planning mistakes that we can certainly make, so make sure that you're avoiding these. And of course, if you think, "Well, I don't do this every day," or, "This is something that I just can't wrap my brain around all the time because I'm just too busy living my life and working my own job," or whatever the case might be, that's why you have a financial team to help you out.   So, if you need some help, and of course you've got questions, always reach out to a qualified professional like John and Nick before you take any action to see how something's going to fit into your unique situation. They're financial advisors to PFG Private Wealth. You can find them online at pfgprivatewealth.com. That's pfgprivatewealth.com.   And don't forget to subscribe to the podcast Retirement Planning Redefined on Apple or Spotify or YouTube platforms. That's going to do it this week for us. We'll be back with more on future episodes. So again, hit that subscribe button and we'll catch you next time on Retirement Planning Redefined with John and Nick.

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.

Rounding Up Season 2 | Episode 8 – It's a Story, Not a Checklist! Guest: Dr. John Staley Mike Wallus: There's something magical about getting lost in a great story. Whether you're reading a book, watching a movie, or listening to a friend, stories impart meaning, and they capture our imagination. Dr. John Staley thinks a lot about stories. On this episode of Rounding Up, we'll talk with John about the ways that he thinks that the concept of story can impact our approach to the content we teach and the practices we engage in to support our students.  Well, John, welcome to the podcast. We're really excited to talk with you today. John Staley: I'm glad to be here. Thank you for the invitation, and thank you for having me. Mike: So when we spoke earlier this year, you were sharing a story with me that I think really sets up the whole interview. And it was the story of how you and your kids had engaged with the themes and the ideas that lived in the Harry Potter universe. And I'm wondering if you could just start by sharing that story again, this time with the audience. John: OK. When I was preparing to present for a set of students over at Towson University and talking to them about the importance of teaching and it being a story. So the story of Harry Potter really began for me with our family—my wife, Karen, and our three children—back in '97 when the first book came out. Our son Jonathan was nine at that time and being a reader and us being a reading family, we came together. He would read some, myself and my wife would read some, and our daughter Alexis was five, our daughter Mariah was three. So we began reading Harry Potter. And so that really began our journey into Harry Potter. Then when the movies came out, of course we went to see the movies and watch some of those on TV, and then sometimes we listened to the audio books. And then as our children grew, because Harry Potter took, what, 10 years to develop the actual book series itself, he's 19 now, finally reading the final book. By then our three-year-old has picked them up and she's begun reading them and we're reading. So we're through the cycle of reading with them.  But what they actually did with Harry Potter, when you think about it, is really branch it out from just books to more than books. And that right there had me thinking. I was going in to talk to teachers about the importance of the story in the mathematics classroom and what you do there. So that's how Harry Potter came into the math world for me, [chuckles] I guess you can say. Mike: There's a ton about this that I think is going to become clear as we talk a little bit more.  One of the things that really struck me was how this experience shaped your thinking about the ways that educators can understand their role when it comes to math content and also instructional practice and then creating equitable systems and structures. I'm wondering if we can start with the way that you think this experience can inform an educator's understanding for content. So in this case, the concepts and ideas in mathematics. Can you talk about that, John? John: Yeah, let's really talk about the idea of what happens in a math classroom being a story. The teaching and learning of mathematics is a story that, what we want to do is connect lesson to lesson and chapter to chapter and year to year.  So when you think about students' stories, and let's start pre-K. When students start coming in pre-K and learning pre-K math, and they're engaging in the work they do in math with counting and cardinality initially, and as they grow across the years, especially in elementary, and they're getting the foundation, it's still about a story. And so how do we help the topics that we're taught, the grade level content become a story? And so that's the connection to Harry Potter for me, and that's what helped me elevate and think about Harry Potter because when you think about what Harry Potter and the whole series did, they've got the written books. So that's one mode of learning for people for engaging in Harry Potter.  Then they went from written books to audiobooks, and then they went from audiobooks to movies. And so some of them start to overlap, right? So you got written books, you got audiobooks, you got movies—three modes of input for a learner or for an audience or for me, the individual interested in Harry Potter, that could be interested in it. And then they went to additional podcasts, Harry Potter and the Sacred Text and things like that. And then they went to this one big place called Universal Studios where they have Harry Potter World. That's immersive. That I can step in; I can put on the robes; I can put the wand in my hand. I can ride on, I can taste, so my senses can really come to play because I'm interactive and engaged in this story. When you take that into the math classroom, how do we help that story come to life for our students? Let's talk one grade. So it feels like the content that I'm learning in a grade, especially around number, around algebraic thinking, around geometry, and around measurement and data. Those topics are connected within the grade, how they connect across the grade and how it grows. So the parallel to Harry Potter's story—there's, what, seven books there? And so you have seven books, and they start off with this little young guy called Harry, and he's age 11. By the time the story ends, he's seven years later, 18 years old. So just think about what he has learned across the years and how what they did there at Hogwarts and the educators and all that kind of stuff has some consistency to it. Common courses across grade levels, thinking, in my mind, common sets of core ideas in math: number, algebra, thinking, geometry, measurement of data. They grow across each year. We just keep adding on.  So think about number. You're thinking with base ten. You then think about how fractions show up as numbers, and you're thinking about operations with whole numbers, base ten, and fractions. You think about decimals and then in some cases going into, depending if you're K–8 or K–5, you might even think about how this plays into integers. But you think about how that's all connected going across and the idea of, “What's the story that I need to tell you so that you understand how math is a story that's connected?” It's not these individual little pieces that don't connect to each other, but they connect somehow in some manner and build off of each other. Mike: So there are a couple of things I want to pick up on here that are interesting. When you first started talking about this, one of the things that jumped out for me is this idea that there's a story, but we're not necessarily constrained to a particular medium. The story was first articulated via book, but there are all of these ways that you can engage with the story. And you talked about the immersive experience that led to a level of engagement. John: Mm-hmm. Mike: And I think that is helping me make sense of this analogy—that there's not necessarily one mode of building students' understanding. We actually need to think about multiple modes. Am I picking up on that right? John: That's exactly right. So what do I put in my tool kit as an educator that allows me to help tap into my students' strengths, to help them understand the content that they need to understand that I'm presenting that day, that week, that month, that I'm helping build their learning around? And in the sense of thinking about the different ways Harry Potter can come at you—with movies, with audio, with video—I think about that from the math perspective. What do I need to have in my tool kit when it comes to my instructional practices, the types of routines I establish in the classroom?  Just think about the idea of the mathematical tools you might use. How do the tools that you use play themselves out across the years? So students working with the different manipulatives that they might be using, the different mathematical tools, a tool that they use in first grade, where does that tool go in second grade, third grade, fourth grade, as they continue to work with whole numbers, especially with doing operations, with whatever the tool might be? Then what do you use with fractions? What tools do you use with decimals? We need to think about what we bring into the classroom to help our students understand the story of the mathematics that they're learning and see it as a story. Is my student in a more concrete stage? Do they need to touch it, feel it, move it around? Are they okay visually? They need to see it now, they're at that stage. They're more representational so they can work with it in a different manner or they're more abstract. Hmm. Oh, OK. And so how do we help put all of that into the setting? And how are we prepared as classroom teachers to have the instructional practices to meet a diverse set of students that are sitting in our classrooms? Mike: You know, the other thing you're making me think about, John, is this idea of concepts and content as a story. And what I'm struck by is how different that is than the way I was taught to think about what I was doing in my classroom, where it felt more like a checklist or a list of things that I was tracking. And oftentimes those things felt disconnected even within the span of a year.  But I have to admit, I didn't find myself thinking a lot about what was happening to grade levels beyond mine or really thinking about how what I was doing around building kindergartners' understanding of the structure of number or ten-ness. John: Mm-hmm. Mike: How that was going to play out in, say, fifth grade or high school or what have you. You're really causing me to think how different it is to think about this work we're doing as story rather than a discrete set of things that are kind of within a grade level. John: When you say that, it also gets me thinking of how we quite often see our content as being this mile-wide set of content that we have to teach for a grade level. And what I would offer in the space is that when you think about the big ideas of what you really need to teach this year, let's just work with number. Number base ten, or, if you're in the upper elementary, number base ten and fractions. If you think about the big ideas that you want students to walk away with that year, those big ideas continue to cycle around, and those are the ones that you're going to spend a chunk of your time on. Those are the ones you're going to keep bringing back. Those are the ones you're going to keep exposing students to in multiple ways to have them make sense of what they're doing. And the key part of all of that is the understanding, the importance of the vertical nature as to what is it I want all of my students sitting in my classroom to know and be able to do, have confidence in, have their sense of agency. Like, “Man, I can show you. I can do it, I can do it.” What do we want them to walk away with that year? So that idea of the vertical nature of it, and understanding your learning progressions, and understanding how number grows for students across the years is important. Why do I build student understanding with a number line early? So that when we get the fractions, they can see fractions as numbers. So later on when we get the decimals, they can see decimals as numbers, and I can work with it. So the vertical nature of where the math is going, the learning progression that sits behind it, helps us tell the story so that students, when they begin and you are thinking about their prior knowledge, activate that prior knowledge and build it, but build it as part of the story.  The story piece also helps us think about how we elevate and value our students in the classroom themselves. So that idea of seeing our students as little beings, little people, really, versus just us teaching content. When you think about the story of Harry Potter, I believe he survived across his time at Hogwarts because of relationships. Our students make it through the math journey from year to year to year to year because of relationships. And where they have strong relationships from year to year to year to year, their journey is a whole lot better. Mike: Let's make a small shift in our conversation and talk a little bit about this idea of instructional practice. John: OK.  Mike: I'm wondering how this lived experience with your family around the Harry Potter universe, how you think that would inform the way that an educator would think about their own practice? John: I think about it in this way. As I think about myself being in the classroom—and I taught middle school, then high school—I'm always thinking about what's in my tool kit. I think about the tools that I use and the various manipulatives, the various visual representations that I need to have at my fingertips. So part of what my question would be, and I think about it, is what are those instructional strategies that I will be using and how do I fine-tune those? What are my practices I'm using in my routines to help it feel like, “OK, I'm entering into a story”?  Harry Potter, when you look at those books, across the books, they had some instructional routines happening, some things that happen every single year. You knew there was going to be a quidditch match. You knew they were going to have some kind of holiday type of gathering or party or something like that. You knew there was going to be some kind of competition that happened within each book that really, that competition required them to apply the knowledge and skills from their various courses that they learned. They had a set of core courses that they took, and so it wasn't like in each individual course that they really got to apply. They did in some cases, they would try it out, they'd mess up and somebody's nose would get big, ears would get big, you know, change a different color. But really, when they went into some of those competitions, that's when the collection of what they were learning from their different courses, that's when the collection of the content. So how do we think about providing space for students to show what they know in new settings, new types of problems? Especially in elementary, maybe it's science application type problems, maybe they're doing something with their social studies and they're learning a little bit about that. As an educator, I'm also thinking about, “Where am I when it comes to my procedural, the conceptual development, and the ability to think through and apply the applications?” And so I say that part because I have to think about students coming in, and how do I really build this? How do I strike this balance of conceptual and procedural? When do I go conceptual? When do I go procedural? How do I value both of them? How do I elevate that? And how do I come to understand it myself? Because quite often the default becomes procedural when my confidence as a teacher is not real deep with building it conceptually. I'm not comfortable, maybe, or I don't have the set of questions that go around the lesson and everything. So I've got to really think through how I go about building that out. Mike: That is interesting, John, because I think you put your finger on something. I know there have been points in time during my career when I was teaching even young children where we'd get to a particular idea or concept, and my perception was, “Something's going on here and the kids aren't getting it.” But what you're causing me to think is often in those moments, the thing that had changed is that I didn't have a depth of understanding of what I was trying to do. Not to say that I didn't understand the concept myself or the mathematics, but I didn't have the right questions to draw out the big ideas, or I didn't have a sense of, “How might students initially think about this and how might their thinking progress over time?” So you're making me think about this idea that if I'm having that moment where I'm feeling frustrated, kids aren't understanding, it might be a point in time where I need to think to myself, “OK, where am I in this? How much of this is me wanting to think back and say, what are the big ideas that I'm trying to accomplish? What are the questions that I might need to ask?” And those might be things that I can discover through reflection or trying to make more sense of the mathematics or the concept. But it also might be an opportunity for me to say, “What do my colleagues know? Are there ways that my colleagues are thinking about this that I can draw on rather than feeling like I'm on an island by myself?” John: You just said the key point there. I would encourage you to get connected to someone somehow. As you go through this journey together, there are other teachers out there that are walking through what they're walking through, teaching the grade level content. And that's when you are able to talk deeply about math. Mike: The other thing you're making me think about is that you're suggesting that educators just step back from whether kids are succeeding or partially succeeding or struggling with a task and really step back and saying, like, “OK, what's the larger set of mathematics that we're trying to build here? What are the big ideas?” And then analyzing what's happening through that lens rather than trying to think about, “How do I get kids to success on this particular thing?” Does that make sense? Tell me more about what you're thinking. John: So when I think about that one little thing, I have to step back and ask myself the question, “How and where does that one thing fit in the whole story of the unit?" The whole story of the grade level. And when I say the grade level, I'm thinking about those big ideas that sit into the big content domains, the big idea number. How does this one thing fit into that content domain? Mike: That was lovely. And it really does help me have a clearer picture of the way in which concepts and ideas mirror the structures of stories in that, like, there are threads and connections that I can draw on from my previous experience to understand what's happening now. You're starting to go there.  So let's just talk about where you see parallels to equitable systems and structures in the experience that you had with Harry Potter when you were in that world with your family. John: First, let's think about this idea of grouping structures. And so when you think about the idea of groups and the way groups are used within the classroom, and you think about the equitable nature of homogeneous, heterogeneous, random groupings, truly really thinking about that collectively. And I say collectively in this sense, when you think about the parallel to the Harry Potter story, they had a grouping structure in place. They had a random sorting. Now who knows how random it was sometimes, right? But they had a random sorting the minute the students stepped into the school. And they got put into one of the four houses. But even though they had that random sorting then, and they had the houses structured, those groups, those students still had opportunities as they did a variety of things—other than the quidditch tournaments and some other tournaments—they had the opportunity where as a collection of students coming from the various houses, if they didn't come together, they might not have survived that challenge, that competition, whatever it was. So the idea of grouping and grouping structures and how we as educators need to think about, “What is it really doing for our students when we put them in fixed groups? And how is that not of a benefit to our students? And how can we really go about using the more random grouping?”  One of the books that I'm reading is Building Thinking Classrooms [in Mathematics: Grades K–12: 14 Teaching Practices for Enhancing Learning]. And so I'm reading Peter [Liljedahl]'s book and I'm thinking through it in the chapter when he talks about grouping. I think I read that chapter and highlighted and tapped every single page in it multiple times because it really made me think about what's really happening for our students when we think about grouping. So one structure and one part to think about is, “What's happening when we think we're doing our grouping that's not really getting students engaged in the lesson, keeping them engaged, and benefiting them from learning?” Another part, and I don't know if this is a part of equitable systems and structures or just when I think about equity work: One of the courses that they had to take at Hogwarts was about the history of wizarding. I bring that up in this space because they learned about the history of what went on with wizards and what went on with people. And to me, in my mindset, that's setting up and showing the importance of us sharing the history and bringing the history of our students—their culture, their backgrounds, in some cases their lived experiences—into the classroom. So that's us connecting with our students' culture and being culturally responsive and bringing that into the classroom. So as far as an equitable structure, the question I would ask you to think about is, “Do my students see themselves in my mathematics classroom?”  And I say it that way versus “in the mathematics,” because some people will look at the problems in the math book and say, “Oh, I don't see them there. I don't see, oh, their names, their culture, their type of foods.” Some of those things aren't in the written work in front of you. But what I would offer is the ability for me as the educator to use visuals in my classroom, the ability for me to connect with the families in my classroom and learn some of their stories, learn some of their backgrounds—not necessarily learn their stories, but learn about them and bring that in to the space—that's for me to do. I don't need a textbook series that will do that for me. And as a matter of fact, I'm not sure if a textbook series can do that for you, for all the students that you have in your classroom or for the variety of students that you have in your classroom, when we think about their backgrounds, their culture, where they might come from. So thinking about that idea of cultural responsiveness, and really, if you think about the parallel in the Harry Potter series, the history of wizarding and the interaction, when you think about the interaction piece between wizards and what they call Muggles, right? That's the interactions between our students, learning about other students, learning about other cultures, learning about diverse voices. That's teaching students how to engage with and understand others and learn about others and come to value that others have voice also. Mike: I was just thinking, John, if I were to critique Hogwarts, I do wonder about the houses. Because in my head, there is a single story that the reader comes to think about anyone who is in Harry's house versus, say, like Slytherin house. John: Yes. Mike: And it flattens anyone who's in Slytherin house into bad guys, right? John: Mm-hmm. Mike: And so it makes me think there's that element of grouping where as an educator, I might tell a single story about a particular group, especially if that group is fixed and it doesn't change. But there's also, like, what does that do internally to the student who's in that group? What does that signal to them about their own identity? Does that make sense? John: That does make sense. And so when you think about the idea of grouping there at Hogwarts, and you think about these four fixed groups, because they were living in these houses, and once you got in that house, I don't think anybody moved houses. Think about the impact on students. If you put them in a group and they stay in that group and they never change groups, you will have students who realize that the way you did your groups and the way you named your groups and the way they see others in other groups getting more, doing different, and things like that. That's a nice caution to say the labels we put on our groups. Our kids come to internalize them and they come to, in some cases, live up to the level of expectations that we set for “just that group.” So if you're using fixed groups or thinking about fixed groups, really I'd offer that you really get into some of the research around groups and think, “What does it do for students?” And not only what does it do for students in your grade, but how does that play out for students across grades? If that student was in the group that you identified as the “low group” in grade 2, [exhales] what group did they show up in grade 3? How did that play with their mindset? Because you might not have said those words in front of students, but our students pick up on being in a fixed group and watching and seeing what their peers can do and what their peers can't do, what their group members can do and what their group can't do. As our students grow from grades 2 to 3, 4, 5, that really has an impact. There's somewhere between grade 3 and 5 where students' confidence starts to really shake. And I wonder how much of it is because of the grouping and types of grouping that is being used in the classroom that has me in a group of, “Oh, I am a strong doer [of mathematics]” or, “Oh, I'm not a good doer of mathematics.” And that, how much of that just starts to resonate with students, and they start to pick that up and carry that with them, an unexpected consequence because we thought we were doing a good thing when we put 'em in this group. Because I can pull them together, small group them, this and that. I can target what I need to do with them in that moment. Yeah, target what you need to do in that moment, but mix them up in groups. Mike: Just to go back and touch on the point that you started with. Building Thinking Classrooms has a lot to say about that particular topic among others, and it's definitely a book that, for my money, has really caused me to think about a lot of the practices that I used to engage in because I believed that they were the right thing to do. It's a powerful read. For anyone who hasn't read that yet, I would absolutely recommend it. John: And one last structure that I think we can speak to. I've already spoken to supports for students, but the idea of a coherent curriculum is I think an equitable structure that systems put in place that we need to put in place that you need to have in place for your students. And when I say a coherent curriculum, I'm thinking not just your one grade, but how does that grow across the grades? It's something for me, the teacher, to say, “I need to do it my way, this way…”. But it's more to say, “Here's the role I play in their pre-K to 12 journey.” Here's the chapter I'm going to read to them this year to help them get their deep understanding of whichever chapter it was, whichever book it happened to be of.  In the case of the parallel of Harry Potter, here's the chapter I'm doing. I'm the third grade chapter, I'm the fourth grade chapter, I'm the fifth grade chapter. And the idea of that coherent curriculum allows the handoff to the next and the entry from the prior to be smoother. Many of the curriculums, when you look at them, a K–5 curriculum series will have those coherent pieces designed in it—similar types of tools, similar types of manipulatives, similar types of question prompts, similar types of routines—and that helps students build their confidence as they grow from year to year. And so to that point, it's about this idea of really thinking about how a coherent curriculum helps support equity because you know your students are getting the benefit of a teacher who is building from their prior knowledge because they've paid attention to what came before in this curriculum series and preparing them for where they're going. And that's quite often what the power of a coherent curriculum will do.  The parallel in the Harry Potter series, they had about five to seven core courses they had to take. I think about the development of those courses. Boom. If I think about those courses as a strand of becoming a wizard, [laughs] how did I grow from year to year to year to year in those strands that I was moving across? Mike: Okay, I have two thoughts. One, I fully expect that when this podcast comes out, there's going to be a large bump in whoever is tracking the sale of the Harry Potter series on Amazon or wherever it is.  John: [laughs] Mike: But the other question I wanted to ask you is what are some books outside of the Harry Potter universe that you feel like you'd recommend to an educator who's wanting to think about their practice in terms of content or instructional practices or the ways that they build equitable structure? John: When I think about the works around equitable structure, I think about The Impact of Identity and K–8 Mathematics: Rethinking Equity-Based Practices by Julia Aguirre, Karen Mayfield-Ingram, and Danny Martin as being one to help step back and think about how am I thinking about what I do and how it shows up in the classroom with my students.  Another book that I just finished reading: Humanizing Disability in Mathematics Education[: Forging New Paths]. And my reason for reading it was I continue to think about what else can we do to help our students who are identified, who receive special education services? Why do we see so many of our students who sit in an inclusive environment—they're in the classroom on a regular basis; they don't have an IEP that has a math disability listed or anything along those lines—but they significantly underperform or they don't perform as well as their peers that don't receive special education services. So that's a book that got me just thinking and reading in that space.  Another book that I'm reading now, or rereading, and I'll probably reread this one at least once a year, is Motivated[: Designing Mathematics Classrooms Where Students Want to Join In] by Ilana [Seidel] Horn. And the reason for this one is the book itself, when you read it, is written with middle schools' case stories. Part of what this book is tackling is what happens to students as they transition into middle school. And the reason why I mentioned this, especially if you're elementary, is somewhere between third grade and fifth grade, that process of students' self-confidence decreasing their beliefs in themselves as doers of math starts to fall apart. They start to take the chips in the armor. And so this book, Motivated itself, really does not speak to this idea of intrinsic motivation. “Oh, my students are motivated.” It speaks to this idea of by the time the students get to a certain age, that upper fifth grade, sixth grade timeframe, what shifts is their K, 1, 2, 3, “I'm doing everything to please my teacher.” By [grades] 4 or 5, I'm realizing, “I need to be able to show up for my peers. I need to be able to look like I can do for my peers.” And so if I can't, I'm backing out. I'm not sharing, I'm not volunteering, I'm not “engaging.”  So that's why I bring it into this elementary space because it talks about five pieces of a motivational framework that you can really push in on, and not that you push in on all five at one time. [chuckles] But you pick one, like meaningfulness, and you push in on that one, and you really go at, “How do I make the mathematics more meaningful for my students, and what does it look like? How do I create that safe space for them?” That's what you got to think about. Mike: Thanks. That's a great place to stop. John Staley, thank you so much for joining us. It's really been a pleasure. John: Thank you for having me. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. ©2023 The Math Learning Center - www.mathlearningcenter.org

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.

