Podcast appearances and mentions of justice potter stewart

In organizations, learning-oriented ‘online communities' often bring to mind empty forums and unused Yammer groups. But what does a vibrant community of practice look like? And how do you go about building one online? In this week's episode of The Mind Tools L&D Podcast, Ross D and Ross G are joined by Anamaria Dorgo, founder of L&D Shakers and Head of Community at Butter, to discuss: ·       the benefits of online communities of practice ·       how to build and maintain online communities ·       how to measure the impact of online communities ·       what all of this looks like in an organizational context   You can find out more about L&D Shakers here. During the show, Anamaria referenced Etienne and Beverly Wenger-Trayner's work on communities of practice. In his trademark style, Ross G equated online communities to pornography, recalling Justice Potter Stewart's famous line - ‘I know it when I see it.' He also mentioned the ‘Success Case Method', which we discussed in a previous episode. In ‘What I Learned This Week', Ross G recommended Creativity Inc. by Ed Catmull. Anamaria encouraged listeners to check out Katherine Zhou's ethical design toolkit. And Ross D talked about pushing some eggs through a sieve after watching an episode of The Bear. For more from Mind Tools, including access to our back catalogue of podcasts, visit mindtoolsbusiness.com. There, you'll also find details of our award-winning performance support toolkit, our off-the-shelf e-learning, and our custom work.  Connect with our speakers  If you'd like to share your thoughts on this episode, connect with our speakers: ·       Ross Dickie ·       Ross Garner ·       Anamaria Dorgo

Get ready to dive headfirst into a heated debate about the nominees for the SNL Hall of Fame! Join jD and his esteemed panel - Jon Schneider, Andy Hoglund, and Andrew Clark - as we dissect the 15 new nominees and discuss who should make the cut. With a stacked lineup of talent to choose from, this episode is guaranteed to be a rollercoaster ride of opinions and insights.We kick things off by discussing the legendary John Belushi and Bill Murray, delving into their legacies and why they should undoubtedly be inducted into the Hall of Fame. We also tackle the question of whether the Lonely Island crew deserves a spot on the ballot, and explore the impact of other SNL greats like Buck Henry, Dana Carvey, and Christopher Walken. Strap in for a whirlwind of passionate opinions and spirited debates about the show's most iconic contributors.As we wrap up our discussion, we shift the focus to other nominees like Dana Carvey, Rosie Schuster, Jeff Richards, and Don Pardo, debating their merits and contributions to the show. We even consider the role of music in SNL's identity and touch on the possibility of an annual honorary award. Don't miss this exciting episode as we weigh in on who should be immortalized in the SNL Hall of Fame!Transcript0:00:08 - Speaker 1It's the SNL Hall of Fame podcast with your host, jamie Dube, chief librarian Thomas Senna, and featuring Matt Bardille And now curator of the hall, jamie Dube. 0:00:42 - Speaker 2Hey and welcome to the SNL Hall of Fame round table. It's JD here and I'm glad to be joining you once again on the SNL Hall of Fame, a podcast which is a weekly affair. Each episode, we take a deep dive into the career of a former cast member, host, musical guest or writer and add them to the ballot for your consideration. Once the nominees have been announced, we turn to you, the listener, to vote for the most deserving and help determine who will be enshrined for perpetuity in the hall. Well, this isn't a normal episode. This is a very special episode. We have put all the nominations up, There have been 15 new nominees added to the remaining ballot And today we're going to invite some people to share their ballots and go from there. So why don't we introduce who we've got to? my immediate right is John Schneider. How are you doing, John? 0:01:37 - Speaker 3I'm doing great, Jamie. Always great to be here. Feet are wiped and ready to go. 0:01:42 - Speaker 2Excellent, oh, i didn't say it The one time I don't say it. 0:01:46 - Speaker 3We don't just say you know like it's not like a foot fetish thing. Jamie always introduces and tells people to wipe their feet. So it's not John being, you know, having a fit thing. 0:01:56 - Speaker 4I think John just kind of a little revealing about himself. actually, That's my takeaway. 0:02:00 - Speaker 3I mean, they do call this the SNL Hall of Feet. Right, That's where we are. 0:02:04 - Speaker 4Yes, of course John's not on his show, so he's getting a little racy. 0:02:08 - Speaker 2We don't got the teens listening in. He's got the host belt off. 0:02:14 - Speaker 3Let's go. 0:02:16 - Speaker 2All right, Andrew. Hey, how's it going I? 0:02:19 - Speaker 5am super duper, feeling great. It's very sunny here in Toronto. 0:02:23 - Speaker 2Excellent. And Andy Hogland, how are you doing? 0:02:27 - Speaker 4Hey, I'm going. Good man, It's Hogland. Though I'm just going to be straight, It's pronounced Hogland. 