Money can't buy love, but it can certainly start some spicy debates between you and your better half. In this episode, we're digging into the financial face-offs that make Monopoly fights look like child's play and exploring some money minefields that can test even the most solid relationships. Listen in as we explore how to resolve some of the most common financial sources of tension between couples.   Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is a registered investment adviser. All statements and opinions expressed are based upon information considered reliable although it should not be relied upon as such. Any statements or opinions are subject to change without notice. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investment involve risk and, unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Information expressed does not take into account your specific situation or objectives and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for any individual. Listeners are encouraged to seek advice from a qualified tax, legal, or investment adviser to determine whether any information presented may be suitable for their specific situation. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Transcript of Today's Show: For a full transcript of today's show, visit the blog related to this episode at https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/podcast/ ----more---- Marc: Welcome into another edition of the podcast. It's Retirement Planning Redefined with John and Nick from PFG Private Wealth. Find them online at pfgprivatewealth.com if you've got questions or concerns about your retirement strategy or lack thereof.   This week we're going to be talking about 'til debt do us part, resolving potential financial sources of tension between couples, because let's be honest, married couples fight, and often it's about money. That's usually the number one reason that we get into arguments. So we've got five that we want to identify and talk through a little bit and try to hopefully shine some light on some places where we can talk about some of these things and maybe get onto the same page and not have these arguments. Because a lot of times these things happen in front of advisors the very first time.   Guys, not too long ago, I was just chatting with another advisor, who said he was sitting down with a married couple, they were talking, they were going over the stuff, and they were pleasantly surprised about some extra money that they were going to have. The husband says, "Great, we're going to buy an RV and travel the country," and the wife looked at him and said, "Since when? You've never ever brought this up before." So it was the first time she had ever heard it. So we want to make sure that that's not happening. We want to try to have these conversations, ideally with each other before we sit down with an advisor, but certainly that's going to happen as well, because you guys, as you know, often wind up having to be a little bit of marriage counselors sometimes when it comes to dealing with finance in front of folks. That's going to be the topic this week. We're going to get into it.   Nick, how you doing buddy?   Nick: Doing well. Doing well, thanks.   Marc: Yeah. You ever run into that situation where a couple said something in front of you and you could tell the other one was completely caught off guard?   Nick: Oh yeah. Yep. Yep. It's-   Marc: Par for the course?   Nick: Yeah, that's when the couple's therapy hat goes on.   Marc: That's right.   Nick: Probably a lot of advisors don't work in teams like John and I do, oftentimes, and I would say one of the things that it helps with the most is just being able to pick up on the social cues a little bit easier from both people, just because people, depending upon their personality, they may show you a lot with their expression.   Marc: Yeah. Little tandem action there. John, you're married. I'm married. Married couples argue, right? And money's usually the big deal.   John: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Speak for yourself, Mark. [inaudible 00:02:15] aware of it. It's all roses over here.   Marc: Your wife's listening, that's right. Make sure you don't say anything, yeah. But it does happen, right? And money's the number one argument point. So, let's talk about these five that we've identified here that people tend to run into in y'all's industry.   Risk tolerance, if I start that first one, risk tolerance in investments. This is pretty simple. If you're talking about two people, there's a good chance one feels one way about something and the other one feels the other way, especially when it comes to being married couples. So one person may be more aggressive with the portfolio and one's not, right? That simple.   John: Yeah. This does happen quite a bit because everyone has different risk tolerances, personalities, and how they react to the market. What we typically do in this situation is each person will fill out their own risk tolerance questionnaire, and that gives us understanding of how to invest each portfolio. And if it's a joint account, we usually have a discussion of, "Hey, how does this fit in the overall plan and the strategy?" So, again, hate to sound like a broken record, but we really try to have the plan dictate how much risk we should be taking, and then obviously the risk tolerance comes into play. But what we do in this situation is we take account both risks' levels, and then we'll try to incorporate that into the plan and make sure that it's in line with what we're showing for numbers.   Marc: Yeah. This is pretty basic one here, but we want to make sure that both parties are feeling comfortable with the risk that they're taking. It's just that simple. So to not have the argument, you don't want to have the portfolio 90% in the market, for example, just as throwing numbers out there, if the other person's tolerance is only going to be comfortable with half of that or less than that. So you want to have those conversations. It's also good to work with an advisor who can help you go through. And this is why another piece of the importance of both parties being involved with the financial planning process, so that they both are getting their needs met, as well as understanding what's happening and knowing what their plan is. So that's the first one.   Nick, let's talk about the second one, retirement age. My wife and I are five years apart, and she jokes all the time, and I don't think she's joking, but all the time she's like, "You're going to retire five years before me and I don't think I like that," because she just doesn't want to see me goofing off and having fun while she's going to work. Understandable, but something you got to talk about.   Nick: Yeah. It's definitely something that comes up quite a bit. It's interesting, honestly, it varies quite a bit from couple to couple. I've seen it go from anything from one person really enjoys their job more than another and they plan to work longer and they're comfortable and happy with that. In the last few years, we've had people shift to working from home and that has kept them in the job longer. They don't have to do the commute anymore. We've even had clients move maybe a little further out into the burbs because of it and start their adjustment to retirement by being in a quieter area, that sort of thing.   Also, in a funny way, sometimes couples are like, "We need to ease into this whole spending all this extra time together sort of thing. So us doing it at the same time may not be best for us as well." Then purely from a financial standpoint, there could be a significant age gap or maybe at least three to five years where the cost of health insurance, those sorts of things for the younger one, could make a significantly negative impact on the overall plan if they were to retire early. And so they just do it. They continue to work just for that reason alone.   Marc: Yeah. So you've got to have those conversations to sort that out a little bit so that you don't have that argument or that fight over what's going on, things of that nature. Again, this could be an easy one, but it also may not be depending on the age disparity, or even just from the financial standpoint of figuring out the ideal way to do this.   John, let's go to number three for you here on legacy for the family, for heirs or whatever the case is. I joke with my daughter all the time, we only have the one, but I joke with her, I'm like, "I'm not leaving you anything but a credit card statement." So she's expecting to get nadda. She knows that's not true, but for folks who have multiple kids like yourself, it could be simple, where one party wants to leave them a whole bunch and the other party doesn't, right? "We worked hard for this. We want to enjoy our retirement with the money that we put together. The kids are doing fine, so I don't want to leave as much." And that's certainly the source of tension between a married couple, if one's wanting to give a lot and one's wanting to give a little.   John: Yeah, this is probably, I would say, my planning career here, the biggest tension one I've seen actually, because if you're setting aside money to leave for a legacy and you're not spending it, that can make a big impact to what you do in retirement. So, again, the planning does help this out where you start to kind of see it. But this is definitely one where I would say it's a conversation to have in making sure that everyone is on the same page as far as what is the goal for leaving a legacy to kids or grandkids?   Marc: Yeah. And the grandkids can certainly be another whole equation in that too. Although the funny thing is, is couples tend to get on the same page about the grandkids. It's like, "The heck with the kids, just give it all to the grandkids." But, again, you've got to really talk about how you're going to separate that out.   Nick, do you see that as the biggest one as well? As John's mentioned, that's the thing he's seen the most in his career. Do you see that quite often as well?   Nick: Yeah, I would agree with him on that. That's definitely the case for me as well.   Marc: Yeah. It's, again, "Let's leave them as much as we can. No, they're doing just fine. We've given them everything throughout their life. I'm not leaving them that much." That's what my wife and I joke about with our kid. We're like, "I'm not leaving her nothing. We've given her tons of stuff. She's doing well on her own. She doesn't need any of the stuff that we have. We're going to enjoy our retirement ourself." So, we don't have big fights about it, but you could.   John: Mark, actually, one thing that I've seen at work is a kind of in-between, if this debt does become a sticky point, is I've seen some clients that instead of leaving money, it's, "Hey, let's do some things that we enjoy with the family." So instead of just saying, "Hey, we're going to leave you this nest egg," maybe it's, "We go on a vacation and we pay for everybody to come, so we create memories versus just passing away and just leaving them a chunk of money." So that's kind of an in-between, where it's, "Hey, I want to enjoy my retirement. We'll leave it for the kids. Let's do both."   Marc: Gotcha. That's a great point. Yeah, for sure. So maybe trying to enjoy that while everybody's around is a good way of looking at that.   Let's do number four here, housing and retirement, probably the second biggest one, more than likely. "Do we downsize, do we not? Well, we raised the kids here. I want to stay here and raise the grandkids here," kind of thing. Like, "Have the grandkids come here for those great memories, but financially it makes more sense to downsize," or whatever. So there's a whole plethora of arguments that can pop up around the housing issue, Nick.   Nick: Yeah, the housing issue, from almost like a hyperlocal standpoint here, has really become quite interesting, and, to a certain extent, in other areas as well. In our area here we've had really home values post-COVID double, and then interest rates go up. So there's this stuck factor, where in theory somebody may look to downsize their home, but for what they would get for the money, the change in taxes, if there was financing involved, it's one thing if they'd be able to pay cash, but if there'd be financing involved, a lot of times that cuts into any sort of gain that they would get. So unless they're shifting out to an area that's substantially less expensive or that sort of thing, people are a little bit more stuck than they had been previously, which we see that from the standpoint and the perspective of low inventory and that sort of thing.   So we're in an interesting cycle, and it's going to be pretty interesting to see how that ages in the next few years, because we've already had some clients that had looked into downsizing but wanted to stay local, and with the pricing where it's at, it just didn't end up making financial sense. The downside of that is that there's more maintenance and the house is harder to keep up. So instead, they're spending money on maybe some services related to the home that they hadn't before. It's pretty interesting.   Some clients that have relocated from other areas of the country where the housing markets are higher, they've been able to have that be a downsize that's worked out well for them. But that gap used to be much more substantial. What they would sell a house for in maybe the Eastern Seaboard versus what they could buy something for here now, the gap is much smaller than it used to be. Although for some areas it's still a better value, it's changed.   Marc: Yeah, it's easy enough to get into these arguments about different things, and certainly anything that's emotionally attached, like leaving money to the kids or raising the grandkid... I keep saying raising, but spending time with the grandkids in the same home where you raised your children can certainly carry a lot of emotional weight to that. But if the finance or the math bears out in a different direction and one party's leaning towards math and finance and the other one's leaning toward emotion, can certainly lead to arguments. And also, not having the conversations until you sit down with the advisor, probably not the best way to go about that either. "We're going to sell the house." "No, we're not. We're going to stay in the house," and you guys are left sitting there going, "Oh boy, this is going to be fun." So definitely something you want to have a conversation about.   Then the last one guys, is also a pretty big one as well, which is just retirement lifestyle in general. Again, what do you want to do? I used my wife and I as an example a minute ago, I'm going to retire before she does, and she travels a lot for work. Well, she doesn't want to travel that much in retirement. She wants to be at home and enjoy her garden and so on and so forth. And I'm like, well, I'm always working from home, especially while she's traveling now, so I want to get out and do things once we retire. So we're in two different spaces. We've got to find a way to make that work as we get there. And many couples face that same kind of analogy.   John: Yeah, this happens quite a bit in understanding and getting that aligned. I think with all these topics, I'll say that just sitting down and starting a financial plan will answer a lot of these questions and making it come to light. And once you see the plan, you'll really start to determine, "Hey, should we downsize? What can we leave to the kids?" Retirement age, et cetera. And then also, "What are the things we can do in retirement?" It really opens up the conversation.   Just kind of give you scenarios here. I just had a client that, she, herself, her goal was to hike the Appalachian Trail. She just did about half of it, and the husband didn't want to do that. She did it, and then he would actually meet her at certain spots in the trail and they would hang out and then he'd fly back home. But those are things that she wanted to do, and she's not the only one. I have some other people like that as well. If it's that drastically of a difference, some people might do things solo off their bucket list. But the majority of the time, I'll say, maybe we've been fortunate that we've worked with people that will actually compromise and work with each other, even if they have different bucket lists in retirement.   Marc: Yeah. Yeah. Nick, you want to chime in on this one?   Nick: Yeah, it's really an interesting dynamic. I see it now more with my parents who both retired during COVID. The caveat with them is that my grandmother lives with them so that puts some restrictions on what they can do. We have a lot of clients who have that same sort of situation, which is also another reason for people to be strategic about the things that they want to do, and be able to plan around that sort of thing.   As an example, for my parents, I have an uncle that's going to fly down and stay with my grandmother for a week, and they're going to go travel a little bit, go out west for a wedding, and be able to enjoy that time. So, people that tend to be homebodies too, I think I've seen maybe struggle a little bit more than others. I would just say that any sort of engagement, hobbies, things to get you out of the house, all those sorts of things, we've seen have a very positive impact on people's energy levels and how much they're able to actually enjoy retirement.   Marc: Yeah. Well, and again, these are five big places where we can certainly argue about money when it comes to our finances, sources of tension. Whether it's arguing over how aggressive or not we are with our portfolio, whether it's what kind of age we want to retire at, the legacy to leave behind, where we're going to live, or just what overall retirement's going to look like, why have this be a source of tension when we can have a conversation with each other? Hopefully we've done this already, but again, many times couples, they know they're going to fight, so they try to avoid, or maybe they're not as truthful, guys, as they might be with their partner when it's just them. But sitting down in front of advisors like yourselves, now they're a little bit more comfortable because they feel like they've got this mediator who doesn't have a vested interest in the fight. They're just there to help provide the financial information. Is that fair?   John: Yes.   Nick: Yeah, I would say so.   John: Yeah, I would definitely agree with that.   Marc: Yeah. I think a lot of people feel better about doing that in front of an advisor, but again, try not to catch your partner off guard by never having this conversation with them and just springing something on them. Talk about it, and work your way through it, and hopefully maybe use this podcast as a catalyst if you need that, if you're having trouble with your spouse, and just say, "Hey, listen to this." Maybe this will get you guys talking or whatever. And then sit down with a qualified pro like John and Nick to go through the process and see what it is that you need to do to tackle these items and get onto the same page. So reach out to them, pfgprivatewealth.com. That's where you can find them online. Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast, pfgprivatewealth.com.   You can find Retirement Planning Redefined on Apple, Google, or Spotify. Whatever podcasting platform app you like to use, just type that into search box, or again, stop by the website, pfgprivatewealth.com. Guys, thanks for hanging out and breaking this down a little bit for us this week. I always appreciate your time. For John and Nick, I'm your host, Mark, we'll see you next time here on the show.

Get ready for part two of our Retirement Cash Flow series! This time, we're diving into the income side of the equation. In our first two episodes, we tackled the ins and outs of your expenses in retirement. Now, it's all about understanding the crucial role of income analysis. We'll uncover the secrets of guaranteed income versus the uncertain stuff and shed light on the consequences of retiring without a clear income plan. Don't worry if you're feeling lost - we've got your back with practical solutions and expert guidance. Tune in and take charge of your retirement cash flow!   Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is a registered investment adviser. All statements and opinions expressed are based upon information considered reliable although it should not be relied upon as such. Any statements or opinions are subject to change without notice. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investment involve risk and, unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Information expressed does not take into account your specific situation or objectives and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for any individual. Listeners are encouraged to seek advice from a qualified tax, legal, or investment adviser to determine whether any information presented may be suitable for their specific situation. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Transcript of Today's Show: For a full transcript of today's show, visit the blog related to this episode at https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/podcast/ ----more---- Mark: Welcome into this week's edition of the podcast. It's Retirement Planning - Redefined with John and Nick from PFG Private Wealth, back with me again to talk about mastering retirement cash flow. So we're going to dive into the income side of the equation here a little bit on these things that we need to discuss, and go through this crucial role of income analysis. And we'll talk about, hopefully, some ways to highlight some points to think about when it comes to making sure you've got that cash flow taken care of. Because clearly, we've got to have income in retirement when we're no longer getting those paychecks. So that's on the docket this week on the show. Once again, guys, thanks for being here. John, what's going on buddy? John: Oh, not too much. Just starting to get this Florida heat hitting me and we're only about a month into it, but I think I'm already tired of it. Mark: Already tired of it? Yeah, you got a ways to go if that's the case. What about you, Nick? How are you doing, my friend? I know you're doing a little moving. Moving's always fun, right? You getting that all worked out? Nick: Yeah, yeah. Well, luckily the move wasn't too bad, but pretty much settled in and I got a little bit of break from the heat in July after going up north for a little bit, like I tend to do during the summer. Mark: Oh, yeah. Although it's been hot everywhere. It was probably hot up there too, wasn't it? Nick: It was, it was. But it was, for sure, cooler and the humidity less. Mark: Yeah. That's the kicker. Yeah. Nick: We definitely had some warm days for sure, but I do enjoy being able to go on the fresh water up there, because I don't do fresh water in Florida. And it's not like I go to the beach that much anyways, but the water at the beaches here right now is just insanely hot. It's not even worth going in. Mark: It's like you get in the bathtub. Nick: Yeah, yeah. It's ridiculous. Mark: You think, "The ocean! I'm going to cool off." No, you're not. But yeah, well, good. I'm glad you guys are doing all right. So let's get in and talk about this cash flow thing here a little bit. Why is understanding income, guys, in retirement critical for the stability of your financial strategy, and what could happen if you don't have that clear picture? Nick: Yeah, so I was actually having a conversation with a client earlier today and really kind of emphasizing ... We emphasize this with our clients quite a bit, that it's super important to have income. Obviously, income is king in retirement, but not completely in lieu of liquidity, of having other funds. So this one client had good direct income sources and then had a decision to make on a pension, on whether to lump sum, roll over or take it as an income. And because of the overall financial strategy, for her it made sense to take lump sum, roll it over into an IRA. And that would kind of give her the balance of having assets that she can dip into, versus just a stream of income that would limit her on other things. Creating that balance is different for every single person, but we really try to emphasize trying to make sure that you understand the different forms of income, and balancing that with making sure that you have access and accounts that are invested, but are also liquid. Mark: Yeah, okay. I mean, that makes sense, clearly. And so, when we're thinking about the stability of income streams, John, what are some examples of different sources? I mean, there's some that are pretty obvious, but we want to make sure we have more than just one, clearly. So what are some of the things to think about? John: Yeah. You definitely want to analyze where the money's coming from. I know the last podcast, we were talking about expenses, and that's really where you start, is getting to understand, "Hey, how much am I spending?" And the next step is, okay, now that I'm spending this, where's my income coming from to cover those expenses? And you want to make a clear picture of understanding what your income sources are, because the biggest risk going into retirement is making sure you do not outlive your money. And part of that is understanding, "Okay, where is my income coming from? And how do I make sure that I maintain my lifestyle without running out at age 80 years old, and now all of a sudden I'm looking to get a job at 80." Mark: Yeah, nobody wants to do that. So we're talking pensions, right? IRAs, 401(k)s, social security, annuities, so on and so forth, things like that. Is it advisable to try to rely more heavily on one versus the other? And I think for many years, John, people would kind of say, "Well, social security's going to make up half or more", but I don't know that that's the reliable source we want to go with anymore. What do you think? John: Definitely not, no. Especially with ... Not that anyone's done this yet, but a lot of talk of updating the social security program, cuts and things like that. You definitely want a good balance of retirement income sources, because if, let's say, there was an update to social security, you'd want to have something in your back pocket where you can say, "Okay, that's okay, that's not going to affect me too much. I can pull from this income source." Nick: And things like understanding ... One of the things that we walk people through as far as if they're taking distributions from their retirement accounts, as they're leading up to retirement, going over the whole concept of a safe withdrawal rate, being around 4%, maybe 4.5%. Rates are a little bit higher, but we don't know how long they'll stay that way. That helps people get a little bit of a grasp of how much money they can take from their investments safely, and look to make sure that any other sources kind of fill in the gap. Mark: Let's talk a little bit about some of those guaranteed sources versus non-guaranteed, Nick, I'll let you kick this off for a second here. What is a guaranteed income and what's the difference between that versus non-guaranteed? Nick: Sure. The way that we would look at something such as the term "guaranteed income", although there are issues with social security for the most part, we look at that as a guaranteed income source. That may be something that we toggle down as far as the percentage that they would receive, but we would look at that as a guaranteed income source. If they implemented an annuity strategy, dependent upon the type of strategy that it is, that could be considered a guaranteed income source. That would be something. It's always important to point out to them that, although the history is pretty strong for insurance companies, when it's an annuity, the guarantee is provided by the insurance company itself. So that's something that's important to know. Pension plans are usually considered pretty safe and a guaranteed source of income. Mark: Yeah. I mean, non-guaranteed is going to be ... I mean, when we think about a normal 401(k), right, where we're just pumping money away, but unfortunately, if you've got it weighted in the market or things of that nature, it's not necessarily guaranteed. If you're risking it, by having exposure to the markets, then that's where that non-guarantee comes from. Correct? Nick: Correct. Yeah. For example, the conversation I had earlier with the client as far as ... Because the question that she had was exactly that. Like, "Well, hey, if I do this lump sum rollover, is that guaranteed like the pension is?" And of course the answer is no. But I also did kind of point out to her, and this was somebody that doesn't have a spouse but has kids, that, hey, this single life option is guaranteed for your life. But if you pass away within five years, you haven't even gotten close to the lump sum balance and nothing would pass onto your children. So that's something else that can come into play, where the word "guarantee" can be tricky, because it can guarantee certain aspects, but not others. Mark: Right, yeah. And so John, listeners have probably heard of things like paycheck versus playcheck, right? So if we're talking about explaining, and as you mentioned, we did some expenses on the last show. If you can walk through some of the ways that we might do that. I would think that we would want to try to use our guaranteed income sources to cover, which would be our paychecks, to cover all the have-to-haves in life. And then we use the non-guaranteed, possibly the playcheck side, as the fun items. I guess every situation is different, but is that a simple way to break that down? John: Yeah. So your paycheck would be associated with your fixed expenses, the things you need. Your necessities, things that you really need to make sure that are covered. Taxes, groceries, things like that, that you cannot do without. Mark: Rent. Electricity. John: Yeah, exactly. Your playcheck is obviously, as you mentioned, discretionary income, your wants. Let's put it that way. And what we do when we're doing the plan, and everyone's situation's different of course, but we'll have a lot of people that, let's say they're very conservative and they just say, "Hey, I want to make sure that my paycheck items are covered on a guaranteed basis. That no matter what, I want to make sure I have this covered, so I stress a little bit less about what's going on with the markets." And we can adjust the plan to basically make sure that happens for them. And then what we end up doing is, anything that's tied to fluctuation, whether it's the market or anything else, or rents, then it'll be the playcheck scenario where, "Okay, this is going to cover it." And let's say where that comes into play is, if a year is down in the market or interest rates drop, well, all right. Maybe that specific individual might not do as much in discretionary spending in that given year. Mark: Yeah. And Nick, maybe depending on how you've saved for life or how your setup is, maybe you have a pension or not, there's a possibility that you could have your paycheck cover everything that you need in retirement, or most of it, and you're really just using those accounts that you've built up, your 401(k) or your IRA or something, as something to leave to heirs. So I mean, there's lots of options out there, lots of strategies. It just really comes back to, what have you done and what kind of a saver you been, and so on and so forth. Nick: Yeah, that's absolutely correct. And for clients that we have that did retire with maybe a substantial pension, and they've been a really good saver, and they don't really dip into those investments, we definitely put together ... And their main objective is to leave money, we can work together and put together strategies to try to do that as efficiently as possible and that sort of thing. Mark: Yeah, because a lot of people will say, with RMDs for example. I mean, I can't count on one hand or both hands how many advisors I talk to that have clients saying, "Yeah, I got to take this money out for the RMD and I don't need it. What am I supposed to do with it?" But you have to do it, right? Nick: Exactly. So it's like you got to take that hit from a tax perspective, but the money could always be reinvested, it can go into a different sort of investment vehicle. There's a way to continue to have it grow. Some people will use RMDs to fund a permanent life insurance policy, to kind of shift money from a taxable inheritance to a tax-free inheritance, that sort of thing. So it just kind of depends upon, just like anything else, the overall situation and the factors that are specific to their plan. Mark: Gotcha. Well, John, let's finish off with this. So, any strategies for maximizing, maybe some non-guaranteed income? Because we often think about, or hear, John, stuff like, "Hey, get your social security maximized, run a social security analysis, make sure that you're getting all that you can there." But how do we do something similar, I suppose, in the non-guaranteed space? John: Yeah. So this will be where, I'll give you a scenario. If we're doing a plan for somebody and all they have is social security and there's no other guaranteed income, and let's just assume this person's conservative, and they have a decent nest egg where we could look at it and say, "Okay, what we could do is, from the investment portfolio, whether that's a 401(k) or IRA or a Roth IRA, whatever it is, we could pull some money out of there, put it into one of these annuity companies that provide a guaranteed income", and of course, disclosure based on their paying ability. Mark: Sure. John: And from that we can say, "Okay, here's your social security. And based on the plan, we feel that together we come up with this number, you should have x amount of guaranteed income on top of social security." And we can basically take a chunk out of the investment portfolio and put it into one of these annuity products to give, in essence, some guaranteed income. And what that typically does, it'll provide the person with a little bit of peace of mind where they say, "Hey", back to that scenario of paycheck and playcheck, "I know that my paycheck items are now covered and I feel a little bit more secure about what's happening." Mark: You're kind of creating your own pension. John: Exactly. Mark: Yeah. Okay. And again, for some folks, Nick, that's where the strategy might play off. Because some people, obviously, especially when you think about the annuity term, some people are game to learn, some people are very hesitant because they've heard whatever it is that they hear. But it could be an option for folks who don't have a lot of other resources to tap into, especially if you're going to do something like a fixed index where you're going to tie it to an indices. And that way you're kind of experiencing some of the upside, but you're also having some of that protection on the downside, so that it's not quite as non-guaranteed as it could have been if you just left it straight in the market. Is that fair, is that accurate? Nick: Yeah, annuities are always a subject that can be ... Mark: It's a hot topic. Nick: Maybe volatile, yeah, hot topic sort of thing. And the way that we tend to approach the subject is, there are so many different options when it comes to annuities. There's kind of dividing up the decision-making process between strategy and then implementation. So what I mean by that is, oftentimes, integrating in an annuity strategy for somebody can make sense to really dovetail into what John talked about. "Hey, we've got an income gap that's needed of maybe $15,000 to $20,000 a year, and hey, we can carve out this amount of money and cover that." And then we'll see issues arise in the implementation, where the advisor that they had worked with uses a product that is maybe super expensive or the guarantees are not good, or it's been misunderstood or mis-sold, or the sales charge period's a really, really long time. So the implementation is poor, and that oftentimes sets off the red flags and that sort of thing. So just like anything else, we would look at it and we tell people upfront, "Hey, this might be a strategy that makes sense for you, it may not. We think our job is to explain to you how it works so that you understand it, so that you can say yes or no. And then we move forward with whatever you feel comfortable with." Mark: Yeah, so sometimes you may have to create some alternate sources using life insurance products or different things that are out there. But again, each situation's going to be different, so you want to identify what kind of income sources you need and then where you're going to be getting them from. So if you need some help, as always, make sure you're talking with a qualified professional, like John and Nick, before you take any action on anything you hear from our show or any other show. You always want to see how it's going to relate to your unique situation. Obviously, we're all affected by the same kind of things; we're going to have expenses in retirement, we're going to need income in retirement. But how you break that down and how you're able to utilize the things that you've done through your life, are going to be different from person to person. So, get yourself onto the calendar, have a conversation with John and Nick at pfgprivatewealth.com. That's pfgprivatewealth.com. That's where you can find them online. And don't forget to subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Google, or Spotify, whichever podcasting platform app you like to use. Guys, thanks for hanging out. As always, I appreciate your time. For John and Nick, I'm your host, Mark, and we'll catch you next time here on Retirement Planning - Redefined.

In this episode, we'll explore many of the expenses in your life that might drastically change (one way or another) in retirement. We'll break those expenses down further to see which ones are the top priorities and analyze some of the other factors that impact your cash flow in retirement. Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is a registered investment adviser. All statements and opinions expressed are based upon information considered reliable although it should not be relied upon as such. Any statements or opinions are subject to change without notice. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investment involve risk and, unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Information expressed does not take into account your specific situation or objectives and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for any individual. Listeners are encouraged to seek advice from a qualified tax, legal, or investment adviser to determine whether any information presented may be suitable for their specific situation. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Transcript of Today's Show: For a full transcript of today's show, visit the blog related to this episode at https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/podcast/ ----more---- Marc: Welcome back to the podcast. It's Retirement Planning-Redefined, with John and Nick here with me to talk investing, finance, retirement, and mastering retirement cashflow, part one, is going to be the topic today. We're understanding just changing expenses. We're going to break this into really a two-parter here, obviously, by calling it part one. And we'll do a little more focus on some of the other things on the next session. But for today, I want to explore some of the expenses in life and how they just change as we're moving some things ... as we're moving from working into retirement. And things you guys see with your clients and how you work through that process for them. So that's the topic today. Let's get into it. John, first of all, how are you doing, buddy?   John: I'm doing all right. Getting ready for the summertime here.   Marc: If it happens. I don't know what's going on in the south. I'm in North Carolina, and we've had one 90 degree day, and it's almost July. Totally unusual for us, so it's very, very weird.   Nick: Oh, it's hot here.   Marc: Yeah. It's like two states seem to be in a weird spot. I don't know what's going on with the middle of the south here. It's very strange this year. But Nick, I heard you chime in. How are you, my friend?   Nick: Doing pretty good.   Marc: Yeah. So you guys are sweltering, is that what you're saying?   Nick: It's definitely hot, yeah.   Marc: Well, kick a little this way because I don't know what's going on. It should be warmer here than it has been. So, very weird.   Nick: Well, I'll trade.   Marc: Okay. All right. Yeah. Like today, it's ... well, we're getting a ton of rain. Today, taping this podcast, it's 72 for the high, and tonight's overnight low is 58. That doesn't happen usually in North Carolina in late July or late June.   Nick: Yeah. That is pretty surprising. That's cool for North Carolina.   Marc: Very, very weird. So I don't know, Mother Nature is off her meds, I guess. But what can you do? So let's get into this conversation, guys, about changing cash flow, before I keep going down that tangent. I've got a few parts here I want to run through. What are some of the expenses that might drastically change one way or the other, either to saving us money or to costing us more money? Whichever way you guys want to take this, whatever you've seen with your clients. But let's start it off with housing. I think housing is probably the number one expense in retirement. Correct me if I'm wrong there, but what do you think?   Nick: Yeah. I would say for a lot of people that maintain a mortgage past retirement, it's definitely a significant monthly expense. One thing that we are seeing here with the tick up in interest rates over the last 12 months, we had had conversations with multiple clients from 2018 through 2021 about taking advantage of low interest rates and keeping their mortgage and that sort of thing. And for a lot of people, that makes them feel uncomfortable. But to a person, everyone that we've talked to that has done that, now that rates are where they are, they've been pretty happy about that decision and being able to take advantage and lock in those low rates. But for those people that just naturally, with the schedule mortgage that they had, and ended up paying off the mortgage by the time they retired, that drop in expenses is usually a big help. I would say one thing that jumps out that's a reminder that we use for people is ... especially because the homeowner's insurance market here has now gone completely insane. Taxes and insurance don't go away. So I can't tell you how many times we've had a conversation where maybe somebody had a mortgage that was $3,000 a month, and they're like, well, once I retire, that 3,000 a month is going to go away. And we point out, well, hey, about half of that is. The rest of it's for taxes and insurance. So sometimes that drop in expense isn't quite as much as they thought it was going to be.   Marc: Gotcha. Yeah. And it's easy to do, even with downsizing, because the market's been high. So it's not always just lowering things just to go to that downsizing piece. John, what's your thoughts there?   John: Yeah, I would say the downsizing is a big part of it. Not only if you downsize, you might be able to get some equity out of your house there. So if you downsize, buy a two or $300,000 house, you get some cash that you could do something with. But then you start looking at smaller house, less homeowners insurance, less maintenance costs, things like that, it could really be a pretty significant savings. Especially, as Nick mentioned here, with homeowners insurance. I think mine went up like 60 or 70% in a year, which was ... ... I've heard a lot of people. At first, I thought it was just me. And then I talked to some clients, friends, family, and it seemed across the board that it just shot up.   Marc: That's hefty.   Nick: Yeah, there's a lot people that are falling between five and $10,000 a year now. For homeowners insurance down here, it's gone just wild.   Marc: Well, I imagine the big hurricane added a lot to that, right? That's probably part of it. From last year.   Nick: Yeah, yeah.   Marc: Yeah, for sure. Insurance companies are like, we got to recoup some money. How are we going to do that? 60% hikes. All right, no more work stuff. Category two on the changing in expenses. I think we probably assume for the most part that no more work stuff means we're going to save a little bit of money.   John: Yeah. So this is something that when we do planning, we definitely hit on. We have different categories of current expenses and then retirement expenses, and then we actually go one further and we're looking at advanced age expenses. But this is one where you're not commuting anymore, or at least to work. So depending on what your commute was, you could be saving quite a bit on gas, car maintenance expenses, things like that. And then the big one, I know when Nick and I worked in West Shore, was the lunch expense. Where it's like every time for lunch it's like, all right, where are we going? A good excuse to get out of the office and just get a change of scenery, you find you're going out to lunch every day. That does tend to add up quite a bit.   Marc: Oh, yeah. You can spend some dough that way, for sure. So I think in this category, we feel like ... and this one I think maybe drives a lot of people feeling like, oh, I'm going to spend less money in retirement. Right, Nick? I mean, this is one of those things. Well, I'm not doing all those things now, so I'm going to be saving money. But you're also doing more stuff because you don't have to go to work, so you may not save as much as you think.   Nick: Yeah. I would also say too, that this post-COVID work from home shift has prepared a lot more people to have a better idea of the expenses that have changed. We do have a fair amount of clients that used to commute, and no longer do. And so they've gotten a peek into what that looks like. And people are creatures of habit. Inevitably, they develop new things that they do, and usually there's other expenses that replace previous ones, but-   Marc: There's always something, right?   Nick: Yeah. But oftentimes, there are reasonable reductions in some of those work-related expenses.   Marc: Okay. Let's go to healthcare. This one here, this one to me seems like this is not going to be going into the positive. This is not going to be putting money back in our pocket. More than likely, this is going to cost us more.   Nick: Yeah. I mean, for a big chunk of people, especially if they work at a company that has pretty good health benefits, and maybe they haven't had their kids on their plan for a while, so it's just them and a spouse or them solo. Oftentimes, the shift to what we budget for post-age 65 Medicare-related premiums, oftentimes it goes up for people. So we typically budget about $4,000 a year, and we have a more aggressive inflation number that we use on that. Oftentimes, people come in less than that, especially with a high deductible plan, those sorts of things. I just had this conversation the other day with someone, where they were going to have a pretty substantial jump. And they had worked for the same company for a long time, didn't realize-   Marc: You mean a jump in the premiums?   Nick: Yes. Yep. They had worked for the same company for a long time. It was big company and had really good health benefits, and premiums were going to go up. So it can be a little surprising that way. If it's somebody that's shifting more from the perspective of, kids recently got off their plan and they're cutting back on ... maybe went from a regular health plan to a high deductible, those sorts of things. It can be a drop. But honestly, I see it more neutral or go up than I see it go down.   Marc: Yeah, definitely. John, taxes, let me hit you with this one. This is a big misnomer that's been around for years. That when we get to retirement, our taxes are just generally lower because we're not getting a paycheck, we're not making as much. But more times than not, eight out of 10 times people are not in a lower tax bracket.   John: No. Typically, they tend to be in the same, if not, maybe a little bit lower. Because what you're really trying to do when you do planning is you want to keep the person's income where it was while they were working.   Marc: Right. You're trying to fill in the ... you're shortening the short shortfall. You're pulling from our assets to make up the shortfall based on Social Security or if you have a pension or whatever those kinds of things are. So you're trying to keep the numbers basically the same, correct?   John: Exactly, yeah. So we are trying to keep the numbers the same. And we find a lot of people ... I would say we find the majority of people have most of their money in pre-tax accounts. So what you'll find is when you're pulling out of the pre-tax accounts, you're paying taxes on it. So this is really important when it comes to planning, where you ... and we harp on this constantly. It's a matter of setting yourself up to adjust. So maybe if you have some tax-free money, some after-tax dollars in some other accounts, you can really try to eliminate ... or not eliminate. But try to lower what your taxes are going into retirement. And I'll say one thing that happens quite often with clients, and this is only maybe a year or two that we see in retirement, is they just have a couple of years of just massive expenses where ... we just had someone that's purchasing a second home and they need to pull out of their retirement account. And all of a sudden, it's like in that given year, that's going to be a big tax hit. Or it's a health expense. Or I've had other ones where they want to do a remodel on their house and it's like, well, I got to pull money out of my account. And everything is pre-taxed, so they really get ... we see a significant increase in their taxes in those years.   Marc: Yeah. And that's why we want to get tax efficient, if we can. And maybe that's worth looking at, trying to maybe move some money so we don't have that tax time bomb sitting there waiting on us. Some different things. And speaking of actually that, Nick, let's go to the next one here because you can chime in, it fits well with that. Is one of the biggest things we're doing is pumping money, hopefully, especially the last 10 years of working, into our retirement account. Maybe that 401K that John was just talking about. And therefore we're growing those dollars. And that is an expense that goes away once we stop working, we're no longer feeding that.   Nick: Yeah. That deferral is usually the lowest hanging fruit of expenses or cash flow going down.   Marc: Money back in our pocket, kind of thing, right?   Nick: Yeah, exactly. That outflow is usually the biggest drop, especially if it's ... if you're talking a couple that is essentially, maybe they're both maxing out or pretty close to maxing out, they're saving around 25,000. That's $50,000 a year. Granted, that's the money that they're used to living on anyways.   Marc: Yeah. Because we weren't seeing that. When we're working, it's going straight to the paycheck ... or straight to the 401, for example. But now that we're not working, we also don't have the paycheck. So to me, is it truly a savings or is it a wash, because you weren't seeing it before either? You know what I mean?   Nick: Yeah. I think for a lot of people it's a wash. Realistically, in the day-to-day setting and from a lifestyle perspective, it tends to be a bit of a wash.   Marc: Okay. Yeah.   Nick: Yeah, it's more of an on-paper reduction, more than anything.   Marc: Makes sense.   Nick: And in theory, when you start ... if you want to nitpick a little bit. The money that you defer into those plans, you still pay payroll taxes on it. So there's a little bit of a savings there. So that's something that can factor in. And one of the changes that fits in with both the tax and retirement things is a lot of times at that point in time, they're no longer claiming kids. Maybe the mortgage is paid off. So from a deduction perspective, there's also a change as well from the standpoint of what they're able to deduct versus what they can deduct in retirement.   Marc: Okay. And so what we're doing is we're talking about these categories here on understanding how our expenses are going to change, whether it's to the plus or to the minus. And then we'll talk a little bit more later on about how that's going to affect us in our overall expenses and some things to cover in ways to be more efficient in that. So let's continue on with a couple more categories here and then we'll wrap it up for this podcast. So we went through housing, work stuff, healthcare, taxes, the retirement savings account when we're no longer feeding the 401 animal. John, so you mentioned earlier travel and leisure, when you were talking about there's different things we're going to spend money on. So if every Saturday is the day I spend the most money, well, guess what retirement is?   John: Every day seems like it's a Saturday.   Marc: It's a bunch of Saturdays, right?   John: Yep.   Marc: It's Groundhog Day.   John: The more time you have, you find yourself trying to fill the gap of what to do. And we see a lot of people that are, if they're like golfing, they tend to be golfing a little bit more. Or fishing or whatever it might be. I'll see-   Marc: But that's the point, right? That's the point of retirement. It's what we're striving for. But I think the scary part is, is if we haven't budgeted for how much we're ... the activity. That's when we can maybe shortfall ourselves.   John: Exactly. Yeah. That's where it's important where you're doing a cashflow analysis for retirement. Like I said, we typically look at retirement expenses. We'll look at what the person does for hobbies and try to estimate, okay, this is what we can expect. And you always want to go over the amount, you never want to go under.   Marc: I was going to ask you that. Yeah. You want to-   John: Yeah, you always want to go over, because-   Marc: ... inflate it a little bit.   John: Yeah, exactly. I'll tell you this ... and my wife doesn't listen to the podcast. When she's at home more, I start to notice my Amazon bill goes up and packages end up at the door. So when there's a lot more downtime, you tend to say, okay, what's out there? Oh, let me go run to the store. Let me go do this real quick. And all those things add up to just added expenses, which fine-   Marc: Yeah. Well, sitting on the computer or the phone, you're just like, I'm bored, I'm not doing anything. Next thing you know, you're on some sort of shopping site because you're like, I was thinking about this or that, or a new set of golf clubs. Right, it's easy to do.   John: Home projects because Pinterest is giving you all these different ideas that you should be doing with your home. So yeah, all those things are up.   Nick: All right, John. This is not a therapy session.   Marc: No, but I mean he's right, though. I mean, it totally ... and people do that.   John: So Marc, that's coming from the single guy right now.   Marc: Right. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. And you mentioned, you were talking about projects, DIY projects or Pinterest. We're right in the middle of rebuilding ... I'm building a billiards room here next to my office for the pool table. And it's just, scope-creep has taken over. It's like, oh, I can ... I factored in the budget. I'm like, I could do it for this amount of money. And I'm way over budget. And that's, again, if you're retired ... I'm still working. But if I was retired, that could be a real problem. If I let scope-creep get in there and I'm spending 25% more than I budgeted for this project, that could be an issue. So you want to make sure that you are inflating it, to your point. Puff those numbers up a little bit, just to be on the safe side.   Nick: Oh yeah, big time. I don't think I've seen anybody come in under budget on anything in the last three years.   Marc: Yeah. And that's with professionals, let alone doing it yourself, right?   Nick: For sure.   Marc: Okay. So that's travel and leisure. So the last one here, last category, insurance. Many people, guys, walk into retirement saying, well, I don't need insurance anymore. That's also that old standard, as far as the financial services world. Well, who needs ... why do you need insurance if your kids are grown and you don't have to replace your income because you're not worried about sending them to school. Or all that kind of stuff that you guys have heard probably a million times.   Nick: Yeah. So we'll see ... one of the most common insurances that go away, whether it's at retirement or early in retirement, is life insurance. So we obviously emphasize the fact that a death early on in retirement is the bigger risk, especially if there's outstanding debt, those sorts of things, versus later on in retirement. So sometimes we'll have people that, maybe they've got three to five years left on their term policy and the premiums aren't prohibitive. And we'll just them keep the coverage because there's still a mortgage, or just that additional money if something were to happen would be a big boost to the surviving spouse. But disability definitely goes away because disability insurance, by definition ensures your ability to work. So if you're not working, then you're not insuring anything. So that's something that drops. And then some of these supplemental policies that maybe were provided by the employer, aren't portable and you can't take them with you anyway. So some of those things will drop off. So that's definitely something that can be adjusted and adapted to reduce some of the costs.   Marc: Well, I think for every situation, insurance is one of those questions, John, that goes either way. Some people may not, when you guys are developing and looking through the plan, maybe insurance isn't needed. But then again, maybe it is. Or maybe they're using an insurance policy for the cash value policy side of things or whatever. So this one is one I think could go either direction.   John: It definitely could go either way, it really depends on the individual. And like we were just talking about here, each person, whatever is important to them will dictate whether your insurance is going to be going up or down. That's really what it comes down to is, each individual, what they value and what they want to protect with insurance and what they're ... oh, okay. I'm okay without it.   Marc: Well, and that's a good way to think about what we're going to get into for the next podcast, is really assessing must-haves, nice-to-haves, things of that nature. And then how other aspects in the financial services world could affect those categories we just ran down. So we're going to wrap it up this week. So again, these are just the expenses categories, and some major ones here to think about how they may change to the plus or to the minus with our cash flow in retirement. And we'll be back next week with the second half of this conversation. So do yourself a favor, if you haven't done so yet. Reach out to the team if you don't have a strategy or a plan in place, and get started with a consultation and a conversation for yourself. You can find the guys at pfgprivatewealth.com. That's pfgprivatewealth.com, where you can get started today on a strategy for yourself. Reach out to John and Nick there. And guys, thanks for hanging out. I'll see you next week ... well, in two weeks on the podcast. Nick, have a good one.   Nick: See you.   Marc: All right, John. Thanks, buddy.   John: Sure.   Marc: And I'll catch you later. We'll see you guys here on retirement Planning-Redefined, with John and Nick.

On this episode, we will continue our conversation on what expenses may change when you enter into retirement. Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is a registered investment adviser. All statements and opinions expressed are based upon information considered reliable although it should not be relied upon as such. Any statements or opinions are subject to change without notice. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investment involve risk and, unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Information expressed does not take into account your specific situation or objectives and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for any individual. Listeners are encouraged to seek advice from a qualified tax, legal, or investment adviser to determine whether any information presented may be suitable for their specific situation. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Transcript of Today's Show: For a full transcript of today's show, visit the blog related to this episode at https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/podcast/ ----more---- Mark: Back here for another episode of the podcast with John and Nick from PFG Private Wealth. On Retirement Planning Redefined, we're going to get back into our conversation from the prior episode about cashflow. We went through some categories, housing, work stuff, healthcare, taxes, so on and so forth, on how those expenses will change either to the plus or the minus, depending on our setup. Well, this is the time to talk about the setup. So as we are assessing our retirement expenses, we'll break these down into a couple of categories. So we're going to talk about those with the guys. John, welcome in buddy. How you doing this week? John: Hey, I'm doing all right. How are you? Mark: Hanging in there. Doing pretty well. How about you, Nick? Nick: Pretty good. Staying busy. Mark: Staying busy and enjoying. So we're taping this before the fourth, but we're dropping this after the fourth, so hopefully you guys had a good fourth? Nick, you probably went up and saw family, yeah? Nick: Heading up north to just, yeah, extended family and friends. That fourth week makes it an easier week to get away because everyone's doing stuff anyways. Mark: Yeah, yeah. It's always funny when we have the holidays and we're kind of taping the podcast ahead of time because then drop it because we're not around, so sometimes I get confused on my dates. So yeah, again, we're talking about this before the fourth about what we'll probably will be doing on the fourth. So John, are you on grill duty? Because I know I am. I'm stuck on it. John: No, no. My brother's forcing me to have a cookout at my house, so I told him if I'm providing the house, he's the one on grill duty. Mark: Okay, that'll work.   John: He's visiting from Boston, so he's excited because my other brother's down here and my sister, cousin, and actually the best man in his wedding is married to my sister, so he decided to come down.   Mark: So Marketing 101. So the second you said Boston, all I hear is these Sam Adams commercials right now, "Your cousin from Boston." Every freaking time I hear Boston, that's the first thing I think of. Or Sam Adams beer, I go right there. All through the hockey playoffs and NBA playoffs, I kept seeing those commercials so it's embedded in my brain. But hey, that's the point of marketing, right, is to be those little earworms, so you go out and buy whatever it is that you go out and buy. And speaking of that, that's my transition into the must haves versus the nice to haves. So if we're talking about those accounts, those different categories that we went through on the prior episode, guys, how do those things now play into for our cashflow? Again, cashflow is the conversation wraparound, it's the wrapper of this whole endeavor. We need to break this down. And do you guys do this with clients? Is it something you encourage them to do, because everybody's individual needs and wants are going to be a little bit differently, but do you break things up in the must-haves versus the nice to haves? Nick: I would say to a certain extent, we do. We kind of list basic expenses and discretionary expenses. Mark: So give us some musts. What's the musts? Nick: So obviously housing, healthcare, food and groceries, some form of transportation, whether it's one vehicle, two vehicles. Getting rid of debt. Those are all things that are obviously needs. [inaudible 00:03:02] Mark: Life essentials, right? Nick: Yeah, for sure, for sure. Depending upon the people, some things are discretionary. I would say most of the people that we work for can't afford to have some sort of traveling in retirement. Mark: Yeah, so is two trips a year or is it five trips a year? That's kinds how it starts to change? Nick: Yeah, exactly. Or even a big trip every X amount of years. So like a baseline travel budget of X, and then let's add one of the things that we commonly do is, let's say the travel budget is $6,000 a year from a baseline standpoint, and then every three years they want to do an additional trip of another 6,000, that's one trip. And so we can scatter that in throughout the plan and show them what it looks like and toggle that on and off. And with how we do planning, we can show them the impact of doing something like that and what it does to their plan. So for the higher tier, nice to have. For discretionary expenses, we will use our planning software and kind of show them, Hey, here's the impact on your plan if you want to do that. Because we always preface everything, it's telling people that it's your money, we're not telling you how to spend your money or what to do with your money, our job is to show you the impact of the decisions that you make. Mark: That makes sense, yeah. Nick: So let's arm you with that information so that you understand if you do these things, then let's make an adjustment accordingly. And for sometimes it helps them put into perspective where not everything is a yes or a no. And what I mean by that is, well, let's just say that there's two lifetime trips that they wanted to really do, and so they like to have a bigger travel budget, but really when you boil it down, it's like, okay, I want to make sure I go to these two places. So we make sure that we can accomplish those and make adjustments elsewhere. [inaudible 00:04:58] Mark: Yeah, because the must ... I'm sorry to cut you off, but I was thinking about this as you were saying it. The must-haves, like the housing, the health, food, you're not going to have any kind of discretionary wiggle room. Well, you don't want to. Now you could say, okay, we'll eat less food, or something like that, but that's not the goal in retirement, you don't want to go backwards. So the place typically we do make some adjustments in the cuts are in the nice to have categories. Nick: Yeah, and usually it's almost more of a toggle where even to a certain extent of, we've had conversations where, hey, if things are going really well in the markets and we're able to take advantage and take a little extra money out in years where things have gone well, that's kind of the impetus to do this sort of thing. Mark: Kind of pad the numbers a little bit.   Nick: Yeah. Mark: John, let me get you on here for, besides the expenses we covered, some of the things we went through, what are some contributing factors that will affect cashflow problems that you guys see in retirement? So all these different things, whether it's healthcare, housing, whether it's whatever, give me some bullet points here for folks to think about on things that can, not in a category per se, but like outside effectors, outside influencers, that can really cause us cashflow problems in retirement. John: The number one I'd say, concern for most people going through retirement is longevity. How long does my money need to last? Mark: And that's the great multiplier, right? Because if you live longer, it makes everything else go up. John: Correct. Yeah. So that's one thing we look at, and we do plans. We're planning for age 100, and we'll always get people like, well, I'm not living that long. But the thing is, that's always ... Mark: What if you do? John: Exactly. So it's like, Hey, listen, if you live to 100, guess what? Mark: You're covered. John: Your plan looks good. You could live to 90 and the plan looks good. So we always plan for, we again, overestimate the expenses, overestimate the life expectancy, Mark: And then you don't have to live with your cousin in Boston, right? John: Exactly. That's right. Mark: All right. What else besides longevity? John: Another big one we're seeing right now is inflation. Because with retirement, you're not getting a paycheck anymore, so your ability to earn is now gone. So your nest egg is providing that income for you and social security. And keeping up with inflation, especially the last few years has been a challenge for quite a few people. And mostly I would say for me, I've noticed my food bill has gone up drastically in the last couple of years, more than anything else is really. Because we talked about musts and nice to have, if trips go up, you could say, all right, I'm going to go on a little bit lesser trip, or not go as much, but you know, you got to eat and you got to have healthcare. So those things there are big ones to really consider going into retirement and to be aware of, is the plan [inaudible 00:07:42] Mark: Yeah, a friend of mine, for Memorial Day, we were talking about cookouts earlier, so we got July 4th, you're probably hearing this after July 4th, but how much did it cost you to buy this stuff? So a friend of mine posted a picture around Memorial Day that he bought three steaks, and he lived in the New York area, Nick, actually. And the tag on the thing was like 60 bucks for three steaks. It was like, holy moly. And I know different parts of the country are more expensive than others, but it was just where I'm at, it was like, wow. And they weren't like that impressive of a steak. So to your point, you got to eat. Nick: To be honest with you, I think there's a little bit of ... Mark: Price gouging. Nick: ... ridiculousness and price gouging going on right now from the perspective of a lot of different areas. I just got my six months notice on my car insurance, I've been complaining to everybody about it. One vehicle, no accidents [inaudible 00:08:34] John: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Nick, this isn't a therapy session, right? Mark: Well remembered, well remembered, John, from the prior episode. Very good. Nick: Yes. I drive probably 7,000 miles a year at the most and paying almost $2,500 a year for car insurance. But the crazy part is that, so okay, if it's always been high, that's one thing, but two years ago when I had switched companies, it was about 1,700. So again, we take ... Mark: Inflation. Nick: Do the math on that. I'm sorry, but 50% is not inflation, there's some 50% in two years and it's kind of wild. And then even just going, the area that we're in has been massive growth in this area, but even what the restaurants are charging, and it's just inflation impacts different areas differently. Mark: It's an excuse. I mean, just like anything, we've turned it into excuse, just like the supply chain problem issue. A friend of mine was trying to get his RV worked on and they were like, well, we're still having supply chain issues for a valve. And it's like, really, a valve on an RV, it's been three years. I don't know if supply chain issue really holds in that argument, but if companies are dragging their feet or employers, somebody's just taking long, that's just an excuse. And I think that's the same thing with the inflation. Is it real? Yes. But to your point, are some of these numbers really truly justified? But they can use that, well, inflation's bad. That's the excuse they use in order to hit you with a 50% increase. Nick: Yeah, and I'd say from a planning perspective, because people get concerned about that from a planning perspective, and saying, well, hey, we had much higher inflation last year than we did in our plan moving forward, and [inaudible 00:10:27] Mark: Are we going to be okay to survive it, yeah. Nick: Yeah, and the easiest way that we mitigate that from a planning perspective is we reprice current expenses. So in other words, repricing the current expenses allows us to take that into consideration, the increases that we've had, and then use more normal rates moving forward, which is how you more accurately display that from a planning side of things. Mark: Gotcha. All right, John, so you hit us with longevity and inflation as a couple of areas that can contribute to cashflow problems. Give me a couple more before we wrap up this week. John: Investment returns is another spot, depending on what type of plan you do or type of planning, if some people will really have their income depend on what their portfolio is returning for them. Mark: So we're talking about sequence of return risk, kind of thing? John: Yeah. So if you having a down year and there's not as much income coming in from your portfolio, well that could ultimately affect your cashflow. Or if it's a down year, and we go back to longevity of, Hey, how long is my portfolio going to last, just have a 20% dip in the market, you're going to be a little concerned about pulling out in that period of time, because once you pull out, you know, you realize those losses, and there's no more recovering [inaudible 00:11:41] Mark: Yeah, it's a double way, it's the market's down and you're pulling money out. So the truth that makes the longevity factor interesting. Okay. John: So one more thing on this. This is really important, and especially what we're seeing in the last couple of years where you have some type of plan where if you are dependent on that, you have almost like a different bucket to pull from in a time like this. So you really want to position yourself to be able to adapt to downturns in the market which could affect your income. Nick: One of the things, and I've been having this conversation quite a bit lately, is that previous to last year, for the dozen years leading up to that, rates in return on fixed or cash and cash equivalence was so low, you couldn't get any return on that money, that really people shifted predominantly, or at least in a large way, to take more risks, meaning more upside, so more heavily on the [inaudible 00:12:39] Mark: Well, because the market was going up too. We get addicted to that, so it's very easy to go, well, it does nothing but climb, it's done it for 12 years in a row, so let's keep going, right? Nick: Yeah. And a little bit of that's a circle where it's part of the reason it kept climbing, is because people were saying, well, and not just, but it's just a contributing factor where it's like, well, hey, I'm literally getting zero return here. So inflation's eating away at my money anyways, I might as well take a little bit more risk. And so earlier this year in the majority of our client portfolios, we took some money off the table because now we can get four to 5% in something that has no risk, and that lets us kind of at least take a deep breath, see what's going on, get some sort of return, where most of our plans, we use five to 6% in retirement anyways. Mark: Yeah, that's a good point. You just got to be careful, right? Because we don't know how long those rates will last either, so you don't want to lock yourself into anything too hefty either, without making sure it's the correct move for you. Especially, I'm thinking more like CDs for example. Nick: Yeah. We still target things that are short term, that sort of thing. But for a retiree, even from the perspective of, let's just use the million dollar number, there's a huge difference between five years ago, where if you wanted to do a one year CD and you could get 0.8%, that's $8,000 on a million bucks versus 5%, even just for a year, now it's 50,000 of income. I mean, one is you can't pay your bills, another one is going to be much more comfortable. So for a retiree, one of the sunny side or glass half full part of what we've been dealing with from an inflation perspective, is that at least there's a little bit more return on safer money as we try to re-plan and readjust. Mark: Yeah. No, that makes sense. So one more category here that I want to hit for just cashflow problems in retirement, John, you did longevity inflation and investment returns. I'm going to assume the fourth one's probably just the emergencies, the things that life throws at you in retirement years? John: Yeah, a hundred percent. Emergency funds, it's [inaudible 00:14:44] Mark: Got to have one. John: ... for that, because you just don't know what's going to happen. Mark: Murphy's Law's going to happen, right? John: Murphy's Law's been happening for the last three years. So basically a big one is healthcare expenses, which we touched on as a must have. So big health event could really dip into your emergency funds. Or again, especially here in Florida with the roofs, have talked to some clients and friends who basically were having homeowners insurance issues here, and then carriers are basically saying, Hey, for you to get renewed, you need a new roof. And all of a sudden it's like, what? I just go, my roof's fine. It's like, well, it's outdated, you know, you need a new one, or else [inaudible 00:15:24] Mark: And so they're not covering maybe the full cost or some of the cost, I guess, but they won't insure you. John: I had some friends actually get notices saying, your roof's too old. If you don't replace it, we're dropping coverage. Mark: Oh geez. Okay, yeah. John: So that's an emergency expense. Mark: Definitely. John: Roofs aren't necessarily cheap, so important to have an emergency fund because like you said, Murphy's Law, you have no idea what's going to come up and you want to be prepared for that. Mark: Yeah. No, that's a good point. Nick: The roof thing is pretty wild here too, because a lot of people have tile roofs down here. And depending upon the size of the house, a tile roof is going to cost you, what John? Between 50 and a hundred thousand dollars? John: Yeah, 50 to a hundred grand. Mark: Really? Holy moly. Nick: And so, yeah, and then if you're in a neighborhood that has association rules and all these other things, it can get a little squirrely. So just understanding even little basic things like that, where especially people that came maybe from up north where it's just shingle roofs and 10, 12 grand, 15 maybe, and then [inaudible 00:16:25] Mark: Yeah, I was going to say, my metal roof was like 20, and that was like eight years ago. Nick: Yeah. So there's just things like that where we always very much emphasize having an emergency fund. Mark: Yeah, definitely. All right, good stuff. Talking just cashflow issues, things to consider here on the podcast the last couple of weeks. So if you're worried about the cashflow or you're just worried about making sure your plan is accurate for the time of life you're in, especially if you're one of these folks that maybe got a plan, you're like, ah, I got a plan put together like a decade ago, or whatever. Well, it's not a set it and forget it, it shouldn't be a set it and forget it, anyway. Even insurance policies, sometimes it's very easy to get one and throw it in the drawer for 20 years and forget about it, but all those things can be looked at and reviewed and see if there's a better way to put a strategy together. So if you need a first opinion or second opinion, reach out to John and Nick and the team at PFG Private Wealth. Find them online at pfgprivatewealth.com. That's pfgprivatewealth.com. Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Google, Spotify, whatever the case might be. Whichever podcasting platform app you like, just type in retirement planning redefine in the search box. Or again, find it all online, pfgprivatewealth.com. For John, Nick, I'm your host, Mark. We'll catch you next time here on the podcast. This has been Retirement Planning Redefined.

Phil LaMarr is an actor known for being one of the original cast members of MadTV, Pulp Fiction, and his voice acting roles in Samurai Jack, Futurama, Beavis and Butthead, Family Guy, Teen Titans Go! and a host of other animated series.Show NotesPhil Lamarr on IMDB - https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0482851/Phil Lamarr on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/phillamarr/Phil Lamarr on TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@phillamarrFree Writing Webinar - https://michaeljamin.com/op/webinar-registration/Michael's Online Screenwriting Course - https://michaeljamin.com/courseFree Screenwriting Lesson - https://michaeljamin.com/freeJoin My Watchlist - https://michaeljamin.com/watchlistAutomated TranscriptionPhil LaMarr:I was developing an animated show based on a friend of mine's web comic called Goblins. Okay. And my partner, Matt King and I, we are both performers, but we adapted the comic into a script. And I called a bunch of my voice actor friends, cuz we were, we were gonna make a trailer, you know, to bring these, you know, comic characters to life Yeah. In animation. And it was funny cuz Matt and I are actors. We had, you know, written the script and we'd acted out these scenes. And so in our heads, we, we thought we knew exactly how they'd sound. But then we brought in amazing Billy West, Maurice LaMarr. Mm-Hmm. , Jim Cummings. Mm-Hmm. Steve Bloom, Jennifer. And it was funny because when they performed the scenes we had written, they took it to a whole other level. Right. Beyond what existed in our, in our heads. Right. Like, oh my God, they made it so much better than I even imagined it could be.Michael Jamin:You're listening to Screenwriters Need to Hear This with Michael Jamin.Hey everyone, it's Michael Jamin. Welcome back to Screenwriters. Need to hear this. I, another, another. Cool. I got another cool episode. I, I was so excited about this. I, I tri over my own words. I am here with actor writer Phil LaMarr and this guy. All right. So I'm on his IMDB page cuz he going through his credits. Phil, I'm not joking. It's taking me too long to scroll through IMD,B to get through all your credits. It's nuts how much you work. But, so I'm gonna give you real fast an introduction and then we'll talk more about, what're gonna talk about but okay. So this guy does a lot of, a ton of voiceovers. I guess I think we met on King of the Hill and I know we worked together on Glenn Glenn Martin DDS, but fu you know, him from Futurama.From Beavis and Butthead family guy the Great North. All every single adult animated show, a ton of kids shows Star Bob's Burgers. That's adult, of course. Rick and Morty Bob Burgers, Bob's Burger's movie as well. I mean, I'm going through all your stuff here. It's nuts. You were a writer performer on Mad TV for many years. Mm-Hmm. . And I think the pro, I'm sorry to say this, but the, the coolest role that everyone knows you, that you maybe you get recognized most from. Right. We, you know what it is, is you were, you were in Pulp Fiction and you had your head blown off in the back of the car. And I remember watching like, oh my God, they killed Phil Phil LaMarr:.Michael Jamin:I mean, how awesome was that role? Oh man. But so Phil, thank you for doing this. Welcome, welcome to this. I want to talk all about your amazing career. But now tell me, so how did you get into acting? When did you decide you wanted to be an actor?Phil LaMarr:Well, it's funny because there are a couple of double steps in terms of how I started being an actor. And when I decided to be an actor and when I got into voiceover, both my first time performing was in eighth grade. My school was doing a production of a book that I loved. I didn't consider myself a performer. Right. It was the phantom toll booth. Right. And there's this little character towards the end of the Phantom toll booth. The senses taker who will take your sense of purpose. Your sense of duty, but he can't take your sense of humor. Right. And I wanted that part. So that's why I went and auditioned. But I wound up getting cast as one of the leads.Michael Jamin:Wow. Okay. AndPhil LaMarr:Opened a show alone on stage under a spotlight doing a two minute monologue.Michael Jamin:Okay. AndPhil LaMarr:It flipped a switch in my head. I'm like, oh, I love this. You were, that's what, so I started, you know, being an actor because I liked to bookMichael Jamin:. Right. But then, but okay. But it's one thing to be acting in as a kid in eighth grade and then to commit your career to it. What, what, what happened next?Phil LaMarr:Well, and it's funny because I didn't consider that a career or what I was doing. It's just, it's fun. Yeah. I get to play well, and also I went to an all boys private school. Yeah. So the time you got to see girls was when you did a playMichael Jamin:. Okay. That makes, now you're, makes sense. Now we know why you're being an actor, .Phil LaMarr:And I wound up graduating and I applied to colleges that had, you know, drama programs, Northwestern nor Carnegie Mellon, Yale University. But I wound up deciding not to go to Carnegie Mellon and I went to Yale. I was like, no, no, I just want to go to college. And I did not decide to pursue acting as a career. I just majored in English. It was on the flight back home to LA I said, you know what, maybe I should pursue this acting thing. I mean, I enjoy it. And you know, some people say I'm pretty good at it. I mean, I either gotta do it now or wait till my mid forties when I have a midlife crisis. Yes.Michael Jamin:But this is Yale undergrad. Yes. Yale's really not for the grad school of the school of drama. But youPhil LaMarr:Go back to thing. Cause when you were an actor and you say you went to Yale, people assume, oh, like Moral Streep and Henry Wiggler. It's like, no, no. I didn't know thatMichael Jamin:. But so after you got outta college and you got outta, we went to Yale and there was some pressure on you to are they Princeton over there? We're gonna continue, we'll continue our, we'll set aside our differences long enough to have this conversation. But so, but after college you're like, okay, I got a big fancy Yale degree and I'm gonna become an actor.Phil LaMarr:Right. And, you know, had I decided to be a comedy writer with a Harvard degree, that would've beenMichael Jamin:Yes. That would make sense.Phil LaMarr:A career path that made sense. Right. As a Yale, there were no famous Yales as writers or producers or anything. There were a handful of, you know, drama school actors. Right. But again, I didn't go to that drama school. So I'm like, okay.Michael Jamin:Yeah. There's no connect. People talk about the connections. No, there's no connection. Just because you, there's no inroad. Just cuz you went to Yale, you know, to No,Phil LaMarr:Yeah. No. The the only famous undergraduate actors at that time in the eighties were two women who were famous before they came to Yale, Jennifer Beals and Jodi Foster.Michael Jamin:Right. Exactly. Exactly. All right. So then you made this commitment to, or this, this leap. How long your parents must have been thrilled , how long before you started getting work and how did you start getting work, getting work?Phil LaMarr:Well, and, and this is another one of the double steps, Uhhuh I, when I made this decision, I already had my SAG card.Michael Jamin:How did you get that?Phil LaMarr:Because back in high school, a friend of my mother's worked for NBC Uhhuh. And I think my mother had dragged her to see a couple of my plays. And so she said, Hey, we're doing this cartoon and we're gonna use real kids for the kids' voices. Which back in the eighties was a rare thing. Yeah. And she asked me to, to come in and audition for it. And I got a job on the Mr. T cartoon in the mid eighties.Michael Jamin:Oh, wow. AndPhil LaMarr:That got me my union card. Now I did not, again, did not consider this a career path. I it was just a cool summer job.Michael Jamin:Yeah. Now, the thing is, cause I hear this a lot. People say to me, yeah, I, I can do a million voices and you could do literally a million voices. I, how do I get into you know, voice acting? And it's like, they don't seem to put the connection that it's not enough that you do voices. You have to know how to act. You have to be a trained, you have to, you know, know, be if you're trained or even better. But you have to know how to perform and act. And so yeah.Phil LaMarr:That's, that's what I always tell people who ask me that question. I say, the first thing you need to know is voice acting the term is a misnomer because the acting comes before the voice.Michael Jamin:Yes. Yes.Phil LaMarr:You know, that's why you have amazing people like Cree Summer, who has a really distinctive speaking voice, but she has the acting ability. Right. To make every character completely different and real. It's the same thing like, you know, a a movie star, it's the same face, but it's always a different character.Michael Jamin:But there's something else that you bring, and I say this because you are a consummate pro. You are truly a pro. It's well for what you bring to that other actors, that non-voice actors, I guess, I don't know what you would call 'em, but have, but what I'm directing a voiceover actor, sometimes if they haven't done avo, a lot of voice acting, they don't realize they're using their face or their body . And, and you say, no, no, no. I, I see you're acting the part I see you're playing mad, but I have to hear it in my ear. And so I don't look at them when I'm directing. I wanna hear it. And Right. And so to talk about that a little bit.Phil LaMarr:Yes, yes. I remember, cuz I started out, you know, even though I had that job in high school, I did not consider it a voice acting career. It was just a, a goofy summer job on a cartoon that nobody I knew watched. So I came home after college and pursued on camera acting and stage mm-hmm. . And so a few years later, actually it was after a several years of Mad TV where we did Claymation pieces and it got me doing multiple characters on mic as opposed to just multiple characters on camera, which I was also doing on Mad tv. And I remember I decided to actively pursue the voice acting thing. Cuz at this point, you know, in the post, you know, early nineties era when cable blew up, voice acting became a job. Right. You know, cuz when we were kids, it was just something that six guys that Mel Blanc and five other dudes Right.Voiced every cartoon of our childhood. Right. You know, Mel Blanc, dos Butler, you know, that was it. But in the nineties, once Nickelodeon had 24 hours of children's programming, there was a lot more cartoon voices. And so like, oh, this could be a path now. And I remember one of my early sessions, I fell into my on camera acting face, face acting mm-hmm. . And they said, okay, Phil, stop. Try it again. Do that line again. Angrier, I did it again. They said, hold on, we're gonna play them both back. And they sounded exactly the same. And I realized what you just said. Right. Oh my God, I just made an angrier face.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:And that's one of the, you know, skills of voice acting the same way that you have singers, singers can, you know, put forth feeling or fun or whatever through their voice.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:You know, dancers do it through their bodies.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:You know. ButMichael Jamin:When you perform, let's say you're doing something on camera, how much thought do you give? Do you, is it, is it just second nature to go, okay, now I can use the rest of my body? Or how much thought do you have to go in between different, you know skill sets, I guess, you know?Phil LaMarr:Well, the, the good thing is, you know, you do have to, you know, get a switch in your head because when you're on stage, it's the exact same job bringing this script to life. But you have to do it with different tools. Right, right. And the same thing when you're doing it on camera. And the same thing when you're doing it on microphone. You have to, you have to gauge. Okay. Cuz you know, you read the script, you see the character, you embody it. Yeah. But then it's how do you communicate it to the audience?Michael Jamin:Right,Phil LaMarr:Right. You know, and it's funny because with voice acting, you know, we learned to run the character through our, our ears. You know, when you see in the old days, you see, you know, announcers doing this. Do you know what that is about? No.Michael Jamin:What what is that?Phil LaMarr:It's because all of us, you know, regular people hear our voices from inside our heads. Right. We're not hearing what other people hear. But when you do this, you are channeling your voice.Michael Jamin:That's whatPhil LaMarr:Mouth into your ear. So you hear what your voice sounds like outside your head.Michael Jamin:Oh, I see. I, that's so funny. I thought they were stopping their ear, but they're not. They're just re redirecting the voice Yeah. Into their ear. Yes. Oh wow. I had no idea.Phil LaMarr:So you can hear the subtlety, you know, because if, if you don't do something with your teeth, you don't hear that inside your head. Yeah. It's only what people hear. But that's something you might want with a character. Right. You know, I always, when I teach workshops, I always try to tell people, like, there are things we hear. There's, it's the same thing with your face. Mm-Hmm. when you want to, you know, express anger. You don't just do your face flat. You, you know. And it's the same thing with if, if there's something about a character, let's say I'm doing this character, but then I see the drawing and the guy's got a big beard. Oh, well let me make him sound, let me make him sound beier.Michael Jamin:Right. Right.Phil LaMarr:Which isn't necessarily true, just growing a beard doesn't change your voiceMichael Jamin:Uhhuh.Phil LaMarr:But there are things that when we hear something, we get the sense of it.Michael Jamin:Right. Do you have a preference now, Kami? Cuz do you have a preference? You work so much in voice acting, but do you have a, do you prefer that overlap? You know, like on camera?Phil LaMarr:No, it's funny cuz you know, at Comic-Con, people will ask, what's your, you walk in so many media, what's your favorite? And the truth of the matter is, and this is what I tell them, it's not about the media, it's about the quality.Michael Jamin:Quality. The writing or, or what Yes.Phil LaMarr:Uhhuh Well, the, the, the quality of the writing, the quality of the directing, the quality of the experience. Because to me, the, the cartoon Samurai Jack, which is I consider a work of art that has more in common with pulp fiction. Right. Than it does with, you know, pound puppies or some like goofy little Saturday morning cartoon that's more focused on selling toys than on actually putting out story.Michael Jamin:Yeah. Right, right. But in terms of voice, a I mean, you don't have to get into hair and makeup. You don't have to memorize anything. And that's a whole nother skill as well. Memorizing the, the, the text.Phil LaMarr:Well, but that, that's actually harder because when you work on stage or on camera mm-hmm. , you get time to rehearse.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:You get to practice with a director helping guide you, your people, someone watching you, and you build the character over time. And then you don't have to make it work till the camera says, till they say action.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:But when you're doing voiceover, you're handed a sheet of paper, you're reading words off a page, and you have to bring those to life instantly.Michael Jamin:Yeah, that's exactly. Now do you, cuz when we work together on, on Glen, well we did King Hill first, but on Glen Martin, just so people know you didn't audition, we just, we call you up. Hey, we book you Theor agent, and you come in, you show up, you, you got the job, and you show up. And I remember approaching you saying, okay, Phyllis, the character, I remember the character's name was Rasmus, and the only thing you knew about him was that he had a milky eye. He was like seventies. He had a milky eye. And I go, what voices did you bring ? And you, you, you gave me like three different voices. And I think I said that one a little more gravelly and boom, that was it. You jumped right into it. Exactly. That was it. You're ready to go. . And that was the benefit of direction you got go .Phil LaMarr:Right. See, and we did that in a minute and a half.Michael Jamin:Yeah.Phil LaMarr:Had we been working on a movie, I would've had to go in for wardrobe, had them try on seven different outfits, had them send you the pictures, , you know, over two weeks. Right. While I was memorizing all the lines for us to come to that conclusion.Michael Jamin:But on most of the voiceover judo, is that how it is? It's just basically they book you for the day and you know, unless you're a regular, they just book you, you come on in and you spend an hour or two, and then that's it. Is that how it works for you? Mostly?Phil LaMarr:Well, ho hopefully. I mean, most of the time you get the script ahead of time, so you get to read the story, know the context. Right. But that's just one episode. You don't have the entire, you know, arc of the story. You know, don't know everything about the, you know, if you're playing the villain about the, the hero. So you learn most of it when you come into the session,Michael Jamin:But then there's another thing that you have to bring to the table, which is a whole, like, you okay, you're an excellent actor, but you also have the, the, when you do these voices, they don't sound like they're coming from you. Like, they sound like they're coming from 10 different people. And so the, how do you, like how do you approach that? How do you making voices that don't sound anything like the, any, any other voice that you do.Phil LaMarr:Well, it varies. I mean, there are, it's funny because now over the years, you know, people will bring up some old character. And I realize, okay, that sounds a little similar to that other one. But I realize it's not about, I used to think when I was younger, starting in voice acting, I used to think it was about no, no. Every voice should not sound anything like the other one. Right. You know? But I realize it's more about embodying the character. And the thing is, you know, these characters are all different. So I need them to, I want them to sound different.Michael Jamin:Right. I don't mean like, like when I first got the King of the Hill, I was shocked when you hear the voices that you've been watching the show forever, and then you see the actress playing, you go, whoa, that voice is coming from that person. That, that doesn't sound anything close to their, like, there's a transformation that you're able to do with your voice by, like, that's a different skill. I mean, forget about even, yes, I know embodying the character, but you're really playing with your vocal chords in a way that almost seems impossible to someone like me.Phil LaMarr:Oh, thank you. Well, I mean, in, it's, it's a, it's a skill set that not everybody has. Like I said, some people just like when on Samurai Jack, I worked with Mako Iwatsu Uhhuh, you know, an older Japanese actor who was an icon. He had starred in movies, starred on Broadway, you know, his name was above the title on a Stephen Sondheim musical. Right. But he had a very distinctive, you know, heavy, very textured, heavily accented voice. And I figured, okay, he's just doing his voice. And I remember there was one episode where they cast him as a secondary character mm-hmm. in the episode. And I remember thinking to myself, oh, Jesus, what are they doing? Uhhuh, his voice is so dis. I mean, that's like casting the rock in two characters in a movie. Right. You know, like, nobody's gonna get fooled. But he blew my mind and taught me a masterclass because what he did was, he did not completely transform his voice, but he acted the second character from a completely different perspective. You know, Lowe's dead, you know, complete, he performed it completely differently than he performed Aku the villain, Uhhuh . And I, and when you watch the episode, you can't tell it's him.Michael Jamin:You can Right. You can't tell.Phil LaMarr:Now, part of that has to do with the art, you know, because you're change your changing your voice, but they're also changing the drawing.Michael Jamin:Yeah. That, that's true. But I wonder how much work do you on your own at home? Like, how much do you think about other voice? Do you pra you go, do you hear a voice and you go, Hey, that's an interesting thing. Maybe I should, you know, do you practice at all? Do you, I don't know. Are you, are you constantly trying to invent new, new voices for yourself?Phil LaMarr:Well, I'm, I'm not a singer, but I've always had an ear. Right. For speech. It, I do a lot of impressions. Uhhuh, , you know, comedically and sometimes just job wise. Actually, weirdly, 10th grade, my second year of acting, I got the part in our, one of our high school plays. We did a production of Play It again, Sam.Michael Jamin:Okay.Phil LaMarr:And in 10th grade, I played Humphrey Bogart .Michael Jamin:Okay.Phil LaMarr:And I spent the entire production trying to do my best impression of Humphrey Bogart. If that plane leaves and you are not on it, you'll regret it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon. And for the rest of your life. And so I watched a lot of, you know, videotapes of Humphrey Bogart. And I, and I also had to learn how to do that impression and projectMichael Jamin:It Right.Phil LaMarr:In a, in a theater cuz there was no microphone. But I think maybe that helped start me right on the, you know, aping People's Voices thing. Which, when I started doing sketch comedy Right. I leaned into that too. Oh, I'm gonna do a Michael Jackson sketch. You know?Michael Jamin:Right. Cause you, so how is that you're talking about, so that, that brings us to Mad tv. So there goes your, I dunno, how, how did you get that that audition? What did you bring, what did you bring to that audition, you know, for yourself?Phil LaMarr:Well, I, when I was in college I was part of a improv comedy group that started and I loved it, you know, having been taught that the, you know, the key to drama is conflict, but then being introduced in your late teens, early twenties to this concept of Yes.Michael Jamin:And, and yes. And yeah.Phil LaMarr:You know, improv is collaborative theater, make your partner look good. Right. Work together, you know, all of this very positive energy. It's like, huh, wow. This isn't just about performance. This is a great life philosophy. Yeah. So after graduation, and I came home to LA and I started taking classes at the Groundlings Theater mm-hmm. , the sketch, comedy and improv group. And, and I did that not for the career, but because I wanted improv back in my life.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:And doing improv that led me into sketch comedy and writing.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:Because that's what the ground wings do. It's like, okay, that's a great improv. Write it down.Michael Jamin:Right. .Phil LaMarr:Yeah. Now do that character again. Come up with another scene for him.Michael Jamin:And so that's what you, you brought to the audition, like what, three different characters or something?Phil LaMarr:Y well, by the time Mad TV came around, I had been doing sitcoms, you know, from the early nineties to the mid nineties. This was 95. Right. So I went to audition for mad TV and the people at Fox had seen me guest on a bunch of shows. Right. And in fact, I went to audition for Mad TV in what they call second place because I had done a pilot for Fox right before Mad. So it's funny because I went in there thinking, no, this pilot is gonna, is amazing. We're gonna be the new Barney Miller. Alright, fine agents, I'll go for this sketch thing, whatever. I've been doing Sketch for six years, but whatever. And so I went in and they said, okay, bring in some, some of your characters.Michael Jamin:What Century is calling ah, . That's your phone from 1970, right?Phil LaMarr:?Michael Jamin:Or is it an alarm clock?Phil LaMarr:Ah, no, it's, I forgot toMichael Jamin:What's your phone? It's your iPhone.Phil LaMarr:It's my agent calling. Oh, you, you don't need to talk to them.Michael Jamin:That's Hollywood.Phil LaMarr:Yes.Michael Jamin:I can't believe your agent actually calls you. Mine doesn't call .Phil LaMarr:Alright, let me, let me go back.Michael Jamin:Yeah.Michael Jamin:We're gonna put all this in. This is all funny. .Phil LaMarr:Well anyway, I went to audition for Mad TV having done several years at the Groundlings and having been voted into the main company of the Groundlings, alongside Jennifer Coolidge. So youMichael Jamin:Were perform Oh, so you were, that's great. So you were performing regularly on stage. Yeah. Okay.Phil LaMarr:So, so sketch comedy was solidly in my backMichael Jamin:Pocket. Yeah.Phil LaMarr:And, you know, I'd been, you know, I'd finally started making a living as an actor. I didn't have to do my day job, you know, just doing guest spots and whatnot. And I went in there without any sense of desperation. I don't need this.Michael Jamin:Right. I'vePhil LaMarr:Already got this pilot. And they said, okay, bring us your characters and a couple of impressions and we'll show you a couple of our sketches. You know, so there were three steps to each audition, Uhhuh. And it's funny because later after I got the job, I talked to the showrunner and he said, oh man, you were so relaxed. We loved it.Michael Jamin:Oh wow.Phil LaMarr:You know, cuz I remember when we had a, a callback and there was somebody from the studio. This woman was sitting there like this. And I said, oh, I'm sorry. Did I wake youMichael Jamin:? And then wow. I mean, good for you. And then, but what became of that pilot, it didn't go to seriesPhil LaMarr:The other. No.Michael Jamin:Boy, had you known that ? IPhil LaMarr:Know. Well, and when we, when we got the call back from Mad tv, I'm like, what the heck? And might have said, yeah. Yeah. somebody at Fox said, don't worry about the second position.Michael Jamin:Right. Oh wow. Wow. . So, right. So you did that for a number of years. And then, and what, what along the way, when did pulp Fiction occur during this?Phil LaMarr:Actually I did Pulp Fiction before Mad tv.Michael Jamin:Okay.Phil LaMarr:It's funny cuz the first episode of Mad TV had a Pulp fiction parody in it. AndMichael Jamin:Did you play yourself?Phil LaMarr:Yes. They pitched me playing myself. OhMichael Jamin:My God, it was so fun. I mean it's such a classic role. I mean, do, do you, and does, do people want to talk to you about that all the time?Phil LaMarr:Not, not really. What I, I find that people only bring up Pulp Fiction around the time when a new Tarantino movie comes out.Michael Jamin:Okay.Phil LaMarr:But I mean, there are some people who, you know, are big fans of it. But the funniest thing is there will be a friend, somebody I've known for several years, but it's the first time they've watched Pulp Fiction since we met.Michael Jamin:Right. OhPhil LaMarr:My God, Phil. I didn't realize that was you.Michael Jamin:That's so great. I mean, so Right. Just to remind people again. So that was a scene was, it was Samuel Jackson and and John Travolta. They, yes. I guess the, the pla that plot line was a bunch of like straight-laced kind of college kids, kind of up, you know, they, you know, good kids who probably made one bad decision. Right. But they weren't troublemakers. They were good kids. And then they owed money and then, and then I guess they, you know, so they shoot, I guess they come into the apartment Right. And they they wind up shooting up the place and they take you, I guess they, they're gonna take you to the big guy, you're hostage and then he, you're in the back of the car and they got a gun trained on you and it hits a bump and they accidentally blow your head off . Right.Phil LaMarr:Well, well actually, the backstory that Quent and I talked about is that cuz my character is Marvin, he's the kid who gets his brains blown out in the back of the car. Right. but we decided that the story was Jules Uhhuh knew somebody who knew Marvin and arranged for Marvin to, that's why Marvin gets up and opens the door.Michael Jamin:Okay. AndPhil LaMarr:Lets them in. He's on their side.Michael Jamin:Oh, is that right? Is that, I should watch that again. I don't, I didn't pick that up at all.Phil LaMarr:And so he's not, they're not taking him as a hostage. Cause actually, Sam's like, how many, because John asked him how many are in there? It's like, well, there's, oh,Michael Jamin:There'sPhil LaMarr:Five plus our guy.Michael Jamin:Oh, I gotta watch that again. I missed that. Okay. It's been a while. Okay. So,Phil LaMarr:So the idea is that Jules knew somebody who knew one of the kids that took Marcellus briefcase. So he made a connection and was like, okay, we figured it out. He's our man inside is gonna open the door for us at 7 45. We're gonna come in, we're gonna get the briefcase. But of course, in my head, the idea is that Marvin didn't realize they were gonna kill everybody.Michael Jamin:Right. Right. He thought theyPhil LaMarr:Were just gonna take the briefcase.Michael Jamin:Right. So he'sPhil LaMarr:Freaked out.Michael Jamin:And so how many days is, were you, how many days of a shoot is that for you? Is that a week or what?Phil LaMarr:I spent about two weeks. There was the car scene and the apartment scene. But the, the most ironic thing was I shot my scene after they had shot the Harvey Kittel cleaning up my body scene.Michael Jamin:Right. So whenPhil LaMarr:I came onto set, everybody was looking at me like they recognized me because they had been see, looking at me dead for two months.Michael Jamin:. But how? Wait, but but when you say looking at you dead was, were there photos or something or what? No, no.Phil LaMarr:They built, they built a dummy. The dummy. Oh. Because there's a se there's a sequence where the Harvey guy tell character comes to clean up Yeah. And then carry the body out of the car into the Tarantino character's apartment. YouMichael Jamin:Know, that must been freaky. SoPhil LaMarr:Everybody been looking at this body in the trunk body, you know, and then when I walked on, they were like, it's, it's the same thing of like, when you walk into a room and you forget you're wearing a name tag.Michael Jamin:Yeah. Did you know how great that movie was gonna be at the time? Yes. I mean, you, you can tell. How can you tell? IPhil LaMarr:Couldn't tell how successful it was gonna be because, you know, reservoir Dogs was really good. Right. But it wasn't, you know, it was a big indieMichael Jamin:Movie. Yes.Phil LaMarr:Right. But when you read the script for Pulp FictionMichael Jamin:Uhhuh,Phil LaMarr:It leapt off the page.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:It's funny because like, when I went to audition for it, after meeting Quentin Tarantino, we did a Groundlings improv show.Michael Jamin:Oh, is that right? BecausePhil LaMarr:He's, he was friends with Julia Sweeney, who was a Groundlings alum. Right. And she invited him to come do a show. I was in the cast. Right. And when he was casting pulp Fiction, he was thinking about Marvin. He told the casting lady, Hey, there's this black guy at the Groundling, he's go find him.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:And I remember preparing for the audition, reading through the scene three times. It jumped into my, I w I had it, I was off book by the time I memorized. Because the way it's written, even though it's not everyday life, every line follows exactly what the one before it would say. And it feels natural, even though it is such a heightened world he's created.Michael Jamin:Yeah. He really is. I mean, you know, he's a master with, with words. He doesn't, does he, he doesn't, I can't imagine allow much improv. I mean, it seems like he knows what he wants, right?Phil LaMarr:Oh, yeah. No, no, no. Yeah. The, the script is like a Rosetta Stone. It is carved, yes. Actually, the, the only two things that changed in the script were one a line of Samuel Jackson's character about porkMichael Jamin:Uhhuh ,Phil LaMarr:Because originally they're talking about a pig and he is like, oh, that's the Kerry Grant of pigs. And Sam was like, no, Manam my guy. I don't think this guy would ever think Kerry Grant was cool.Michael Jamin:Right. So theyPhil LaMarr:Changed it to the, the reference to the the at Albert showMichael Jamin:Oh, oh green Acres. Green Acres, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Right.Phil LaMarr:Yeah. It's like the pig on Green AcresMichael Jamin:. And,Phil LaMarr:And the o and the other moment that changed from the script to what, what we shot was because of what a thought that John had.Michael Jamin:Uhhuh GunPhil LaMarr:Travolta. Yeah. Oh. Because, because this was a low budget indie movie. They made this movie with all those stars for only 8 million.Michael Jamin:Are you kidding me? Really?Phil LaMarr:Yeah. And part of that saving money was we rehearsed the entire movie on stage before we started shooting. Right. And I remember going to a sound stage at, at cul in Culver City on Sony and meeting John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson for the first time in rehearsal.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:And I remember walking in there and it's like, Quinn's like, oh, hey Phil, this John Sam, this is Phil. And John Tra goes, oh geez, this is a guy. I had to kill this guy. The eyes is gonna hate me.Michael Jamin:That's a pretty good Travolta sound just like him. . Oh, thanks.Phil LaMarr:And he just, I thought he was just joking. But eventually he talked to Quintin. Cuz originally in the back of the car, the gun is supposed to go off accidentally. Yeah. And shoot Marvin in the throat.Michael Jamin:Okay.Phil LaMarr:And then he sits there g gurgling while they go back and forth bantering, oh, dad, what are we gonna do? Right. Well, we can't take him to the hospital. Well, I don't have nobody in the valley. Well, alright. Put him out of his misery. When I, on the count of three, I'll hit the horn. And so John's character was supposed to shoot me the second time on, and John said, no, no. Quentin Quinn. Quinn. If my character kills this kid on purpose, it's gonna ha people won't, won't like him. And he was right. It would've negatively affected his sequence with Umma Thurman.Michael Jamin:That's absolutely right. But do you think he was, Travolta was interested in protecting the character or protecting himself as an actor? You know, like how people saw him? What do you think?Phil LaMarr:I think it was, he had a connection to the audience, which I guess was mostly through him, but also through the character. Because I mean, I mean, I guess, you know, Quintin's could have just said No, no, the character's just, he's a nasty, you know, junky. Yes. He does nasty stuff. But I think John was like, no, no, no. This whole sequence with the girl, he's not nasty.Michael Jamin:Right. So, right. I see. And andPhil LaMarr:Quintin agreed with John Yeah. His take on the character.Michael Jamin:Yeah. That's so interesting.Phil LaMarr:Isn't thatMichael Jamin:Wild? Yeah, that is. See, it's so funny listening to you, you can so hear like how thoughtful you are about acting, how mu how much, how it's not, it's a craft, it's a, you know, you, I really hear that from you, how much you put how passionate you are about the craft of acne. Not just being on stage, not just you know, doing voices, but the craft of it. You know? Exactly. Yeah. How do, do you miss, or do you get a chance to perform on stage a lot? Because that was your original lovePhil LaMarr:Mm-Hmm. . Yes. Thankfully. I'm still holding on to my performance foundation. My friend Jordan Black, who is another Groundlings alum Uhhuh about what, 12 years ago now, created a group. And we do a show monthly live on stage, an improv show at the Groundlings Okay. Called the Black VersionMichael Jamin:Uhhuh. It's,Phil LaMarr:It's an all black cast, and we take a suggestion from the audience of a classic or iconic motion picture, and then we improv the black version of it. ButMichael Jamin:What if you're not familiar with the, the classic?Phil LaMarr:Well that's the tricky part is our director Karen Mariama mm-hmm. , who was one of my teachers at the Groundlings and is now one of my peers, has an encyclopedic knowledge mm-hmm. , she can take a movie from the black and white era and know the entire structure or something that dropped that dropped on Netflix last week. And she knows everythingMichael Jamin:But you, but if you don't know itPhil LaMarr:Well what we do, what she does is she, she, as the director, she guides the scenes Uhhuh . Okay. Alright. Phil, you are gonna play this, you know, like let's say we're doing the black version of Princess Bride. Phil, you'll, you are this you know, swordsman who is incredibly skilled audience, what do you think his name? Okay. In Negro Montoya, that's your name.Michael Jamin:That's funny. AndPhil LaMarr:Like she'll assign the characters Right. And then guide us from scene to scene. But, you know, our choices, you know like when we did the black version of Princess Bride, it was called her Mama and them, and Prince Humperdink was Prince Humpty Hump. Right. You know, and sometimes the choices will change the, the, you know line, line of the story. But she tries to keep us, you know, take us through the iconic scenes.Michael Jamin:Right. And this is once a month you do this.Phil LaMarr:Yes.Michael Jamin:Yeah. That's a big commitment.Phil LaMarr:Yeah. And for 12 years. Yeah.Michael Jamin:Yeah. I mean, you must, you probably took a break during the pandemic for a little bit. Yes,Phil LaMarr:Yes, yes, we did.Michael Jamin:But Wow.Phil LaMarr:And recently we've you know, we've built an audience and a reputation and we've started booking on the road. We've we've played the Kennedy Center in Washington DC twice now.Michael Jamin:So you take it on the, and, and how were you able to sell tickets on the road? I mean, so easily.Phil LaMarr:It's, I I think it's, it's the, the venues and also you know, somewhat just the, those of us in the group. I mean, Jordan was a writer on SNL and part of the guest cast on community Cedric Yarborough from Reno 9 1 1, and tons of other shows. SoMichael Jamin:Just your name. Just your name. So it's kind of just your names people like, Hey, we want, you know, we recognize these names, we wanna go see it. If you, you know this.Phil LaMarr:Yeah. I, I mean, I'm, I'm not exactly sure how we managed to sell out, youMichael Jamin:Know? That's amazing. All overPhil LaMarr:TheMichael Jamin:Place. That sounds like a lot of fun.Phil LaMarr:It's so much fun.Michael Jamin:Hey, it's Michael Jamin. If you like my videos and you want me to email them to you for free, join my watch list. Every Friday I send out my top three videos. These are for writers, actors, creative types. You can unsubscribe whenever you want. I'm not gonna spam you and it's absolutely free. Just go to michaeljamin.com/watchlist.Wow. I mean, is there a limit to how much you can, I mean, just organizing that to get everyone to get the time off. I mean, that's gotta be logisticallyPhil LaMarr:Gotta be hard. Yeah. The, the tours aren't that we don't do them that often because, you know, Gary Anthony Williams from, you know, Malcolm in the Middle and stuff, everybody in our cast works a lot. Yeah. So we can really only guarantee the show once a month. Right. but sometimes when we tour, not everybody goesMichael Jamin:Because Yeah, you have to, I mean, if someone books apart and you're shooting that at night, what, what are you gonna do? That's the way. Right.Phil LaMarr:Or you or you have to fly to Vancouver for six months.Michael Jamin:Yeah. Right. Right. And that's part of, that's, I mean, that's part of the, the plus of, of the do for you for doing a lot of voice acting is that, you know, you probably get to lead a pretty sane in life if for an actor it's, it can be very hard, you know, being onPhil LaMarr:Their Well, and, and it's also one of the wonderful things about the progress that has come since we started the show, because part of the reason Jordan created the show is because those of us in the improv world, you know, who are people of color, oftentimes spent the majority of our time being the one.Michael Jamin:Yeah.Phil LaMarr:But over the years, the, you know, the numbers, the diversity in the improv world, you know, expanded, it used to be a very suburban art form.Michael Jamin:Yeah.Phil LaMarr:But now, you know, I I I credit this mostly to Wayne Brady doing whose lives in anyway.Michael Jamin:Yeah. Right. Yeah. And so that really opens up more opportunities and more of what Yeah. That, that's, that's interesting that, you know, that really has changed a lot. How, how have you seen it change your opportunities in the past, I don't know, whatever, 20 years, 30 years, you know, however long?Phil LaMarr:Well, it's, it's, it's changed be in a lot of ways. One, when I got voted into the Groundlings in 1992, I was the first black person to get voted into the company in its 18 years of existence.Michael Jamin:You're kidding me. Yeah. That's crazy. That's crazy.Phil LaMarr:And now the pool of, you know black people, you know, who are Groundlings has expanded. It's not just one every 18 years.Michael Jamin:Yeah. Right. But, and in terms of more, you know, more opportunities for you even, you know, I mean, everything's, everything's really opened up for you. Right. I mean, I imagine Well,Phil LaMarr:Well, because we have, you know, the, those of us in entertainment have expanded. Yeah. You know, what we consider will work. You know, I was talking my son just graduated from NYU and one of his classmates is the son of the woman who directed the woman king. Okay. At Viola Davis, you know. Right. Action movie. Right. And I remember watching and thinking, oh my god, when I was 18, no studio in the world.Michael Jamin:Right. Would touch that. Right. Would'vePhil LaMarr:Would've, you know, green lit Yeah. A action movie, you know, about black women.Michael Jamin:Yeah. Right.Phil LaMarr:And, and the fact that, you know, it's out there now and is just another big movie. It's, it's not considered, you know you know, a once in a lifetime thing anymore. That's the progress and the fact that we have, you know, middle-aged women mm-hmm. leads of s of TV series. Yeah. You know, back in the old days, the only lead of a TV series was one beautiful person or one famous, you know, hilarious person. Yeah. But now they've opened it up.Michael Jamin:I wonder, is your son planning to going through the arts now that he graduated from nyu?Phil LaMarr:Yes. Yes. He's, he's musician. He oh, writes and sings and dances and raps and produces, and he's part of the Clive Davis recorded music program where they teach them music and the music business.Michael Jamin:Yeah. Wow.Phil LaMarr:One of his teachers was Clive Davis's daughter. Wow. Who's a lawyer.Michael Jamin:And do, I mean, it's, but it's, the music is different from what you do. I wonder, I wonder if you're able to, does it all feel like, I don't know how to help , you know? Yeah.Phil LaMarr:Yeah. There's a lot of that uhhuhMichael Jamin:Like,Phil LaMarr:Dad dead. Because when your kid goes into, you know, show business, you think, well, I've been in show business for 40 years, like, you haven't been in the music business. I'm like, you're right.Michael Jamin:That's true. So interesting. Wow. Wow. And, and, and so what about, I guess, you know what's next for you? Is you just, is it more of the same? Is there more, well, actually I know you have a pilot that you, that you were, you're working on, you know, you're getting into the writing side of the business. Yes.Phil LaMarr:More so. Yes. And that actually over the last couple of years has been a, a slight shift you know, having been performing. Yeah. You know, for so long now, since the eighties. I've also, and I've also been writing since the nineties when I started at the Groundlings. Right. I was writing sketches and I wrote on Mad tv. But just recently, earlier in this year, I took a job as a professional writer on a television show for the first time.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:And it was pretty wild to have 30 years of sitcoms under your belt and then suddenly see it from a completely different angle.Michael Jamin:And what, and what was your impression of that?Phil LaMarr:It, it was wild to cuz like you were talking about the way I look at acting and break it down. Yeah. And, you know, look at all the subtle distinctions. I had never looked at, you know, TV writing that way. Okay. But to suddenly be in a room with people who look at who see it that way for decades, you're like, oh wow. How do I feel like a rookie at 56?Michael Jamin:Yeah. Right. And so there's a lot of catching, a lot of catching up little Yeah. You know, that's so, and, and are, are you enjoying it as much or as much as you thought? Or what do you think?Phil LaMarr:Well it, the challenge part was, was a little bit, you know, tough. Yeah. But it was great to be working on a really good show with great, talented people and to be learning something new. It's like, yeah. Oh, like for me, like when we would write sketches at the Groundlings Uhhuh, you didn't think about anything about like, well, beginning, middle, and end. Right. Three minutes.Michael Jamin:Right, right.Phil LaMarr:You know, but now you have to think about, you know, character arcs and the, you know, okay, well if you introduce the character's father, we have to think about their entire family. Is the mother still a alive? You're like, oh, right. When you write a sketch, you don't have to think about,Michael Jamin:You don't think about any of that. Right. And when you, and when you're acting the part you, you know. Yeah. Yeah. And so it's, it's so interesting cause I always say like, acting and writing are really, they're two sides of the same coin. It really helps to study both whatever you want to do, study both. Exactly. it's all, and so yeah, that, that finding that emotional arc and, you know, it's all, it's all new for you, but yeah. I wonder, you know, but you're enjoying it.Phil LaMarr:Well and, and working alongside, I mean, cuz there were people who, you know, one guy at show run Will and Grace, another guy worked on Arrested Development. I mean like, you know, one guy was showrunner on five other shows to, to watch how they mm-hmm. . Cause for me, I would like, Hey, I would just pitch out a joke. I'm just gonna say something I think is funny. Right. But they had this like s you know, Superman MicroVision where they could take that joke and see Yeah. How it could affect the mm-hmm. the entire scene, the entire episode and the entire season.Michael Jamin:Yeah. Right. It's like, where does that, but offPhil LaMarr:The top of their head.Michael Jamin:Right. And where does it go? Where does that moment go into the script, into the, you know, is it act one or is it Act three? And so that Yes.Phil LaMarr:Yeah. That yes. I mean I'm sure you have that, that x-ray vision too. Yeah. Where you can look at a script and see the act structure Yeah. And you know, and or just even the structure of just the scene. Yeah. Like what does this character, where do they start and where do they finish?Michael Jamin:Yeah, that's right. Well we were, we ran a show for Mark Maron for four years and you know, he was one of the writers in it and he would pitch an idea, cause I wanna say this, and then we'd put up Neck one and then I remember at one point , we were talking about it and we said, mark, I don't think this can go in Act one. Is it okay if we put a neck three? And he'd say, oh, I don't care where you put it is. Right. long as in the script,Phil LaMarr:I'm just thinking about what the character would say.Michael Jamin:Yeah. That Right. I was like, was like, oh, that's a relief. I thought you were gonna get mad for, you know, you didn't care about that. So funny.Phil LaMarr:Right. Yeah. Just cuz as performers we are not looking at the app structure.Michael Jamin:Right, right. You know,Phil LaMarr:Most of us, I, I may imagine there are some people who do like, well I wanna build up from act two to act three, you know? Yeah. But most of us don't. We're just, what is the guy feeling in this scene right now?Michael Jamin:Right. And how to get to that, the truth of that, how difficult is it for you to make yourself vulnerable like that on stage to like, to go there, you know, whatever, maybe it's crying or whatever it is. How difficult it is for you just to allow yourself to go there?Phil LaMarr:Well, it's not necessarily easy. It's definitely something that I had to, you know, a skill set to build Uhhuh . You know, I was not one of those people when I started acting who could make themselves cry on cue, UhhuhMichael Jamin:,Phil LaMarr:You know. But I remember I had to do a scene on a, a Steven Boko show called Philly. And it's like, okay, well this character is really, you know, emotionally, you know, I gotta figure out how to make sure I'm putting that out there. Right. So I thought about something sad and let it, you know, something different than what the character was thinking about mm-hmm. . But it's again, like, you know, with the voice acting like what sounds bey you also have to think about your face, what looks Yeah. Sorrowful and how do you make yourself look sorrowful. Right. You know, although one of the things that helped me learn where to, to try to go was working on Pulp Fiction with Samuel L. Jackson.Michael Jamin:What he what? Go on. He gave you some great advice or what?Phil LaMarr:No, he just, what he showed because you would stand there offset talking to this cool old guy who was amazing, you know? Yeah. He's just talking about golfing or his daughter. But then when the camera started rolling Yeah. The person you were just talking to disappeared. Right on set. I looked over and I was looking into the eyes of someone completely different than Samuel L. Jackson. Right. And I remember standing there in my twenties thinking, oh my God, he transformed himself internally. And so that it shows externally. Yeah. That's like, I gotta learn how to do that.Michael Jamin:And then how did you learn how to do that?Phil LaMarr:Well, I, I'm still haven't gotten to his level , but what I learned is you have to figure out one, how you look and how you get, it's, it's like a map. Mm-Hmm. , you know you know, if you figure out how to guide your internal self to a place where your external self does what's on the page, that's what acting is. You know, otherwise you would just be reading words to be or not to be. That is the question. You know, it's not just about the words. It's how do you express the feeling? And Sam taught me there is a way where you don't have to do nine minutes of to get into character.Michael Jamin:Okay. IfPhil LaMarr:You know the root within yourself, you can do it like that. Right. So I, I realized it was about learning your internal, you know, where do, where do you put your sadness? Where do you put your anger and where's, what's the difference between your anger and this character's anger? Guide yourself there and then, you know, connect the two.Michael Jamin:And do you have moments where you feel like, I I didn't do it. I didn't get there. You know. Well,Phil LaMarr:I mean that's the, the one good thing about on camera work and what we were talking about about the rehearsal Uhhuh is you can find, take the time to find it, but yes, no, there's, there's always, you know, not every job is a home run. Mm-Hmm. , you're like, oh, I wish I had gone a little bit deeper with that. Right. You know and sometimes you feel it there. Yes. Other times you don't realize it until after you see it. And maybe it's, they picked a take that Right. You didn't No. That wasn't the best one. Why didn't they, you know, not nothing is ever perfect.Michael Jamin:Right, right. YouPhil LaMarr:Know,Michael Jamin:And, but do you, like sometimes I'll watch, I'll be on set and I'll watch an actor do something. Usually it's drama and or a dramatic moment. Right. And, and they let it all out. And after you, you'll cut. I'm always like, I wonder if they need a moment alone. You know what I'm saying? It's like Right. I mean, what are your, what's your take on that?Phil LaMarr:Well, I mean, I'm not a, a method guy. I don't put myself into, because Yeah. You, you hear a lot about that, about a guy's like, yeah man, I had to play this character and my girlfriend hated me for a month because when I went home I was still part of that dude. Yeah. You know? And I don't know if it's my improv and sketch background where I take my character off like a hat,Michael Jamin:Uhhuh . IPhil LaMarr:Don't take them home and, you know, I, I try to embody it during the performance, but I don't feel it's, you know, required to have to be the character.Michael Jamin:Right. But if you spend a whole day as a character,Phil LaMarr:It can, it can be draining.Michael Jamin:Yeah. Right. It can be draining. Right. You have to wash yourself up that if, if you don't like that, you know, if you don't like that person, you have to wash yourself of that. Right. And how do you do that?Phil LaMarr:Yeah. Well, I mean that's, that's about, you know, when you leave the set mm-hmm. , you leave those feelings behind, although some actors don't, but you'veMichael Jamin:Just experienced, you spent the whole day experiencing that mm-hmm. that whatever it is, and yes, I understand you left it, but you spent the whole day angry or, or mournful or bitter or whatever it is. Like how do you, you still have to wash yourself from that, don't you? Well,Phil LaMarr:But I mean, the, for me, I'm not fooling myself. I'm not trying to convince myself that the script and the character is real and me. Cuz that's the thing. Like, if you spend all day with your drunken uncle who's nasty on Thanksgiving, that's not fun.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:You know, and then when you leave, you're like, ugh. You can, you can still be right, you know, upset about it, but you're, you're con but because you're connected to that person. For me, it's about, that is fiction. Right. I only, you know, I'm connected to the fiction while performing. I don't feel like I have to be, you know, like when I play Hermes on Futurama, I don't have to speak in a Jamaican accent for the entire season.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:You know?Michael Jamin:But are there moments, and maybe this is less so for a voice acting, but when you're, when you're on, when you're on camera, are there moments when you're like, you're cognizant that, oh, I'm acting now. Mm-Hmm. , you know, and then you, and you have to, oh, I gotta get back. You know, and you're, you're delivering your lines right in the middle of the line, you realize I'm acting.Phil LaMarr:Well, it, it's interesting because I think part of this mental philosophy I have is, you know, comes from watching Sam Jackson Uhhuh because he wasn't method, he wasn't acting like Jules, you know, acting like a gangster, a man with a gun the whole time.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:And he showed me that. And it's funny because while he was doing that, Frank Whaley who had worked on the doors was telling anecdotes about how when Val Kilmer was playing Jim Morrison, he was the exact opposite. Right. He, before they started shooting, he sent out a memo. Everyone is to refer to me as Jim or Mr. Morrison.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:You know, and he had a tent set where he would, you know, work to be in character and would only come on set as Jim Morrison. Right. He was ne They never s they never spoke to Val.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:Right. So, you know, what about, yes. It's definitely difficult for some people if that's their approach. No, no. My approach is I have to live this character.Michael Jamin:Right. You know, so you're, so you, okay, so that's not your problem. You don't have to worry. That's not something you have to Yeah, no. Interesting. I, I'm so interested in the, the actor's approach to the material, you know? Yeah. Because, you know, we write it, but how do you guys do, how do you guys do it? Because there's a difference. There really is a difference. You know, we hear it one way we envision it, but we can't do it. Do you know what I'm saying? Yeah. We can't get it out of our heads onto, into reality, but you can. And so I'm always like, how did you do thatPhil LaMarr:? Right. Well, it was, it was, it was interesting experience, you know, from the writing, acting, you know, crossover. Mm. I worked on a, I was developing an animated show based on a friend of mine's web comic called Goblins.Michael Jamin:Okay.Phil LaMarr:And my partner, Matt King and I, we were both performers, but we adapted the comic into a script. And I called a bunch of my voice actor friends, cuz we were, we were gonna make a trailer, you know, to bring these, you know, comic characters to life Yeah. In animation. And it was funny cuz Matt and I are actors. We had, you know, written the script and we'd acted out these scenes. And so in our heads we, we thought we knew exactly how they'd sound. But then we brought in amazing Billy West, Maurice La Marsh. Mm-Hmm. , Jim Cummings. Mm-Hmm. Steve Bloom, Jennifer. And it was funny because when they performed the scenes we had written, they took it to a whole other level. Right. Beyond what existed in our, in our heads. Right. Like, oh my God, they made it so much better than I even imagined it couldMichael Jamin:Be. Right, right.Phil LaMarr:And it was wild cuz I'd heard writers, you know, express a similar kind of thing. It's like, oh my gosh, you guys did such, such amazing with, and, but to have it, you know, as someone who'd been a performer, to have someone take your and do that miracle with it was an eye-opening experience. Like, ah, butMichael Jamin:There's something else that you do. Cause you know, there's a handful ofri actors, voice of actors, they always work. You're one of them. But pro you call 'em in and it's, it's knowing, especially in comedy, knowing where, how to hit the joke. I mean, we always say, can they hit a joke? And knowing where the laugh falls, not just somewhere, but which word makes it, makes it funny, you know? Mm-Hmm. , you know. And do you think that's your instinct? Or is that just something you've gotten better at?Phil LaMarr:Yes, I think that's something that has grown from performing, especially in the sense of, in the sense of comedy. Because I remember, you know, starting out on stage doing, you know, plays, then doing, doing improv, which is specific comedy cuz when you're doing a play mm-hmm. , the writer has decided which moments are funny, which moments are dramatic, you know. But when you're doing improv, you and the audience are deciding what's funny. Right. And, and I remember coming, you know, back to LA and pursuing acting and then starting to get work on camera and doing comedy. And I realized, huh. Oh wow. I don't have an audience.Michael Jamin:Yes. And youPhil LaMarr:Have, you have to create a gauge in your head for, is this funny? Because when you're on stage and you're doing a funny bit, you're, you know, you can feel from the audience whether, oh, I need to push that up a littleMichael Jamin:Bit. Right.Phil LaMarr:But when you're working on camera, this, the crew is not allowed to laugh outMichael Jamin:Loud. Right.Phil LaMarr:You know, so you have to create an audience inside you, an internal audience in your head to help, you know, is, is this the timing of this?Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:And, and it's funny because I've developed that and a couple of years into it, I remember I got a job working on N Y P D, blueMichael Jamin:UhhuhPhil LaMarr:Playing a guy who was being questioned, you know, interrogated in the police station and then gets roughed up by Ricky SchroederMichael Jamin:Uhhuh.Phil LaMarr:But the, the lines, because this guy's on drugs. And I remember like, oh wow, I gotta be careful. This could be funny . Cause he's like, you know, like, you know, cause Ricky Schroeder, you know, sees blood on his, on his clothes, like, take your clothes off. It's like, and the guy take my clothes. What you wanna do? What you ain't gonna put no boom on my ass. Right. And I remembered I have to gauge the funny way to do this and not doMichael Jamin:That. Yes. Right, right. Because,Phil LaMarr:You know, there was, I, and I realize no, no. Pull back the tempo and lean into the anger, not the outrage.Michael Jamin:Right. Right. So, andPhil LaMarr:Then it'll be, then it'll be dramatic, not comedy.Michael Jamin:It's, again, here you are approaching it really from the craft. It's not Yeah. I just wish it's, when I hear people, I want to be an actor. Okay. Take it serious. Are you gonna study? Are you just gonna, do you wanna be famous? Which, what is it you want? You know?Phil LaMarr:Right.Michael Jamin:And well, let's talk about that for a second. What, what's your relationship with, with fame? How do you, you know?Phil LaMarr:Well, that's a very interesting thing because I feel like that has changed mm-hmm. from the generation, like when you're our age, when we were growing up pre-internet mm-hmm.Michael Jamin:Phil LaMarr:Fame only applied to stars.Michael Jamin:Yeah. Right.Phil LaMarr:Now, you know, I mean, nobody knew voice actors, only voice actor anybody knew was Mel Blank.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:You know, people to this day still don't know what Das Butler looks like. Right. But the now anybody who appears on anything, even a YouTuberMichael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:Has some level of fame. Right. You know, and, and it's wild because, because of the internet, the, you know, it now matters what you say. In the old days, if you were a television character actor, like if you were Richard MulliganMichael Jamin:Yeah.Phil LaMarr:It never, nobody was ever gonna post what you said about something.Michael Jamin:Right.Phil LaMarr:It was only if you were Joan Crawford. Right. Or

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.

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.

John, are your ready for this episode of MwaM? John: Yeah! Join Kaiti and Phil as they discuss the latest and ?final film in the John Wick series. The episode starts with a spirited debate on the news of the Warner Bros Harry Potter series announcement. The duo then talk bulletproof suits, those pesky set of stairs and the importance of never messing with John's dog. They wrap the episode with a quiz all about the man, the myth, the legend ... Mr. Keanu Reeves. Let's just say, this episode is definitely NOT excommunicado. The manager will see you now. Find more Muggle with a Mic content and YouTube videos here: linktr.ee/mugglewithamic Final Boss Con info at finalbosscon.com Lockwood Leathercraft has your covered. You can find them on facebook at Facebook.com/Lockwoodleathercraft and Instagram at instagram.com/lockwoodleathercraft and on Twitch at twitch.tv/Lockwoodleathercraft. Music in the episode: "Take a Chance", "8bit Dungeon Boss", and "Happy Alley" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Sound effects from zapsplat.com Download and use Newsly for free now from www.newsly.me or from the link in the description, and use promo code Muggle and receive a 1-month free premium subscription. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/mugglewithamic/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/mugglewithamic/support

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.  

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

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

Welcome to January 16th, 2023 on the National Day Calendar. Today we celebrate making something out of nothing and a man with a dream.  John: Uh, Anna, We're recording. What are you eating? Anna: Nothing.  John: No you're eating something. Anna: No nothing. Marlo? Marlo: Yeah? John: Marlo, what are you eating? Marlo: Nothing either actually. John: So who's eating? Anna: Alright, alright. It's me. I'm eating a fig newton. I'm celebrating National Fig Newton Day and I'm sorry. I didn't bring enough for everybody. John: But they're ooey, gooey rich and chewy inside! Anna: I know, I'm sorry. Marlo, what are you celebrating? Marlo: Because of you I'm celebrating National Nothing Day. John: Oh, I'm celebrating nothing with you too, Marlo. Anna: That's a good call. Somebody's gotta do it. John: Yeah, way to be a team player. Marlo: Yeah, thanks, Anna! President Johnson once called Martin Luther King Jr. the apostle of nonviolence because of his legendary service through civil disobedience. As a clergyman, activist and leader of the civil rights movement, Dr. King is perhaps best known for his “I Have A Dream” speech. Hallowed in our history books as one of the all time greats, this speech was almost heard by no one. Right before the event the sound system was sabotaged and reportedly fixed on orders by Attorney General Robert Kennedy. What's more, King had not planned to “share the dream,” but improvised this portion upon the encouragement from singer Mahalia Jackson. On Martin Luther King Jr. Day we honor the unifying spirit of a man who changed the world by speaking from his heart. I'm Anna Devere and I'm Marlo Anderson. Thanks for joining us as we Celebrate Every Day!  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right. Today's guest is a Puerto Rico native who loves to explore, surf and make coffee. Owner of La Cafetera, Mara Rosado. Mara, very, very nice to meet you. John - Yeah. So my family came down here for the first time in October. My wife and I were celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary. We brought our youngest daughter Kimberly down, and we fell in love with Puerto Rico. And one of the reasons we fell in love with PR is La Cafetera. We probably came here about five times in the two weeks that we were here. And I've already been here every day to get my coffee on this visit. Very nice to meet you. So talk to us a little bit about why did you start a food cart? Mara - Okay. So I always wanted to have my own business because it's like what I wanted to do since I was very young. And then so food trucks here are easier because... John - It's like you're paying less rent and it's easier to maintain. You don't have a big restaurant to take care of. Mara - And so it's like an easier way to start, you know, and then so, I mean, I was a barista for like seven years and I always wanted to have my own like business with breakfast and coffee, but I loved my work back then and I was so comfortable but... --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/morningfuelpodcast/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/morningfuelpodcast/support

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.

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.

ELLA: How's your blog going? JOHN: Yeah, good. (He clears his throat awkwardly.) Very good. ELLA: You haven't written a word, have you? JOHN (pointing to Ella's notepad on her lap): You just wrote, “Still has trust issues.” ELLA: And you read my writing upside down. D'you see what I mean? (John smiles awkwardly.) ELLA: John, you're a soldier, and it's gonna take you a while to adjust to civilian life; and writing a blog about everything that happens to you will honestly help you. JOHN: Nothing happens to me. - Sherlock, BBC The post S36E7 – Dark Psychology: Writing Realistic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder appeared first on Writing Roots.

About This Episode Welcome to today's communication solution podcast. We love talking about motivational interviewing, and improving outcomes for individuals, organizations, and the communities that they serve. Today we are talking about the larger picture of the landscape of motivational interviewing, some of the things that are going on in its world, and the future landscape of motivational interviewing. We will also be transitioning some team members.  For those who are new to this podcast, the MICA is the motivational interviewing competency assessment. In this podcast we discuss: The larger picture and landscape of motivational interviewingThe field of motivational interviewing has grown or spilled intoMotivational interviewing is a method of communicatingCultural BiasDr. William Miller and his book, “Lovingkindness: Realizing And Practicing Your True Self”Measurement and motivational interviewingThe components of how language worksMindset Responsibility and choiceThe Western medical perspectiveDr. Theresa Moyers and her new book, “Effective Psychotherapy”And so much more! You don't want to miss this one! Make sure to rate us or share this podcast. It would mean so much to us! Thank you for listening to the communication solution. This podcast is all about you. If you have questions, thoughts, topic suggestions, or ideas, please send them our way at casey@ifioc.com. For more resources, feel free to check out ifioc.com. Want to see the video podcast?- Join MI PLUS Join MI PLUS+ Transcript of Show - View Below John: Hello everyone. And welcome back. We have some special podcasts here as we're going to be talking about this larger picture here of the landscape of motivational interviewing and some of the things that are going on in the world of motivational interviewing. If you're interested in that more generally, we also are going to be having a transition of some team members that you might be seeing if you're seeing this, but you'll be hearing here soon. So, I know Casey, you were going to give some words to that with Tammy and. Casey: Well, mostly I'm crying internally cause I'm losing Tammy. She, and I've been buddies for years and years and years. Actually, Tammy was. Integral to me transitioning and doing some work in senior living which wouldn't have happened with her role touch mark and just now makes me a little emotional, because there's this chip little face who would run around high, high energy, usually that a little bag of M&Ms with peanuts in it. And I could get people to do almost anything. Like she was the biggest. Cheerleader not only for training but just for motivational interviewing, just so it's actually a little hard for me to see her kill a little face right there. To know that we're going to be transitioning and she's going on to wonderful things with her family as it continues to grow, in her belly right now. Yeah. And the good news is we're bringing on Danielle Cantin. Who's just a. A force to be reckoned with. So just, it it's an exciting transition. And so, we're going to hear some of that transition over the next few podcasts as, as Tammy's, you know moving on to, to other things. And Danielle's jumping onto the I team. So, it's exciting, exciting times and a little bit of grieving going on at the same time. so, anything either of you would like to jump in and say, Tammy Tammy: no. Except I do want to make sure that we cover the actual topic of Danielle: the podcast at some point Tammy: I'd like, sorry, the name. So, people know what the name, what we're focused Danielle: on today. John: Yeah. The landscape of motivational interviewing, for sure. Yeah. Yes. Casey: Sounds good. And Danielle, any thoughts as you're jumping on? Danielle: Yes. I'm just so thrilled to be here. And what I think is really interesting is how you and Tammy connected is how we connected is in the senior living space. So,

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

Augmented reveals the stories behind the new era of industrial operations, where technology will restore the agility of frontline workers. In episode 17 of the podcast (@AugmentedPod), the topic is: Smart Manufacturing for All. Our guest is John Dyck, CEO at CESMII, the Smart Manufacturing Institute.After listening to this episode, check out CESMII as well as John Dyck's social profile:CESMII: (@CESMII_SM) https://www.cesmii.org/ John Dyck: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnsdyck/ In this conversation, we talked about  democratizing smart manufacturing, the history and ambition of CESMII (2016-), bridging the skills gap in small and medium enterprises which constitute 98% of manufacturing. We discuss how the integration of advanced sensors, data, platforms and controls to radically impact manufacturing performance. We then have the hard discussion of why the US is (arguably) a laggard? John shares the 7 characteristics of future-proofing (interoperability, openness, sustainability, security, etc.). We hear about two coming initiatives: Smart Manufacturing Executive Council & Smart Manufacturing Innovation Platform. We then turn to the future outlook over the next decade.Trond's takeaway: US manufacturing is a bit of a conundrum. How can it both be the driver of the international economy and a laggard in terms of productivity and innovation, all at the same time? Can it all be explained by scale--both scale in multinationals and scale in SMEs? Whatever the case may be, future proofing manufacturing, which CESMII is up to, seems like a great idea. The influx of smart manufacturing technologies will, over time, transform industry as a whole, but it will not happen automatically.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 8 on Work of the Future, episode 5 Plug-and-play Industrial Tech, or episode 9 The Fourth Industrial Revolution post-COVID-19. Augmented--the industry 4.0 podcast. Transcript: TROND: Augmented reveals the stories behind a new era of industrial operations where technology will restore the agility of frontline workers. In Episode 17 of the podcast, the topic is Smart Manufacturing for All. Our guest is John Dyck, CEO at CESMII, the Smart Manufacturing Institute. In this conversation, we talked about democratizing smart manufacturing, the history, and ambition of CESMII, bridging the skills gap in small and medium enterprises, which constitute 98% of manufacturing. We discuss how the integration of advanced sensors, data, platforms, and controls radically impact manufacturing performance. We then have the hard discussion of why the U.S. is, arguably, a laggard. John shares the seven characteristics of future-proofing. And we hear about two coming initiatives: Smart Manufacturing Executive Council & Smart Manufacturing Innovation Platform. We then turn to the future outlook over the next decade. Augmented is a podcast for leaders hosted by futurist, Trond Arne Undheim, presented by Tulip.co, the manufacturing app platform and associated with MFG.works, the manufacturing upskilling community launched at the World Economic Forum. Each episode dives deep into a contemporary topic of concern across the industry and airs at 9:00 a.m. U.S. Eastern Time, every Wednesday. Augmented — the Industry 4.0 podcast. John, how are you today? JOHN: I'm well, Trond. How are you? TROND: I'm doing well. I'm looking forward to talking about smart manufacturing. What brought you to this topic, John? We'll get into your background. But I'm just curious. JOHN: This is my favorite topic, as you probably know. So I appreciate the chance to pontificate a little. I've been at this nexus between IT and OT for the last two decades of my career or more and found over these past two decades that this is one of the most complex pieces of manufacturing period, this sort of unique challenge between the world of operations and the world of IT. And the work I did at MESA (Manufacturing Enterprise Solutions Association) on the board and as the chairman of the board exposed me to a lot of the great vendors in this ecosystem. And through that work, I found that most of them struggle with the same things. We're all struggling in different ways. And so the opportunity to take one step back and look at this from a national and a global perspective and try to find ways to address these challenges became a very unique opportunity for me and one that I've enjoyed immensely. And so just the prospect of making a real difference in addressing these challenges as a nation and as an ecosystem has been just a privilege and one that I get really excited about. TROND: So, John, you mentioned your background. So you've worked in both startups...I think you were raising money for a startup called Activplant, but also, you have worked in large manufacturing for GE and Rockwell, so the big guys, I guess, in a U.S. context for sure. When this institution, C-E-S-M-I-I, CESMII, got started, what was its main objective, and what was the reason why this institution got launched? I guess back in 2016, which is not an enormous amount of time back. Give us a little sense of who took this initiative. And what is the core mission of this organization right now? JOHN: So Manufacturing USA is the umbrella organization under which these institutes, CESMII being one of them, were created. There are a total of 15 of these institutes, all funded with the exact same business model and funding model, and each of them having a different lens on the specific manufacturing problem that they're addressing. And ours, as the Smart Manufacturing Institute, is directly focused on creating a more competitive manufacturing environment by addressing innovation and research challenges that inhibit manufacturers from doing what they need to do in this fourth industrial revolution. So our mandate is to cut the cost of implementing smart manufacturing by 50%. Our mandate is to drive energy productivity, energy efficiency. Fundamentally, the agency that funds CESMII is the Department of Energy, which means that our overarching objective is to drive energy productivity as a basic metric. But we also believe that whether that's a direct challenge meaning addressing energy, performance energy efficiency directly, or an indirect outcome from a more efficient process, or a more effective supply chain, whatever that manufacturing initiative is, that we'll create a better product, a better process that will have direct and indirect impact on energy productivity, which is the connection back to our agency and the source of the funding that we have to accomplish these really important goals. TROND: And one of the really big identified gaps, also it seems, is this discrepancy between the big and the small industry players. So small and medium enterprises famously in every country is basically...the most of industry is consisting of these smaller players. They're not necessarily startups. They're not necessarily on this growth track to become unicorns. But they are smaller entities, and they have these resource constraints. Give me a sense of what you're doing to tackle that, to help them out, and to equip them for this new era. And maybe you could also just address...you called smart manufacturing industry 4.0, but I've noticed that that's not a term that one uses much. Smart manufacturing is kind of what you've opted for. So maybe just address that and then get to the small and medium-sized. JOHN: This is, I think, one of the really important observations that we try to make and the connections that we try to make to say that the status quo, the state of the industry today, Trond, is the result of three or four decades of what we did during the third industrial revolution. We began talking about the fourth industrial revolution many years ago. But we can't just turn that light switch on and assume that overnight everything we do now, despite the cultures we've created, the technologies we've created, the ways of doing things we've created, is now all of a sudden just new and exciting and different, and it's going to create that next wave of productivity. So when I talk about smart manufacturing and equating it with the fourth industrial revolution, it's truly the characteristics and the behaviors that we anticipate more so than what we're seeing. Because the critical mass of vendors and systems integrators, application and software products in this marketplace still resemble more of industry 3.0 than they do industry 4.0. And it's part of our vision to characterize those two only in the context of trying to accelerate the movement towards industry 4.0 or the fourth industrial revolution. Because it's that that holds out the promise of the value creation that we've been promised for ten decades but really aren't seeing. So that's the way we see the industry 4.0 versus the other concepts that we talk about. Digital transformation is another important term. All of that happens in the context of some initiative in a manufacturing operation to improve. We've been improving for three or four decades. What's different today? Well, it's not just relabeling [laughs] your portfolio to be industry 4.0 compliant. So anyway, that's a pet topic of ours just to help as a national conversation, as a set of thinking and thought leader organizations and individuals to put the spotlight on that and ensure that we're doing the things that we can to accelerate the adoption, and the behaviors, and the characterizations of what it really means to be industry 4.0. So to your point -- TROND: Yeah, I was just curious. The term revolution anyway is interesting in a U.S. context [laughter] and in any society. So it implies a lot of things, but it also certainly implies a speed that perhaps isn't necessarily happening. So there's all this talk now about how things are speeding up. But as you point out, even if they have some revolutionary characteristics, at the edge, there are some other things that need to happen that aren't necessarily going to happen at the speed of what you might imagine when you use the word revolution. It's not going to turn over like a switch. JOHN: That's exactly right. Well said, Trond. Manufacturing and bleeding edge never come together in the same sentence, and so it takes time for...and more so on the OT side than the IT side. Right out of the IT world, we have industrial IoT platforms. We have augmented reality. We have powerful AI machine learning tools. But what is the true adoption on the plant floor? Well, that's where the behaviors, and the cultures, and the characteristics of how we've always done things and the reluctance to adopt new things really comes in. And it's as much a part of the vendor and systems integration ecosystem as it is on the manufacturing side. And that's, again, this whole thing becomes...to drive (I really don't think it's a revolution to your point.) an evolution or accelerate the evolution towards Industry 4.0 requires the ecosystem to get engaged and to recognize these really important things have to change. Does that make sense? TROND: Yes. A lot of them have to change. And then to these small and medium enterprises, so I've seen a statistic that even in the U.S., it's around 98% of manufacturing. That is an enormous challenge, even for an association like yours. How do you reach that many? JOHN: Here's an interesting epiphany I had shortly after I came to CESMII and was working through exactly this challenge: how does an organization like ours access and understand the challenges they face and then look at the ecosystem that's there and available to serve them? The epiphany I had was that in my entire career with both big global corporations like Rockwell Automation and General Electric and specifically even the startup organization that I helped raise VC for and venture capital funding for and build and ultimately see acquired; I had never been in a small and medium manufacturing plant environment. The entire ecosystem is focused on large brands, recognized brands, and enterprises that have the potential for multisite rollouts, multisite implementation. And so the business models, the marketing models, the sales, the go-to-market, the cost of sales, everything in this ecosystem is designed towards the large enterprises called the Fortune 1000 that represent the types of characteristics that any startup, any Global Fortune 500 organization is going to go pursue. Which then says or leaves us with a really important conversation to say, how can the small and medium manufacturing organizations become part of this dialogue? How can we engage them? What does an ecosystem look like that's there to serve these organizations? And where an implementation organization like a good systems integrator can actually make money engaging in this way. And so that's where the needs of that ecosystem and our specific capabilities come together. The notion that democratization which is going to help the big manufacturers, and the big vendors, and the big integrators, and the big machine builders, the same things that we can do to cut the cost of deploying smart manufacturing for them, will enormously increase the accessibility of smart manufacturing capabilities for the small and medium manufacturers. And so that's where typically -- TROND: John, let's talk specifics. Let's talk specifics. So smart manufacturing, you said, and I'm assuming it's not just a community effort. You're intervening at the level also of providing a certain set of tools also. So if we talk about sensors, and data, and platforms, and control systems, these are all impacting manufacturing performance. To what extent can an association like yours actually get involved at that level? Is it purely on the standardization front, sort of recommending different approaches? Or is it even going deeper into layers of technology and providing more than just recommendations? JOHN: So the short answer is it depends on the domain, and the area of networking, and sensors and controls. Those are areas where longer-term research and investment to drive innovation to reduce the cost of connecting things becomes really important. And that's one of the threads or one of the investment paths that we pursue through what we call roadmap projects where there are longer, larger in terms of financial scope and further out impacts. We're hoping we'll have a dramatic impact on the cost of connecting machines and sensors and variable-frequency drives and motion systems or whatever sort of data source you have in an operation. So that's one track. The other piece which gets to the actual creation of technologies is more on the data contextualization, data collection, data ingestion side. And you mentioned the word standards. Well, standards are important, and where there are standards that we can embrace and advocate for, we're absolutely doing that. Part of the OPC Foundation and the standards that they're driving, MQTT and Sparkplug, becomes a really important area as well. And the work that MTConnect is doing to solve many of the same challenges that we believe we need to solve more broadly for a subset of machine classes more in a CNC machine tool side. But this effort, smart manufacturing, is happening today, and it's accelerating today. And we can't wait for standards to be agreed on, created, and achieve critical mass. So we are investing in a thin but vital layer of technologies that we can drill into if you'd like as a not-for-profit, not to compete in the marketplace but to create a de facto standard for how some of these really important challenges can be addressed, and how as a standard develops and we fund the deployment of these innovations in the marketplace and kind of an innovation environment versus a production environment. Not that they don't turn into production environments, but they start as an innovation project to start and prove out and either fail quickly or scale up into a production environment. So this idea of a de facto standard is a really important idea for us. That's our objective. And that's what we believe we can build and are building is critical mass adoption for really important ideas. And we're getting support from a lot of the great thought leaders in the space but also from a lot of the great organizations and bodies like, as I mentioned, the OPC Foundation, The Industrial Internet Consortium, the German platform industry 4.0 group responsible in Germany for industry 4.0. We're working towards and aligning around the same principles and ideas, again, to help create a harmonized view of these foundational technologies that will allow us to accomplish the dramatic reduction of the cost of connecting and extracting information from and contextualizing that information. And then making it available in ways that are far more consistent and compelling for the application vendor. The bar or the threshold at which an application developer can actually step into the space and do something is in a pretty high space. If you kind of look back, and I know this analogy is probably a little overused, but what it took to build applications for devices and phones, smart devices, and smartphones before Apple and Android became commonplace meant that you had to build the entire stack every single time. And that's where the industry is today. When you sit down in front of a product, you're starting from scratch every time, regardless of the fact that you've created an information model for that paper-converting machine 100 times in 20 different technology stacks. When I start this project, it's a blank slate. It's a blank sheet of paper every single time. Is that value-add? Is that going to help? No. And yet it requires a tremendous amount of domain expertise to build that. So the notion of standardizing these things, abstracting them from any individual to technology stack, standardizing on them, making them available in the marketplace for others to use that's where democratization begins to happen. TROND: So what you are about to create is an innovation platform for smart manufacturing. Will that be available then to everybody in the U.S. marketplace? Or is it actually completely open for all of the industry, wherever they reside? And what are the practical steps that you would have to take as a manufacturer if you even just wanted to look into some of the things you were building and maybe plug in with it? JOHN: So we're not about to build, just a minor detail there. We've been working on this for a couple of years. And we have a growing set of these implementations in the marketplace through the funded projects that we were proud to be able to bring to the marketplace. So the funding, and right now within the scope of what we're doing here as an institute, the funds that we deploy as projects, these grants, essentially mean that we spend these grants, these funds in the U.S. only. So in the context of what we do here, the smart manufacturing innovation platform, the creation of these profiles, the creation of the apps on top of the platform by our vendor ecosystem and domain experts in this ecosystem those are largely here and exclusively here in the U.S, I should say. So from that perspective, deployments that we have control over in terms of funding are uniquely here in the U.S. What happens beyond that in terms of where they're deployed and how they're deployed, we know we live in a global manufacturing environment. And as our members who want to deploy these capabilities outside of the U.S., those are all absolutely acceptable deployments of these technologies. TROND: But, John, so all of these deployments are they funded projects so that they're always within involvement of grant money, or is some part of this platform actually literally plug and play? JOHN: So there are several threads. The projects that we fund are obviously one thread. There's another thread that says any member of ours can use any implementation of our platform or can use our platform and any of the vendors that are here as a proof of concept or pilot, typically lasting 3,4,5,6 months for free of charge. What happens then that leads to the third component is after your pilot, there's one of two things that's going to happen. The system will be decommissioned, and you ideally, well, I shouldn't say ideally...you fail fast, the system is decommissioned, and folks move on. Ideally, the pilot was a success. And that generates a financial transaction for the parties involved in that. And that organization moves towards a production rollout of these capabilities. So CESMII's role then diminishes and steps away. But this notion of a pilot actually came from a conversation with one of our great members here at Procter & Gamble. They talk about innovation triage and the complexity of just innovating within a large corporate environment like Procter & Gamble. The fact that just to stand up the infrastructure to invite a vendor, several vendors in to stand up their systems costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and takes months and months and months just to get started. This notion that we can provision this platform in minutes, bring our vendor partner technologies to bear in minutes allows them to execute what they call innovation triage. And it really accelerates the rate at which they can innovate within their corporation, but it's that same idea that we translate back down to small and medium manufacturing, right? The notion that you don't have to have a server. You don't have to sustain a server. You don't have to buy a server to try smart manufacturing in a small and medium manufacturing environment. If you've got five sensors from amazon.com and lightly industrialized Raspberry Pi, you have the means to begin the smart manufacturing journey. What do you do with that data? Well, there are great partner organizations like Tulip, like Microsoft Excel, even Microsoft Power BI that represent compelling democratized contemporary low-cost solutions that they can actually sustain. Because this isn't just about the cost of acquiring and implementing these systems, as you know. This is also about sustaining them. Do I have the staff, the domain expertise as a small and medium manufacturer to sustain the stuff that somebody else may have given me or implemented here for me? And so that's just as an important requirement for these organizations as the original acquisition and implementation challenges. TROND: It's so important what you're talking about here, John, because there's an additional concept which is not so pleasant called pilot purgatory. And this has been identified in factories worldwide. It's identified in any software development. But with OT, as you pointed out, with more operational technologies, with additional complications, it is so easy to just get started with something and then get stuck and then decide or maybe not decide just sort of it just happens that it never scales up to production value and production operations. And it seems like some of the approaches you're putting on the table here really help that situation. Because, as you mentioned, hundreds of thousands of dollars, that's not a great investment for a smaller company if it leads to a never-ending kind of stop and start experimenting but never really can be implemented on the true production line. JOHN: Yeah. Spot on, Trond. The numbers that we're seeing now...I think McKenzie released a report a couple of months ago talking about, I think, somewhere between 70% and 80% of all projects in this domain not succeeding, which means they either failed or only moderately succeeded. And I think that's where the term pilot purgatory comes in. I talk almost every chance I get about the notion that the first couple of decades of the third industrial revolution resulted in islands of automation. And we began building islands of information as software became a little more commonplace in the late '80s and '90s. And then the OTs here in the last decade, we've been building islands of innovation, this pilot purgatory. The assumption was...and I get back to the journey between where we thought industry 3.0 or the third industrial revolution became the fourth industrial revolution. The idea was that, man, we're just going to implement some of these great new capabilities and prove them out and scale them up. Well, it gets back to the fact that even these pilots, these great innovative tools, were implemented with these old ideas in these closed data siloed ways and characterizations. And so yeah, everybody's excited. The CEO has visibility to this new digital transformation pilot that he just authorized or she just authorized. And a lot of smart people are involved, and a lot of domain experts involved. The vendors throw cash at this thing, and the systems integrators, implementers, throw cash at this thing. And even if they're successful, and broadly, as an individual proof of concept, there are points of light that say, we accomplished some really important things. The success is not there, or the success isn't seeing that scaled out, and those are the really nuanced pieces that we're trying to address through this notion of the innovation platform and profiles. The notion that interoperability and openness is what's going to drive scale, the notion that you don't have the same stovepipe legacy application getting at the same set of data from the same data sources on the shop floor for every unique application, and that there are much more contemporary ways of building standardized data structures that every application can build on and drive interoperability through. TROND: Yeah, you talk about this as the characteristics of future-proofing. So you mentioned interoperability, and I guess openness which is a far wider concept. Like openness can mean several things. And then sustainability and security were some other of your future-proofing characteristics. Can you line up some of those for us just to give some context to what can be done? If you are a factory owner, if you're a small and medium-sized enterprise, and you want to take this advice right now and implement. JOHN: Yeah, we've tried as an association, as a consortia, Trond, it's not just CESMII staff like myself who are paid full-time to be here that are focused on identifying and developing strategies for the challenges that we believe will help manufacturing in the U.S. It's organizations that are members here and thought leaders from across the industry that help us identify these really fundamental challenges and opportunities. And so, as an institute, we've landed on what we call the smart manufacturing first principles. There are seven first principles that we believe characterize the modern contemporary industry 4.0 compliant, if you will, strategy. And just to list them off quickly, because we have definitions and we have content that flushes out these ideas, sort of in order of solve and order of importance for us, interoperability and openness is the first one. Sustainable and energy efficient is the second one, security, scalability, resilient and orchestrated, flat and real-time, and proactive and semi-autonomous. And so these we believe are the characteristics of solutions, technologies, capabilities that will move us from this world of pilot purgatory and where we've come from as an ecosystem in this third industrial revolution and prepare us for a future-proof strategy whether I'm a small and medium manufacturer that just cares about this one instance of this problem I need to solve, or whether I'm a Fortune 10 manufacturing organization that understands that the mess that we've created over the last 25 years has got to make way for a better future. That I'm not going to reinvest in a future...not that I can rip and replace anything I've got, but I've got to invest in capabilities moving forward that represent a better, more sustainable, more interoperable future for my organization. That's the only way we're going to create this next wave of productivity that is held out for us as a promise of this new era. TROND: John, you have alluded to this, and you call it the mess that we've created over the last 25 years. We have talked about the problems of lack of interoperability and other issues. This is not an easy discussion and certainly not in your official capacity. But why is the U.S. a laggard? Because, to be honest, these are not problems that every country has, to a degree, they are but specifically, the U.S. and its manufacturing sector has been lagging. And there is data there, and I think you agree with this. Why is this happening? And are any of these initiatives going to be able to address that short term? JOHN: So this is probably the most important question that we as a nation need to address, and it's a multifaceted, complex question. And I think the answer is a multifaceted, complex response as well. And we probably don't have time to drill into this in detail, but I'll respond at least at a 30,000 foot-level. Even this morning, I saw a friend of mine sent me a link about China being called out today officially as being a leader in this digital transformation initiative globally, as you've just alluded to. So, from our perspective, there are a couple of important...and like I said, really understanding why this is the case is the only way we're going to be able to move forward and accelerate the adoption of this initiative. But there are a number of reasons. The reason I think China is ahead is in part cultural, but it's also in part the fact that they don't have much of the legacy that we've built. Most of their manufacturing operations as they've scaled up over the last decade, two decades, really since the World Trade Organization accepted China's entry in this domain, their growth into manufacturing systems has been much, much more recent than ours. And so they don't have this complex legacy that we do. There are other cultural implications for how the Chinese manufacturing environment adopts technologies. And there's much more of a top-down culture there. Certain leaders drive these activities and invest in these ways. Much of the ecosystem follows. So that's, I'll say, one perspective on how China becomes the leader in this domain very quickly. Europe is also ahead of the U.S. And I think there are some important reasons why that's the case as well. And a part of it is that they have a very strong cultural connection to the way government funds and is integrated with both the learning and academic ecosystem there in most of Europe as well as with the manufacturing companies themselves. It seems to have become part of their DNA to accept that the federal government can bring these initiatives to the marketplace and then funds the education of every part of their ecosystem to drive these capabilities into their manufacturing marketplace. We, on the other hand, are a much more American society. We are individualistic. The notion that the government should tell manufacturers what to do is not a well-accepted, [laughs] well-adopted idea here in the U.S. And that's been a strength for many manufacturers, and for many, many years. The best analogy that I can come up with right now in terms of where we are and where we need to go and CESMII's role in all of this, and the federal government's role in all of this, which I think brings a healthy blend of who we are as a nation and how we work and how we do things here together with a future that's a little more also compatible with these notions of adopting and driving technology forward at scale, is the reality that in 1956, President Eisenhower convinced Congress to fund the U.S. Interstate Highways and Defense Act to build a network of interstate highways, a highway network across this country to facilitate much more efficient flow of people and goods across this country. Apparently, as a soldier, many decades before, he had to travel from San Diego to Virginia in a military convoy that took him 31 days to cross the country [laughs], which is a slight aside. It was apparently the catalyst that drove the passion he had to solve this problem. And that's the role that I think we can play today, creating a digital highway, if you will, a digital catalyst to bring our supply chains together in a much more contemporary and real-time way and to bring our information systems into a modern industry 4.0 compliant environment. And that's setting those, creating those definitions, defining those characteristics, and then providing the means whereby we can accelerate this ecosystem to move forward. I think that's the right balance between our sense of individualism and how we do things here in the U.S. versus adopting these capabilities at scale. TROND: That's such a thoughtful answer to my question, which I was a little afraid of asking because it is a painful question. And it goes to the heart, I guess, of what it means to be an American, to be industrial, and to make changes. And there is something here that is very admirable. But I also do feel that the psychology of this nation also really doesn't deeply recognize that many of the greatest accomplishments that have been happening on U.S. soil have had an infrastructure component and a heavy investment from the government when you think about the creation of the internet, the creation of the highway system. You can go even further back, the railways. All of those things they had components, at least a regulation, where they had massive infrastructure elements to them whether they were privately financed or publicly financed, which is sort of that's sort of not the point. But the point is there were massive investments that couldn't really be justified in an annual budget. JOHN: That's right. TROND: You would have to think much, much wider. So instead of enclosing on that end then, John, if you look to the future, and we have said manufacturing is, of course, a global industry also, what are you seeing over this next decade is going to happen to smart manufacturing? So on U.S. soil, presumably, some amount of infrastructure investment will be made, and part of it will be digital, part of it will be actually equipment or a hybrid thereof that is somewhat smartly connected together. But where's that going to lead us? Is manufacturing now going to pull us into the future? Or will it remain an industry that historically pulls us into the future but will take a backseat to other industries as we move into the next decade? JOHN: Yeah, that's another big question. We've been talking about smart manufacturing 2030, the idea that smart manufacturing is manufacturing by 2030. And a decade seems like a long time, and for most functions, for most areas of innovation, it is, but manufacturing does kind of run at its own pace. And there is a timeline around which both standardization and technologies and cultures move on the plant floor. And so that's a certain reality. And we were on a trajectory to get there. But ironically, it took a pandemic to truly underscore the value of digital transformation, digital operations, and digital workers, I can certainly say in the U.S. but even more broadly. So a couple of important data points to back that up. Gartner just recently announced the outcome of an important survey of, I think, close to 500 manufacturing executives here in the U.S. in terms of their strategic perception of digital transformation, smart manufacturing. And I think they specifically called it smart manufacturing. And it was as close to unanimous as anything they've ever seen; 86% or 87% of manufacturing executives said that now digital transformation, smart manufacturing is the most strategic thing they can invest in. What was it a year ago? It was probably less than half of that. So that speaks to the experience these organizations have gone through. And the reality that as we talk about resilience, some people talk about reshoring, and some of that will happen. As we talk about a future environment, that's...I shouldn't say disruption-proof but much more capable of dealing with disruption not just within the four walls of the plant or an enterprise but in the supply chain. These capabilities are the things that will separate those that can withstand these types of disruptions from those that can't. And that has been recognized. And so, as much as these executives are the same ones that are frustrated by pilot purgatory, it's these executives that are saying, "That's the future. We've got to go there." And we're seeing through this pandemic...we hear CESMII are saying the manufacturing thought leaders understand this and are rallying around these ideas more now than ever before to ensure that what we do in the future is consistent with a more thoughtful, more contemporary, future-proof way of investing in digital transformation or smart manufacturing. TROND: John, these are fascinating times, and you have a very important role. I thank you so much for taking time to appear on my show here today. JOHN: Trond, I appreciate that. I appreciate the privilege of sharing these thoughts with you. These are profound questions, and answering the easy ones is fun. Answering the hard questions is important. And I appreciate the chance to have this conversation with you today. TROND: Thanks. Have a great day. JOHN: You too. TROND: You have just listened to Episode 17 of the Augmented Podcast with host Trond Arne Undheim. The topic was Smart Manufacturing for All. Our guest is John Dyck, CEO at CESMII, the Smart Manufacturing Institute. In this conversation, we talked about democratizing smart manufacturing and the history and ambition of CESMII, bridging the skills gap in small and medium enterprises, which constitute 98% of manufacturing. We discuss how the integration of advanced sensors, data, platforms, and controls radically impact manufacturing performance. We then have the hard discussion of why the U.S. arguably is a laggard. We heard about two coming initiatives: the Smart Manufacturing Executive Council & the Smart Manufacturing Innovation Platform. We then turned to the future outlook over the next decade. My takeaway is that U.S. manufacturing is a bit of a conundrum. How can it both be the driver of the international economy and a laggard in terms of productivity and innovation, all at the same time? Can it all be explained by scale, both scale in multinationals and scale in SMEs? Whatever the case may be, future-proofing manufacturing, which CESMII is up to, seems like a great idea. The influx of smart manufacturing technologies will, over time, transform industry as a whole, but it will not happen automatically. 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 8 on Work of the Future, Episode 5 on Plug-and-play Industrial Tech, or Episode 9 on The Fourth Industrial Revolution post-COVID-19. Augmented — the Industry 4.0 podcast. Special Guest: John Dyck.

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.

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.

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. 

There is no quick fix in whatever endeavor you are working on. It's determination, acknowledgement, and a whole lot of self trust. This week's conversation is a testament that wherever your life path takes you, there is time to adjust, to chase the things on your heart, and to overcome the negative voices that are holding you back.  If you have any questions about this episode or want to get some of the resources we mentioned, head over to LesleyLogan.co/podcast. If you have any comments or questions about the Be It pod shoot us a message at beit@lesleylogan.co . And as always, if you're enjoying the show please share it with someone who you think would enjoy it as well. It is your continued support that will help us continue to help others. Thank you so much! Never miss another show by subscribing at LesleyLogan.co/subscribe.In this episode you will learn about:From summer jobs to NASA Stop listening to the odds of success and take action Noble obstacles and the weight of responsibility Surrounding yourself with the people who have been where you are Overcoming Imposter syndrome and mental health struggles Creating the right space for empowerment Episode References/Links:InstagramMollura Photo WebsiteFacebookJohns Course on Profitable Pilates...COMING SOON :) BIO: John is a multi-award-winning luxury portrait photographer specializing in empowering and creative portraits that create personal transformation. John's backstory is one that exudes personal transformation. Prior to becoming a full-time photographer, John had a successful fifteen-year career as a leading test engineer for NASA and military projects. However, after a series of personal and professional changes, he chose to follow his dream of becoming a photographer.  If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox.ResourcesWatch the Be It Till You See It podcast on YouTube!Lesley Logan websiteBe It Till You See It PodcastOnline Pilates Classes by Lesley LoganOnline Pilates Classes by Lesley Logan on YouTubeProfitable PilatesSocial MediaInstagramFacebookLinkedInEpisode Transcript:Lesley Logan 0:00  Hey, Be It listener, how are you? Have you ever had a plan not go as planned? I guess it's not really anything like, how have you ever had something not go as planned? There it is. Um, yeah, me too. I think that's actually helped plans go. I'm, I'm becoming more increasingly convinced that plans are only meant to like be like the compass that gets you started. And then the rest is kind of figure it out as you go. And, and that's the hard part because we all want certainty. And we all really want to know that, like, if I do this, and this is going to happen. And the more people I interviewed, the more I am noticing a strong theme and that a) things don't go the way we expect. And b) sometimes, not sometimes, every time something is happening is happening for you. And it's setting you off on this track and this, and this journey that you are meant to be on. And I'm so grateful that our next guest cross paths and our like our paths cross because he's super cool. I really I really liked him. I I think Brad and I will be friends with him for hopefully a long time because he is just an inspiration. And he share so passionately and authentically his story. And I really believe that you can learn so much from it. So he when you'll hear in the interview, but this is the person whose plan A didn't go and then plan B didn't go and like, of course you get down and depressed. And you find yourself doing a job. You're like, "Why am I doing this?" Like, "Why am I doing this?" And that's the thing, that's the thing that actually makes you shine a little differently, shine a little brighter become something that somebody else pays attention to. And and it completely changes trajectory of your life. And so please don't underestimate the crazy weird jobs you've ever had to do, or the experiences you've ever had. Because those experiences, those weird jobs, those weird skill sets, literally might be the reason and the thing someone is looking for to hire you or to spring you on to their show or to or to have you speak in front of their audience. Like those are the things, too often we're looking for the degrees or the certifications or, or you know, some sort of like title with letters after it that we think is going to be why someone picks us. But it could literally be the weird thing you did one summer. And so stop under estimating yourself. Give yourself some time to write down all the things you've ever done. And think about it as you listen to this interview with John because I think it's really powerful. And I'm really excited for you to hear from him how he became a rocket scientist. And now he is a really well sought after photographer and I can't wait to work with him. So that's going to happen, I'm putting on my list for this year. All right. So let me know how this interview impacts your life. Please let John and I know, tag us on Instagram. Share this with people that need to hear it and here he is.Welcome to the Be It Till You See It podcast, where we talk about taking messy action, knowing that perfect is boring. I'm Lesley Logan, Pilates instructor and fitness business coach. I've trained thousands of people around the world and the number one thing I see stopping people from achieving anything is self doubt. My friends, action brings clarity and it's the antidote to fear. Each week, my guests will bring Bold, Executable, Intrinsic and Targeted steps that you can use to put yourself first and Be It Till You See It. It's a practice, not a perfect. Let's get started.All right, my loves. I have John Mollura with us. I didn't say your name, right. John Mollura. (John: You got it.) How do you say it? John Mollura?John Mollura 0:25  Just like you said it. Mollura. Yeah.Lesley Logan 0:28  I do this all the time, like I, I 100% check names and like, "Oh, I know his name we're good." And then I'm like, "Did I say it, right?" And it's anyways, it's my own thing. Everyone, we have John Mollura here. And I am so excited from literal rockstar to incredible photographer, and he has an amazing story. And I'm just so happy our paths crossed, I really have to say, you know, I put out a thing like, "Hey, I'm looking for this," and you put yourself up there. And then when you're like, "Oh, here's the topic that I'm going to talk about." It made me laugh because I'm like, "How on earth could you talk about impostor syndrome when you had like no imposter syndrome with of like saying, 'Hey, I'm the person you should talk to.'" So John, thank you for being here on this podcast. I really am excited to talk about all the things that you rock at. Can you please tell everyone a little bit about how you became like a rocket scientist to a photographer? (Lesley and John laughs) Not exactly like the linear plan that I think people would expect?John Mollura 1:24  Well, the key was I didn't really have any life plan. And that's something that I've just kind of done. So exhibit A, you know the podcast like I just, even though I wrestled with impostor syndrome, and pretty severe anxiety, a lot of my life. I just always had that pioneer spirit, if you will, or I would just, I'd rather be, you know, on the tip of the spear, the first person going in because I get bored, so easy. And I'd rather just put myself out there. And just try something, (Lesley: Yeah) with risk being, you know, just bored and static. So ...Lesley Logan 2:04  So you're saying you could never have just like, worked behind a cubicle doing the same thing every day? You're ...John Mollura 2:10  That lasted nine months ... (John laughs)Lesley Logan 2:12  Oh, hey that's longer than I think I lasted when somebody tried to ask. I was like, "I don't think I'm really good at this." (Lesley laughs)John Mollura 2:19  Yeah, yeah, that came right at the end where I where I jumped ship on corporate world after 16 years and start doing photography full time. But backing up, yeah, so I used to be a literal rocket scientist. I lead test missions for NASA and the Department of Defense from Antarctica on projects to England. You know, garden spots, like, you know, Sandusky, Ohio in February. It was literally all over the map. And the way I fell into that job was my buddies and I were sitting around Penn State, senior year, probably, like some wing and beer night. And a call came for people to interview for the company. I made the spacesuit for NASA. And I say, I'm gonna ...Lesley Logan 3:05  Wait. (John: Yeah) Wait, hold on. I'm sorry. You're just having wings and beer. And they're like, "Hey, there's this job to work for NASA. We're you qualified for this?" (Lesley laughs)John Mollura 3:15  Oh, I felt I wasn't because although I did, I did okay in school. School never came real easy for me, in engineering school, for those of you that are familiar with is an absolute grind. It whenever we sat in our freshman orientation, they said, "Look to the person to the left to you and the person to your right. And they're going to wash out in the next four years. One (Lesley: What a pep talk.) of you, two of you three." Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it was like, it was like signing up for you know, buds with the Navy seals, it's like, "Pretty much all of you are not going to be able to make it. So good luck."Lesley Logan 3:47  Okay, so here's what I can tell you. Absolutely, very few people listen to this podcast, probably are familiar with engineering schools. (John: Right) I don't know. No offense to the ones who are so. So you did go to engineering school. (John: Yeah.) Okay. And then you're having the wings and beers. And then you see that this is job with this company who made the NASA outfits.John Mollura 4:06  Yeah, the spacesuits like since like the Apollo days. (Lesley: It's a real thing.) Yeah, the real deal. Yeah, not the stuff you know, for soundstage like the stuff they actually put on the rocket and you know, allegedly landed on the moon with you know, depending on which side of the fence you fall on (Lesley: Yeah) the debate. But so I sent my resume in as a joke like thinking like there's no way like this company is ever going to want to hire me. And sure enough, they did, they want to do a phone interview. You know, this was back in the late 90s. So like, there was no FaceTime, no Zoom, like I was sitting on my shared landline in my fraternity house. And yeah, there were some guys like you know, ... next dorm sitting there on a phone interview talking to ... (Lesley: NASA) Yeah, yeah. (Lesley: No big deal.) Yeah, no big deal. And I was interviewing to be like a project manager, which I had no clue what that would be. And knowing what I know now, that would have and awful fit, I would have been terrible that. And the summer before I applied when I was I think a junior in school, I taught rock climbing for the Boy Scouts. Because I have all lined up, you know, to go do an internship at Disney, like be Disney. And I lost it to like another person like me and one other person and I lost it. And yeah, and it was like, late April, you know, this is also a recurring thing with me. I don't really have a plan B a lot of times.Lesley Logan 5:34  Right. Doesn't, it also kind of no offense, doesn't really sound like yeah, there's a either, it's ...John Mollura 5:38  Yeah. It just like Forrest Gump my way through life. (Lesley: Yes, I'm loving it.) Yeah ...Lesley Logan 5:44  I wish, I wish I could do that. I'm like, I need a b 27 letters later. I would like another.John Mollura 5:51  Oh, yeah. Yeah, no, I not not my thing. You know, my wife and I always joke. It's like, you know, there's two types of people in the relationship. There's the person that says, "All right, I got the passport. I got the boarding pass. I got the hotel reservations and the rental car reservations." And then the other person in the relationships, like, "Where are we going?" (Lesley and John laughs) (Lesley: Oh, my God.)Lesley Logan 6:14  You know what's really funny, is up until this moment, like I was like, oh, yeah like Brad is like, kind of that person. He's like, "Oh, I can do that. Oh, I'm gonna sign up. What?" Like he'll get bored and the same thing all the time. But when it comes to travel, he has our passport. He has a dropbox folder of all of our visas. He has all the things that I'm like, "So we're going?" So anyways, okay, so, you, you're going you're teaching rock climbing for Boy Scouts.John Mollura 6:42  Yeah, yeah, that was that was the summer before the infamous wings and beer night where we decide to apply to you know work on critical life saving equipment. And but I put that on my resume because I got that job after the whole Disney thing fell through, my fraternity brother walked in the room and they'll say, "Hey, you're right, man." And I'm like, "No, I'm pretty far from okay, right now, dude." Tell them what happened because we are outdoorsy, you want to you know, you want to work at a scout camp. I'm like, "I was never a Boy Scout. I didn't wear goofy green shorts and run around." It seems like, alright, well, don't say things like that, but we could hire you. So I worked with the maintenance crew. Like until like, I could do my assigned job, which was I was supposed to be a watersports director. And I, once again, I was like, "I don't know how to do that. I don't know how to sail or do anything. I can swim that's about it." They're like, "We'll train you." I'm like, "Alright, cool, you'll train me," whatever. And, but until like training, like there was like a six week gap. And I worked with the maintenance crews and I had like zero, like trade skills. So I was I was the guy just like schlepping the chainsaws through the woods. And you know, when the when the septic drainage truck would need something like I'd like run out their stuff. And the crescendo of my glamorous jobs was when we got the cabins readied for the people to come in. They've been uninhabited in the Catskills for like nine months. Well, a lot of mice apparently with like, try to get water in the toilets and like fall in the toilet. Yeah, the look on your faces at all. (Lesley laughs) So my job was I, I got to pull the dead mice out of the toilets that I had, like sunk. Now, that was my job, honest to God.Lesley Logan 8:24  Oh, my God. So that's what NASA, you put that on your resume?John Mollura 8:27  Well, not yet. I didn't put that on there. But which, you know, unfortunately, those kinds of skills did come, come in handy down the road in my career. So here I am doing this job. And I'm like, "This sucks. Like, I didn't sign up for this." But whatever, I'd no options. And, you know, I thought maybe it was just karma. You know, since Mickey Mouse like, you know, just me like now I'm like, dead mice ... (Lesley and John laughs) So, so anywho, so I'm getting ready to, I'm psyched, like I'm counting down the days. We go to training. They're gonna teach me how to like teach people to water ski and all this cool stuff. I'm like, "Awesome." And I'm like sitting in the middle of some like field like scrubbing rust off a propane tank that's like leaking next to me. And I'm thinking, "This sucks." But one more day, and they came up, the Directors came up and they're like, "Hey, John, how you doing?" I'm like, "Oh, I'm good. Good train and train. I'm leaving for training tomorrow." They're like, "Hey, yeah, bout that. We just got the call from the person that was here for the past two years. And they want their old job back so we don't have to pay to train you anymore." And I'm like, "Oh, God." So it's like ...So they're like, they're like, "You're fired. But we're happy because we ..."Oh, no, no, no, I wasn't fired. (Lesley" Okay, okay.) I impressed the Ranger, the maintenance crews so much (Lesley: that they wanted to keep you on.) They want to keep me on there and I'm thinking, "Oh my God. Alright, well, okay."Lesley Logan 9:46  How many more cats and toilets are there? John Mollura 9:48  Yeah, yeah. Right. How many more propane tanks am I gonna have to scrub? And so they're like, or you could be Assistant Director of rock climbing. I'm like, "I'll do it." They're like, "You want to hear what it is?" I'm like, "I don't know how to rock. I don't care. I'm not that scared of heights. I'll do it. When you trained me how to do it?" They're like, "Yeah, we'll send you to training." I'm like, my bags already packed like, "Alright, I'm out of here, man." So, so it ended up being a great fit. Yeah, I've worked with a great crew. Like, I supervised like I think over 700 Scouts, rappelling and rock climbing on like natural cliffs. We weren't in like a gym. We were like, (Lesley: Oh, this is like ...) outside, like turkey buzzards. Yeah, this is like, (Lesley: Oh) yeah, (Lesley: Like real, real stuff.) Like real deal. Yeah, like, like the rocks, like falling down. Like kind of stuff.Lesley Logan 10:33  That's crazy. So that's, what was on your resume that made them go?John Mollura 10:36  That's what was on my resume, Director of Rock Climbing.Lesley Logan 10:38  How crazy. (John: And ...) I wonder, you know what, probably if you had Disney on there, they'd be like, "hmm another Disney kid." Like ...John Mollura 10:44  Yeah, right. Yeah, (Lesley: They thought like they wouldn't have been as impressed.) It was Christina Aguilera's boyfriend, whatever. That Timberlake guy trying to get a job again? But so I put that on my resume, because I thought, you know, it showed I had some practical experience. You know, I had other engineering type stuff. And they said, "What's this about rock climbing?" I gave my little spiel, and they said, "Hang on a second, someone just walked by, we want you to talk to." And like they put me on mute. And I'm like, "O-oh." (Lesley: Yeah) And this nasally voice came on the phone again. No video back in the 90s. Sneezes voice goes, "Hey, what do you think about rock climbing on Mars?" And I just knee jerk reaction said, "Are you going to pay my airfare?" (Lesley: Yeah) And I thought, "Oh, God, I just blew it, just being a smartass." And this dude, who I had no idea who he was. Yeah. And then he interview, he gives "Get them down here." And they're like, "Alright, well, we're going to arrange an on site visit." And it was like an eight hour drive from where I went to school in Pennsylvania. And I come down here and lo and behold, that like mystery person that jumped on at the last minute. I was like the lead test engineer for like Mars landers. And he was a former Air Force Special Operations guy and tested fighter jets. And he and I just like hit it off like a ball of fire. He said, "I don't need the smartest person in the room." I'm like, "Good because you didn't get him." He's like, "I need someone I can send out into the field." You know, then ...And you're like, "Oh, actually super good. I can scrub brass top off propane." (Lesley: Yeah) Did you know that?Propane tank, you need dead mice. I'm also your guy for that. (Lesley: Do you have that on Mars? Don't worry. I've been there.) Yeah, right. We terraform Mars, I'll be I'll take care of all the plumbing issues. But so he said, "You're not you're not being confined to an office, being a some project manager." So for the next like seven years, like Skip, and I just went all over the world. He was my mentor. His name was Skip Wilson. And we just, you know, just did some pretty radical shit for the world.Lesley Logan 12:41  That's so ... Here's what I, here's what's so crazy. I hope, like, I hope you all just heard that. You could have easily been like, "Oh, I'm not smart enough. Oh, I'm not qualified enough." Like, I think so many people do not put their name in the hat for things because they they pre reject themselves. And yeah, you were probably like, you were like you said, half joking. Or like, whatever. Let's just like it's a game. Let's see what happens. But oftentimes, people are not looking for the most qualified, perfect scored, most well trained, they're looking for someone who they can get along with that they want to travel the world. (John: Yeah) And like, we'll get their hands dirty. And like, actually, just try and not assume that they know the answer. I think that is really a cool story.John Mollura 13:24  Yeah, yeah. So I did that. I said, you know, I did Skip for the next seven, eight years, you know, we we sadly lost him to cancer in mid 2011. Which really, I didn't realize how much it affected me. But it really affected me because he and I were one of the few that did what we did in our country and also in the world. So it really left the whole, like kind of like not having that like fallback position. Because you know, even though I was in charge, and I would lead a bunch of stuff, it's always nice to kind of like be like, "Hey, Skip." Or like, "Hey, Dad, what do you think of this?" (Lesley: Yeah, yeah.) So that's, that was what I did. And I stayed at that company until 2016. And by that point, like, I'd been there for 15 years, so the leadership had changed. It had become a very much profit driven company. Because the company the company, they got bought by venture capitalists, and yeah, that that old chestnut ...Lesley Logan 14:21  Yep there, I just actually heard it was on the Daily podcast, not a sponsor of the show everyone but they literally explain in layman's terms about like VCs and how like, these like they're taking over, like your vets, and your dentists and your all these things and (John: Yeah.) I'm like, "Oh my God," Anyways, (John: That's crazy.) that's another podcast, not ours. (John: Yeah) So go listen to that one if you actually don't understand how that works. Okay, so so you're in this job for 15 years that isn't that is in... insane like, "Let me see how this goes." Journey. What? I mean, obviously, it wasn't as exciting at work are they are having goals that were outside of what yours were? What how did you end up in your next thing? Were you, were you dabbling in photography while you're doing this? How did that go?John Mollura 15:09  Yeah, I had always done photography as a hobby. I think I got my first camera and I was like seven. So it was back in the mid 80s. So like I learned to shoot on film. And I was actually just looking through the first travel album I ever did after I got a real camera. We got my first Nikon with my daughter today. And she's like, "Why are these pictures so weird?" I'm like, "Well, it's because they were on film." And like ... (John and Lesley laughs) just had the kind ...Lesley Logan 15:34   Why are these pictures not moving themselves?John Mollura 15:36  Yeah, right. Yeah. But no, photography had always been a hobby. And like I said, I got to go to some very awesome places in my tenure as an engineer, and I was I just threw my camera in the bag. And you know, I'd have my Little Walter Mitty fantasies when I'd be out, you know, working on some engineering job pretending like National Geographic had just sent me an Anartica instead. And ...Lesley Logan 16:00  Okay, that is being it till you see it. You're like, (John: Yeah) "I am, I am taking pictures and they don't... like for National Geographic. Great."John Mollura 16:08  Yeah, so yeah, because that's like one of the big dreams like, you know, for photographers like that's like the gold standard. And I remember I was reading a National Geographic once, because that's actually what kindled my love of like photography, and like travel and wonderlust. It was a episode I saw my grandparents table, and it was about Mount Vesuvius, like back in the 80s at, like a par... I can still I could still see and that's what sparked my wanderlust in National Geographic, other than just kind of being like, the gold standard of photographers holds a special place in my heart because I, you know, it, that's really what kindled my wanderlust. And I remember reading an episode or a issue of National Geographic, probably 10, 15 years ago. And they had the statistics of like, the chance of like, having National Geographic, like, even look at your photo and let alone getting published. And they're like, look, you know, for an issue like the photographer's that we send out, they shoot, like umpteen 10s of 1000s of pictures, we get this many pictures just sent to us. This many pictures make it to the, like, final edit, but like it came down to these statistics that were like, just insane, like ...Lesley Logan 17:23  Less than a percent of a percent. (John: Right.) Yeah.John Mollura 17:27  So, I of course, tore that out, (Lesley: Yeah) and put it on my little vision board. And I'm a huge Star Wars nerd, as you know, from from the May of 4th, you know, thing we did together this year. (Lesley: Yeah) Han Solo is always like, just like my, like, such an icon to me, because he just had that swashbuckling like self confidence that I really didn't have, like, I might like, jump in and do things. But, you know, like I mentioned, like, imposter syndrome and anxiety and stuff were like, things that like traveled with me throughout my life. So like, Han Solo, it was always like, the, like the dude. You know, it's like, (Lesley: Yeah) "Man, if I could just be like that and have that confidence in my abilities. Like, that would be so awesome. So I print out his picture of Han Solo, you know, in it just said his one of his famous quotes from on the lot movies. Never told me the odds. Like he was doing some like thing where, like, there was like, zero chance of success. And he's like, "Don't tell me the odds. I'm just gonna do it."Lesley Logan 18:27  Oh, I see. (John: Yeah) I see. (John: Yeah) I see.John Mollura 18:29  Yeah. I never never tell me the odds of success or failure, because I'm just going to do it. It's not going to change my effort. So I took that and like, pinned it overtop of the National Geographic thing. And it (Lesley: Yeah) was always like, right next to my thing. And in 2016, I got notified that National Geographic was featuring one of my photos ... (Lesley: Shut up) Yep, in their your shot program. It was like they selected 12 photos a day to feature and mine was one of them.Lesley Logan 18:53  Shut up! (John: Yeah) That is insane. (John: Yeah) Oh, my God!John Mollura 18:56  Yep. So, (Lesley: Oh, my God.) I had that above my thing, like open like at these like insane odds, but then, you know, Han Solo always reminding me, you know, (Lesley: Oh, my ...) but don't worry about the odds, just do it.Lesley Logan 19:05  That is amazing. And also, Brad's gonna nerd hell out about this right now. Like, I know that he's listening right now. He's like, chuckling because, first of all, Star Wars. Yes. National Geographic. Yes. Like, and, you know, there's this like, common thing you said, like, you're like a pioneer, and I know very little about Star Wars, everyone. It's, it's okay, we clearly know this. By now like, I don't think I can get away with it. But what I do know, what I do know about Han Solo is, he is like that pioneer. He's like, just gonna like he is like, like, he doesn't need to see the map. He's just gonna go do it. And so I feel like, I feel like you've had some really good like spirit animals in your life guiding you into like, (John: Yeah) "Okay, I'm gonna be like Han Solo right now. I'm just gonna go do it." Anyways, that is so cool. (John: Yeah) This is amazing. Because, you know, I think, again, going back to like people thinking like, life gets really linear. You, you suppose to like you're like, "Okay, I'm a rocket scientist and then I'm a photographer." Like you were like, you were organically allowing one to still happen while you were doing this other thing. And I think that is really cool. We don't have to just be one thing and we don't have to just only like, we don't have to wait our turn for, for this thing to happen. Okay, that's amazing. So all, so when did that happen? When were you in National Geographic?John Mollura 20:21  That was in 2016.Lesley Logan 20:24  Okay, about the same time that you were leaving.John Mollura 20:26  It was right after I left my job that I had been 15 and a half years. And I've been doing photography as a side hustle for a number of years, like getting paid for it. But what self respecting father of three that lives in Southern, rural Southern Delaware would like leave the six figure job to be a photographer. So I didn't, I didn't leave the job I was at and go straight to a photographer. I went to another engineering company, (Lesley: Yeah) where I got paid even more money and like they'd fly me like first class to like Shanghai for these like meetings and ...Lesley Logan 21:02  Okay. So that the harder thing to give up. I'm just gonna be real, (John: Yeah, it was.) first class Shanghai, that's a little hard to give up.John Mollura 21:07  Yeah, yeah. If you're gonna be first class anywhere, like, don't don't be first class from like New York to Miami. Be it on like, a day long flight. (Lesley: Yes, yes.) But that job was was like a desk, it was a desk job. And I was, I was so unhappy in my previous job just because I had a lot of personal change going on, you know, that led up to that. But, you know, I just felt this, you know, responsibility in my family, where I couldn't do that. I couldn't, I couldn't be a photographer full time. Because there's no way I you can make anywhere close, you know, all these stories. And the Author Jon Acuff that I love called them noble obstacles.Lesley Logan 21:49  Oh, I love Jon Acuff. (John: Yeah) And that's noble obstacles. (John: Yeah) Interesting. Um, I also think it's interesting, like you said, a couple stories, like what self respecting, father of three would like leave this job to go do this. And then like, you know, these things, and it's, I know, people listening, a lot of them are saying the same thing to themselves right now. Maybe not that sentence, but like, there's a story that's keeping them from doing the next thing because of like, what other people will think or like, how, that's a crazy idea. And like, because we've not necessarily seen it, maybe didn't see Han Solo do it yet. Like, (John: Right) it's hard to imagine that it could be a possibility. So what was the impetus? How did you leave that job? How did you get over that?John Mollura 22:33  I had someone that was a mentor to me for a number of years in photography, and she was also a coach. And she invited me to a networking event because my thing was, I knew I had skills in photography. And but I didn't know how to sell it or market it and, or how to, like, even get in front of people. And she invited me to a networking event. And I'm like, "Oh, my God, there's actually like, ways to make this happen." So I came home and talking with my wife about it. And she's like, "You're miserable, dude." Like, she's like, "Your skin has like the pallet of like a wet ashtray." ... (Lesley: I like that she keeps it real.) Well, what she'd been living this for years (Lesley: Yeah) with me like, (Lesley: Yeah) yes, as my, my job just wasn't satisfying it. So yeah, I turned in my, my resignation in the spring of 2017, which was over five years ago. And when I became a full time photographer, and even that's evolved over the past five years and what I currently do, which is, which is portraits.Lesley Logan 23:38  Yeah. Okay, so, um, there's, I mean, like, I love this story, because A said, the detonics, but also like, it's not, it's, it's not predictable, but it's completely like something and every single one of us have a story like this. And we get caught up that like, it's has to be, "Oh, has to be a certain way. Oh, I have to do this and when I'll have this." And I just like that you kind of followed your passion. And even when you didn't, you have people around you who like shined a little flashlight on possibility. And there's just like constant theme, you have a mentor and you have people around you who are like being, who are being honest with you about who you are. And I think a lot of us don't have, like a lot of us pull ourselves back. We hide, we like don't want to be like fully seen because we want people to necessarily know like, the mistakes we make or like the thoughts we're having. But actually are you having a mentor and a coach and your wife and your like, they're they are the ones that kind of guided you to where to go next. And so it's just really cool because we don't have to do it on our own.John Mollura 24:41  Yeah, and that's always that's one of the biggest suggestions I always give people when they say, "How do you, how do you make a living, like make a good living as a photographer?" I say, "I hire people that have been down that path before me." They're like, "Oh, that sounds expensive." And I said, "Well, it's not inexpensive." But the paybacks monetarily are easy to quantify, but also just giving you that confidence that oh, these people have been down that path is worth a lot.Lesley Logan 25:15  Yeah, that's actually. I mean, and that's the thing that most people skip. They're like, they're, and I get that I get that everyone has bills, and everyone has a different budget, and there's all these things and but I agree, like, I would not be where I am today, had I not hired people who had gone through what I wanted to be through. Like, like, I was like, they knew the what it took to get to the next level because they already left that level. So like, I think, it is not the easiest decision to invest in yourself. But you have like, if you don't you just you don't even get to stay where you were. You you go backwards because you you're gonna feel stuck, miserable. And also, the world keeps going forward. Like that's the energy, your a rocket scientist, you I don't tell you that you know how energy works. So ...John Mollura 26:01  Physics of a cruel mistress, is very cruel. (John and Lesley laughs)Lesley Logan 26:07  Yeah, I actually, I'll be really honest, I am changed my major. This... So yes, I lost feeling in my fingers, which is one of the reasons why I changed my athletic training major. The other reason was, is I was like, "Physics? Why the hell do I have to do that? No, we're not doing that." So I was like, "What Science classes does a communications major have to do?" Great. The Math class, it was like statistics like, "Nope, I don't want to do that. What's the other like, what major gets me out of Algebra? I just, I just, I'm gonna hire someone to do the Math. It's fine." (Lesley laughs) Anyways, um, so okay, we've talked about it a couple of times. And I just want to touch on a little bit, because you've mentioned you had an anxiety you've had impostor syndrome. I know a lot of our listeners struggle with either one or the other, or both. And, and how, like, how has that been? Because I'm sure like, having anxiety and also like, being a parent and being a partner and being someone who's like, making these major changes. And now it's like, how did you get over... like, what was that? How did you move past that with everything going on?John Mollura 27:11  It, it goes back to the same way I did it in my business was working with therapists you know, coaches, people that even just a trusted person. But but, you know, therapy therapy was was super important. And what that was one of the hardest decisions for me to make, because, you know, one of my traumas from growing up was, you know, I had to become like, very self sufficient, you know, I just had this in it, and it still crops up, you know, I'm one of those fools that sometimes will be like, "You need help with that, John?" "No, no, it's just, it's just awkward," you know, when really, like, I need like three other people to help me. (Lesley: Yeah) So being aware of that, because, you know, there's no, there's no quick fix, especially with it will anything with your health, mental or physical, you know, just because you eat a salad one day doesn't mean you're gonna drop 15 pounds. (Lesley: Right) You know, it's, it's, it's putting in the reps and doing it. And it's the same with with mental, your mental health. You know, once, you know, I got got some tools from a therapist, and, you know, took medication for a while, just as a as, you know, as she put it, in vernacular, I could understand when I was an engineer, like, "This is just another tool in your tool chest John. This doesn't mean anything. It's just another tool." (Lesley: Right) So, you know, acquiring those skills, and doing some very honest self reflection, and realizing when things come up, and, you know, looking for patterns, maybe and those things and just having the desire to get better. You know, and (Lesley: Yeah) which was huge. And, you know, it's not perfect, not every day is sunshine and rainbows, and (Lesley: Yeah) but, you know, it's not about having everything be perfect. It's about how do you how do you respond when that's not perfect?Lesley Logan 29:12  Oh, yeah, that's good. That, that's a great question. That's also like, something to think about on a good day. So you have an answer for when on a bad day, you're like, "What am I supposed to do right now?" You're like ,"Oh, I actually on a day that I was feeling good about life, (John: Yeah, right.) wrote down a game plan for myself." Yeah, I think, um, I mean, it's there more and more, it's easier for people to talk about mental health and anxiety. And I do love that. But we do have so much more work to do, because I think so many people look at others and they, and for better or worse, you know, social media is always going to show the good stuff. Just is. And we then put on it, "Oh, they must not suffer from impostor syndrome, anxiety or any other things." It's like, no, it's just that they just didn't post about it on that day, they you know, that doesn't mean that like, they don't struggle with the same things. And so so a) the more we all can be aware that everyone is going through it at some point it that makes it easier. And then I love what you said like, had to decide, like you have to decide that like you wanted it to be better, that you wanted to do something. And I think that that's that's that's a tough one decision to make and but also believe that it could, so good for you. And also thank you for sharing that. You, I'm going to just let the cat out of the bag, because when this is up, it should be hopefully ready. You came into Agency to talk about impostor syndrome. Agency is our group coaching program. And literally after it was over people were like, "I need to buy that. I need to rewatch that. Oh my God, I can't believe I'm in that." And it's an interesting topic because I feel like more and more and more people will say, "I have impostor syndrome. I have impostor syndrome," is kind of like a catch all title. But when you broke it down, you explain a lot of things. And I and you know, everyone can go watch the course. But can you talk about why you got excited about this topic? Like what made you investigate it? What made you go, "Oh, I want to I want to, I want to explore this and also teach people about it." What was that?John Mollura 31:18  I don't want people to suffer like I did. And I didn't even know what impostor syndrome was for a very long time. And just being able to put a name to something, especially things that are troubling you, already gives you some power over that. So I really wanted to educate people on what impostor syndrome is. You know if anyone's listening to this, and you know, a real quick check to see if you've ever had impostor syndrome. That's a term you've never heard before is, "how do you respond when someone gives you a compliment"? Do you like genuinely say, "Oh, thank you very much. I'm so glad that you know that that spoke to you." And feel good about yourself or like, do you kind of get like these like weird feelings in your stomach. And maybe do some poorly delivered is tempted self deprecating humor, like, "Oh, you liked that song I wrote. Oh, you should probably get your hearing checked. Ha ha ha." (Lesley: Yeah.) Those are how impostor syndrome manifests. And I really just wanted people to understand how that is. Because if you look at my, my resume, my professional record on paper, you know, engineering or photography wise, you know, NASA, Department of Defense Commendations, National Geographic features, like, it sounds like I, you know, I got it all together. But a defining moment in my life was I remember getting a commendation letter from the Department of Defense for a project that I led. And I thought I'm up on the stage, so everyone can actually point their fingers at me and be like, "See, we knew you were full of crap. And you're actually not supposed to be here." And I remember like almost being in tears when I got the letter. And like, that's like one of those core memories that I have. So whenever the opportunity came up to speak about impostor syndrome, like, I don't want people to feel like that. Or if they do feel like that I want to teach them, provide them some resources that they can use to move past that.Lesley Logan 33:27  Yeah. Yeah, that's... Well I think, I think anyone listening is like, "Oh, my God, I can't believe that's how he felt when something amazing is happening." And yet, I bet, if we asked all of them like they would have, they could think of a time when an amazing thing happened. And they were letting their imposter syndrome. Tell them that it wasn't as amazing and that this isn't, they didn't deserve this, or somebody got it wrong. I loved it. I love, I love how you explained it, I loved everything you have to say our members loved it. And so everybody, we we will definitely put in the show notes. So you can watch, you can watch this amazing course from John, because I want to help you make sure that no one else has to suffer through that too. I think it is really important. It's really incredible. It's also what what so many of our listeners are suffering from and it's holding them back. And the whole point of this whole podcast is that I just know that every single person here listen to this has something that they're meant to do. And I cannot be imposter syndrome or the feeling that they're not good enough, which is the exact same things. I maybe redundant, but it cannot be that, that cannot be the reason that they don't do it. Like other reasons, sure. That one, no. Because that one, that one is something that together as a world I think we can really combat and we can we can we can work on that. So John, thank you for being you. Okay, we're gonna take a brief break, and then we're gonna find out how people can get their picture taken by you, find you, follow you, all that stuff.Alright, John, where do you hang out? Where are you on the socials? Where do people get to know more about you?John Mollura 35:10  Well, literally, I hang out in my car a lot, shuttling my three kids to various things. (John and Lesley laughs) But when I'm not doing that, they can track me down on social media, there's not a lot of John Mollura's out there. So just John Mollura Photography, M o l l u r a. And my website's mulloraphoto, and you can see samples of my work on there. And if, like I said, I do portraits, I specialize in people. And we're not talking about like the white, you know, backgrounds of JCPenney's Days of Your. I really like to create empowering photos of people. Because you know, how awesome does it feel to look at a really good photo of yourself, whether it's a selfie, or someone took it, and they just happen to catch you, right? Like that makes you feel so good. And ...You are so correct. You are so... I'm sorry to interrupt. You are so correct the other a couple episodes back, y'all. My friend Clare asked me about like, "How are you get ready for photo sessions?" And I have to say, many of the photo sessions in fact, one of the best photo sessions I had. Recently, I was not having a good day when the photo shoot was supposed to happen. I'm like, "I can't beleive I have a photo shoot today." And I'm like, "I'm like having impostor syndrome, all the stuff." And yet, when you have a photographer like you, who would like first of all loves what they're doing and is does it really well. But when they capture that photo of you in, in this portrait, you're like, "Oh, that's I may feel like this, but that's who I am."Right.Lesley Logan 36:38  Ah, it's amazing.John Mollura 36:40  Yeah. Yeah. And I, you know, so one of the things I love to do is remove as much stress from the whole situation as possible that goes from like, you know, initial consults, but then like going to their homes and like helping them pick their wardrobe. (Lesley: Whoa.) Yeah, yeah. Right.Lesley Logan 36:56  You are in it. That's amazing.John Mollura 36:58  Oh yeah. Yeah. You know and then the day of the shoot, you know, there's always professional hair and makeup offered for folks so they can just show up and not worry if it's raining outside and what happens to my hair. No, you can just sit in Kelly's chair and she'll take care of it. I'll get you a glass of wine or tea or whatever you want. Do the photo shoot where I you know, I guide people through all the poses because it was at Talladega Nights, you know that ... What do I do with my hands? (John and Lesley laughs) So I tell people what to do with their hands, you know. But then, even afterwards, I help them pick the photos, and then they're all professionally retouched. So, you know, it's showing people in like, very treated, I don't make people look fake, and like, you know, like some plastic Barbie. But you know, let's face it, like the the high end digital cameras that we use, like they capture a lot of details that like, don't need to be captured that you don't really see. But then even helping them with like, because like you said with photos, when you see a photo that makes you feel really good, but I'm a firm believer in like the power of like a physical product. So every photo people select, they always get a print of it. Five by seven, it's matted, I mail it to them with a thank you note. But then I offer like heirloom quality like wall art. Like I'll come to their house I install it. So it's like start to finish like ...Lesley Logan 38:20  Oh my God.John Mollura 38:21  How much stress can I remove from you and have this actually be what it is, which is showing, showcasing the world the true you and more importantly, because some people are like, "What am I going to do with like 15 photos of myself, John?" I'm like, "Put them in the nice little gift box I give you and then when you're having you know and keep like one of them out. Have some boss ass photo of you hanging up and like your bedroom, your closet. If you don't want the world to see it, in when you're having those bad days, like you were having like how awesome that'd be to look over and see that picture and be like, 'Okay, I got this for five minutes. I can. (Lesley: Okay) I can do this.'"Lesley Logan 38:56  You've inspired me to print some of our photos. (John: Yeah, you should.) That I only been putting on Instagram. You know, um, well, now I just have there's so many reasons why my family is listen to this, they're be like, "Well, we have to get Delaware anyways." But now I feel like we have to get to Delaware so that we can do a photo shoot with you.John Mollura 39:14  Yeah, love the photograph. You and Brad.Lesley Logan 39:16  Oh, yeah, yeah, no, it's gonna happen. There's we literally go to Delaware. So it's gonna happen. You know ...John Mollura 39:25  You the president and Dave Grohl my ... (Lesley: Right) Yeah, well, they all frequent Delaware.Lesley Logan 39:30  And also, for those of you who are on the East Coast, I from what I understand, like Delaware, it's really easy to get to, your states are all very small you're because you're not in California. You can get there in a couple hours. (John: Yeah) Go do it. Um, okay, so we can talk about photography even more, and maybe it'll come up but be it till you see it action items. Bold, executable, intrinsic or targeted steps that people can do to be it till they see it. What do you have?John Mollura 39:54  My friend Paige who's like, just one of these people that you talk to you and you're like, "Well, you're you're really smart. You just understand people." She said something to me years ago, and I don't even know if she meant it to have this much impact. So when I was talking about doing photography and like, "I don't know, Paige, I'd love to do it full time. But you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." And she just matter of factly said, "Well, John, somebody has to do that." And like, that stuck with me, like, so anytime, I think it's impossible for me to make this sale or make this much a year or for my band to make a CD. It's like, "No, somebody has to. So why not you?" (Lesley: Yeah.) And you know, if you want to get even, you know, more positive, don't say someone has to because I can have a negative connotation, but someone gets to, somebody gets to make a living from photography, or make a living from Pilates, what they love. Why can't that be me? (Lesley: Yeah) So that's what I want people to really take away. You know what, why not me? (Lesley: Yeah) And then when the negative voices start coming up, you tell him to shut up and just remember, why not me? Some somebody has to.Lesley Logan 41:10  Somebody has to. Why not you? John, ah, I am obsessed with you. You're amazing. You've got so much to offer this planet. We can keep we'll have to have you back. I'm sure Brad is like, you could have gone more into the Star Wars or something else but ...John Mollura 41:25  So tell Brad to call me we'll nerd out.Lesley Logan 41:27  I know.John Mollura 41:27  Do some legos or something.Lesley Logan 41:29  I know the day of our shoot, we'll just have to block out extra hours for time for that. Anyways. Okay, everyone, how are you going to use these action items in your life? Right. Tell us by tagging John Mollura and tagging @be_it_pod and letting us know. Also, do us a favor, send this to a friend. And you know what if this had an impact on you DM John or myself or text a friend what it was because not only does it change people's lives, like it really does if you they could there could be a sentence that like Paige said to John that changes and sticks with someone. But also it's literally how we change the world. Like we get rid of impostor syndrome and these feelings of of being alone. One person at a time. So thank you everyone so much. And until next time, Be It Till You See It.John Mollura 42:14  Thank you, Lesley.Lesley Logan 42:15  Yeah. Okay.'Be It Till You See It' is a production of 'As The Crows Fly Media'.Brad Crowell 42:17   It's written, produced, filmed and recorded by your host Lesley Logan and me, Brad Crowell. Our Associate Producer is Amanda Frattarelli. Lesley Logan 42:17  Kevin Perez at Disenyo handles all of our audio editing. Brad Crowell 42:17  Our theme music is by Ali at APEX Production Music. Lesley Logan 42:17  And our branding by designer and artist, Gianfranco Cioffi. Special thanks to our designer Jaira Mandal for creating all of our visuals (which you can't see because this is a podcast) and our digital producer, Jay Pedroso for editing all video each week so you can. Brad Crowell 42:17  And to Angelina Herico for transcribing each of our episodes so you can find them on our website. And, finally to Meridith Crowell for keeping us all on point and on time.Transcribed by https://otter.aiSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/be-it-till-you-see-it/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Flash back a few days: Eric Jumper: “Hey man, you should have John Scepaniak on Dirt Talk. He's a cool dude.” Alex reaches out to John. John: “Yeah, want me to just come to Nashville tomorrow?” The magic of Dirt World folks, y'all. If you want to do things right, do them in person. John Scepaniak is part of the 3rd-generation of Scepaniaks at Wm. D Scepaniak, Inc., one of the nation's leading family-owned and operated aggregate services contractors out of Minnesota. John was born and bred in the Dirt World and was brought up in the company by his father, Joe. He's had a few roles over the years, but he currently describes his role as “Director of Aggregate Operations”.  This week on Dirt Talk, John joins host Aaron Witt in the Nashville BuildWitt HQ. They chat about the inevitability of turning into your parents, all things aggregate(!), and the intricate nature of the Dirt World workforce. John also shares about his appearance in Pit & Quarry before he and Aaron compare gym routines. They also mutually decide to wrap the podcast because John rented a Porsche Carrera 911 and Aaron wanted to see it. Don't forget you can watch or listen to Dirt Talk on the BuildWitt app! You can learn more about it at buildwitt.com/buildwitt-app. To connect with other people who listen to this show, use and search for the hashtag #betterdirtworld and join in on the conversation. If you have questions/comments/concerns, reach out to DirtTalk@buildwitt.com. Stay Dirty!

What you'll learn in this episode:   Why we often have more information about gold than any other decorative object The difference between material culture and material studies, and how these fields shaped the study of art and jewelry What John wants visitors to take away from “Gold in America: Artistry, Memory and Power” Why history is much more global than we may think What it really means to curate, and why it's an essential job   About John Stuart Gordon   John Stuart Gordon is the Benjamin Attmore Hewitt Curator of American Decorative Arts at the Yale University Art Gallery. He grew up among the redwoods of Northern California before venturing East and receiving a B.A. from Vassar College, an M.A. from the Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, Design, and Culture, and a PH.D. from Boston University. He works on all aspects of American design and has written on glass, American modernism, studio ceramics, and postmodernism. His exhibition projects have explored postwar American architecture, turned wood, and industrial design. In addition, he supervises the Furniture Study, the Gallery's expansive study collection of American furniture and wooden objects. Additional Resources: Yale University Art Gallery Website Yale University Art Gallery Instagram John Stuart Gordon Instagram Photos available on TheJewelryJourney.com   Transcript:   Perhaps more than any other metal or gem, gold brings out strong reactions in people (and has for all of recorded history). That's what curator John Stuart Gordon wanted to explore with “Gold in America: Artistry, Memory, Power,” a featured exhibition now on view at the Yale University Art Gallery. He joined the Jewelry Journey Podcast to talk about why people have always been enchanted by gold; what he discovered while creating the exhibit; and why curation is more that just selecting a group of objects. 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 guest is John Stuart Gordon, the Benjamin Attmore Hewitt Curator of American Decorative Arts at the Yale University Art Gallery. Welcome back.    I'm curious; I know you recently had a group from Christie's studying jewelry that came to visit your exhibit. I'm curious if they asked different questions, or if there's something that stood out in what they were asking that might have been different from a group studying something else.    John: Every group is different. I love them all, and I learn so much from taking groups of visitors through because you start looking at objects through their lens. Recently a group of makers came through and, wow, that was a wonderful experience, because I could make a reference to, “Oh, look at the decoration on this,” and then, “Is it chaste or is it gadroon?” “What kind of anvil are they working with?” We have to answer these questions. There are some things I can't answer but a maker can identify easily, so I'm learning things.    Maybe someone who's a collector or an appraiser is thinking about objects in a very different way, wanting to know how rare it is, if there are only a handful, where they are, how many are still in private collections, what's in the museum collection. One of my favorite tours was with a small group of young children who had a completely different set of preconceived notions. I had to explain what an 18th century whistle and bells would have been used for because they'd never seen one before. I had to talk about what kinds of child's toys they remembered from when they were kids, trying to relate. Every group has a slightly different lens, and you can never anticipate the questions they're going to ask.   Sharon: Yes, they're coming at you from the weirdest angles. In putting this together, what surprised you most about gold in America? What surprised you most about putting this exhibit together? What made you say, “Gosh, I never knew that,” or “I never thought about that”? There's a lot, but what's the overriding question, let's say.    John: It's such a nerdy answer, and I apologize for being such a nerd, but what surprised me the most was an archival discovery. Mind you, this all takes place against the background of lockdown and having way too much time on our hands and looking for distractions. I pulled a historical newspaper database that the library subscribes to, and I typed in the word “gold” and pushed enter. There were about three million responses that came back, and I just started reading my way through. Not all of them were interesting, but I was struck by the frequency with which people were discussing gold, and I was struck by the global knowledge at a very early period. I would find articles written in the 1720s in colonial Boston talking about the Spanish fleets leaving Havana Harbor with amounts of silver and gold onboard. They would describe how much gold, how much silver, was it coins, was it bars, was it unrefined. There was a newspaper report coming out of New York in the 1750s talking about a new gold strike at a mine in Central Europe. That was truly unexpected: to realize that this material was of such importance that people were talking about it on a daily basis, and that it was newsworthy on this global scale. People weren't just talking about what was going on in colonial Boston or colonial Philadelphia. They were talking about what was going on in Prussia and Bogota. I think we often think of early history as very insular, and we think of our present day as global. History has always been global, and it was a lovely reminder of how global our culture always has been.   Sharon: That's interesting, especially talking about global. I just reread Hamilton. They're talking about Jefferson and Madison and everybody going over to France and coming back. I think about the boats, and I think, “Oh, my god.” I think of everybody as staying in place. You couldn't get me on one of those boats. What a voyage. But that was global. Everybody was communicating with everybody else. So, yes, it always has been that way, but it's very surprising, the movement that has been there for so long. We could go on and on about that.    Let me ask you this: Yale Art Gallery just received a donation from Susan Grant Lewin of modern jewelry, art jewelry, on the cutting edge. At the museum and gallery, is the emphasis more on jewelry as part of material culture and decorative arts? Not every museum or art gallery would have been open to it. What's the philosophy there?   John: Yes, we just received a gift of about two dozen pieces of contemporary jewelry from Susan Grant Lewin, who is a collector and scholar. We've also received a gift from the Enamel Arts Foundation, which is a foundation that collects and promotes enamel objects and jewelry. We have a long history of collecting jewelry, and it's based on historic collections. The core of the American decorative arts collection is the Mabel Brady Garvan Collection. It started coming to the art gallery in 1930. It's this rather storied collection. It covers everything you can imagine: furniture, glass, ceramics, textiles, you name it.    It was assembled by a man named Francis P. Garvan, who was a Yalee. He graduated in the late 19th century and he gave it in honor of his wife. His main love, after his wife and his family, was silver, and the collection at Yale is probably the most important collection of early American silver in any museum. Silversmiths and goldsmiths, the names are interchangeable, and it is mostly men at that period who were making silver objects and gold objects. They're also making jewelry. As you take the story forward, it doesn't change a lot. People who are trained as metalsmiths often will make holloware and/or jewelry. The fields are very closely allied, and the techniques are very closely allied. So for us, it makes complete sense to have this very important historical collection of metalwork go all the way up to the present.   We have a lot of 20th century jewelry, now 21st century jewelry. We also have contemporary holloware because we like being able to tell a story in a very long arc. The way someone like Paul Revere is thinking about making an object and thinking about marketing himself is related to how someone graduating from SUNY New Paltz or RISD are thinking about how to make an object and how to market themselves. Often it's the same material, the same hammers, the same anvils. So, it's nice to show those continuities and then to bring in how every generation treats this material slightly differently. They have their own ideas and their own technologies.    So, the Susan Grant Lewis Collection is a very experimental work. She has said she doesn't like stones, so you're not going to see a lot of gem setting and a lot of diamonds and rubies set in gold. There's nothing wrong with them, but she's more interested in people who are more out there, thinking about how you turn 3D printing into art or how you use found materials and construct narratives and make things that are more unexpected.   Sharon: I just want to interrupt you a minute.  SUNY New Paltz is the New York State University at New Paltz?   John: State University of New York at New Paltz. Sorry, I gave you the shorthand.   Sharon: I know RISD is the Rhode Island Institute—   John: We're going to have to submit an index on how to understand all my acronyms. Yes, RISD is the Rhode Island School of Design. There are a handful of institutions that have really strong jewelry departments and really strong metalworking departments, among them Rhode Island School of Design, State University of New York at New Paltz. You can add Cranbrook, which is outside of Detroit. There's a whole group of them that are producing wonderful things.   Sharon: So, you studied decorative arts. What was your master's in?   John: I was an art historian. I was very lucky in college to have a professor who believed in material culture, and I asked, “Do I have to write about paintings?” and she said, “No, you don't.” I was very lucky to find that in college. Then I went to the Bard Graduate Center in New York. It was a much longer title, the Graduate Center for Material Culture and Design. It changes its name every two years. My master's was in kind of a history of design and material culture. Then to get a Ph.D., there are very few programs that allow people to focus on material culture. Luckily, there are more with every passing year. When I was going to school, Yale is one that's always focused on decorative arts and material culture. Boston University, their American studies program is a historically strong program that allows you to look at anything in the world as long as you can justify it. So, that's where I went.   Sharon: Was jewelry like, “Oh yeah, and there's jewelry also,” or was jewelry part of the story, part of the material culture, the material objects that you might look at? Was it part of any of this?   John: It was. I am at core a metals person. My master's thesis was written on the 1939 New York World's Fair, looking at one pavilion where Tiffany, Cartier and a few others had their big exhibition of silver, gold and, of course, jewelry. My entry into it was silver, but I had to learn all the jewelry as well. So, jewelry has always been part of my intellectual DNA, but it didn't really flourish until I got to Yale, and that would be because of my colleague, Patricia Kane. She has a deep knowledge and interest in jewelry. We have done a few jewelry exhibitions in the past, and she has seen it as part of the collection that should grow. I arrived at Yale as a scrappy, young curator seeing what was going on in the landscape, and the jewelry is amazing. One of my first conferences I went to was a craft conference. I met jewelers and metalsmiths, and it's a really approachable group. They're very friendly. They like talking about their ideas. They like talking about their work, which is really rewarding.   Sharon: What were your ideas when you started as a curator? Did you have the idea, “Oh, I'd love to do exhibition work”? Curate has become such a word today. Everybody is curating something.   John: Yes, my head is in my hands right now. One of my pet peeves is that people talk about curating their lunches. The word curate actually means to care for, so I think about the religious role of a curate. It's the same role. Our job is really to care for collections. If you care for your lunch, you can curate it, but if you're just selecting it, please use a different word.    That idea of caring for objects, that's what really excited me as a curator; the idea that so much of what we do is getting to know a collection, to research it, to make sure it's being treated well, that things are stable when they go on loan, that when things need treatment, you work with a conservator or a scientist. I was really excited by that.    Over the course of my career, I've become much broader in my thinking. When you come out of graduate school, you've spent years focusing down deeper and deeper on one small, little subject. I was still very focused on a very narrow subject when I became a curator. That was early 20th century design. I love it dearly, but over the years my blinders have come off. I love American modernism. I also love 17th century metalwork. I love 21st century glass. You realize you love everything in the world around you.   Sharon: Would you say your definition of curate is still to care for? I'm thinking about when I polish my silver. I guess it's part of curating in a sense, taking care of things.    John: Polishing your silver or your jewelry is actually one of the best ways to get to know it. We're one of the few collections where it's the curators who polish the silver. We hold onto that task because we don't do it very often, because it's better to leave things unpolished if you don't have to. But when it comes time to polish something, the opportunity to pick something up, to turn it over, to feel the weight of it, to look closely at the marks and the details, that's a really special thing, to get to know your objects so well by doing it. I give a hearty endorsement of silver polishing. It's also a great emotional therapy if you've had a tough day. But to your question, I even more strongly believe that the role of a curator is someone to care for their collections.   Sharon: I really like that. It gives me a different perspective.   John: Yeah, because what we're doing is not just physical care; it's emotional care. In today's culture we talk so much about self-care and these kinds of tropes, but that's a lot of what we're doing. We're understanding history through our objects. We're understanding the objects better to have something preserved for posterity, so it can tell future generations stories.   Sharon: That's interesting. John, thank you so much. By the way, the exhibit ends in July, but the Susan Grant Lewin Collection is open through September. You'll be busy, it sounds like.   John: “Gold in America: Artistry, Memory, Power” closes July 10. The Susan Grant Lewin Collection of American Jewelry will be up through the fall. If you miss both of those or you're in a place where you can't get to New Haven, our collections are all online. All you have to do is go to our website, and you can just click through and spend a day looking at objects from the comfort of your living room.   Sharon: Yes, and very nice photos. As I said, I was looking at them before we started. I was very interested. What was that used for? Where did it come from? I guess being in Los Angeles, I'll have to do that. I'll be doing that from my living room. John, thank you so much. This is very, very interesting. I learned a lot and you have given me a lot to think about, so thank you so much.   John: Thank you for having me.   Thank you again for listening. Please leave us a rating and review so we can help others start their own jewelry journey.