0:02:31 - Speaker 2Did I just do it. I just asked you and then I did it. 0:02:34 - Speaker 4You just asked me, so that's why I'm calling it out. 0:02:35 - Speaker 2Oh that's great. No, you can totally do that, because No, I'm feeling good, man. 0:02:39 - Speaker 4I'm surrounded by a couple of Canadians, which is cool. I've never had that before. It's like having an orgy with Justin Trudeau. Let's do this. I'm just keeping it racy. John set the tone. 0:02:52 - Speaker 3Yeah, I thought we were just doing foot stuff. Andy, You took it to a whole other level. 0:02:57 - Speaker 2All right, let's dive into our program today. The first thing I want to do is to remind everybody who is currently in the SNL Hall of Fame We've had two wonderful seasons and we've inducted three separate classes. The inaugural class was, of course, lauren Michaels. In this class of season one, we inducted Dan Ackroyd, chris Farley, tina Fey as a writer, phil Hartman, steve Martin as a host, eddie Murphy and Gilda Radner All, if they weren't noted, were cast members. Then the class of season two we had Alec Baldwin as a host, will Ferrell as a cast member, bill Hader as a cast member, tom Hanks as a host, norm MacDonald as a cast member, seth Meyers as a writer, mike Meyers as a cast member and Kristen Wiig as a cast member. So pretty highfalutin company to be rubbing elbows with. But we've got a really excellent list of nominees and I just want to go through them for you before we kick off the show, because this is a stellar list right here. Amy Poehler, beyonce, Bill Murray, bach, henry, candice Bergen, christopher Walken, conan O'Brien, dana Carvey, dave Grohl, dick Ebersol, drew Barrymore, elliott Gould, elvis Costello, emma Stone, frank and Davis, herb Sargent, jack Handy, james Downey, jan Hooks, jane Curtin, john Belushi, john Goodman, john Malaney, justin Timberlake, lily Tomlin, maya Rudolph, melissa McCarthy, michael O'Donohue, miley Cyrus, molly Shannon, paul McCartney, paul Rudd, paul Simon, paul LaPell, prince, rihanna, robert Smigel, scarlett Johansson, the Lonely Island and Tom Pretty and the Heartbreakers Guys, this would be a great if this was the lineup for the 50th anniversary show. you would be like that's a pretty freaking good lineup. 0:05:06 - Speaker 4And how did John Belushi get out of his get out of hell? 0:05:11 - Speaker 2Oh boy, oh boy, it's on already. Well, no comment, let's jump right into it. Then We'll start to my right with John, and the way we'll do this is John will announce one of his nominees. I will tabulate it here. I've got a little sheet that I'm keeping keeping score with to make sure that everybody stays in their allotment of 15 votes up to 15 votes and to make sure that everybody elects at least one of each of the four main categories. There's been a lot of questions with Dick Abrasall being nominated and he does not fall into any of the four categories. Currently He is a producer and that's where he'll stay. So John is going to name his first ballereteer and then I'll go to Andy and Andrew to ask if they have them on their ballot and we'll go from there. That's how this show is going to work. Let's do it, john, with your first pick. Who have you got? All right, you're on the clock. 0:06:10 - Speaker 3This is a stacked lineup of people to choose from, but looking through there is one person that I looked at this list and said there is no question whatsoever that they should not be on everyone's ballot. This person has to get into the SNL Hall of Fame and it might be a little bit of a hot take, an unconventional pick, but it's Amy Poehler. And the reason why it's Amy Poehler is because she has the highest sketch per episode average among women in the history of the show. If you take out Charlie Rocket, she's actually top four among everybody in the history of the show. Before she was on the show, the show was on for 28 years or 27 seasons. There had never been a woman who led a season in sketch appearances until Amy Poehler did that. To me she is fantastic. Did weekend update, had amazing characters, impressions, blended a couple of eras. To me she is a surefire Hall of Famer. Slam Dunk. 0:07:10 - Speaker 2Wow, you heard it here first. Folks Slam Dunk, Andy, what do you think? 0:07:16 - Speaker 4Respectfully, amy is not on my ballot. Actually I totally understand John's rationale. I will say just as a bit of context you know, when Ryan Tibbs, when he circulates all the Hall of Fame ballots for baseball every year, i'm always fascinated by the rationale that individual voters give or don't give. I just think it's really fascinating color. So just for the listeners to adjust their radio dials to my frequency a little bit. I followed two rules when I came up with my ballot. The first is Justice Potter Stewart's famous phrase where he described his threshold for obscenity in his 1964 landmark Supreme Court decision, jacob vs Ohio, and I know it when I see it, which is to mean I instinctively have a very pure bar for who belongs or does not belong in the Hall of Fame, like Ted Knight and Caddyshack. But the second is also like baseball sportswriters, i'm leaning a little bit towards the historic picks, you know, and I'm a little disinclined to give it to some of the newer cast members. So Amy unfortunately sort of fell into that category a little bit where I just my mind went to more towards people in the 70s or 80s And Amy I kind of associate with some of the newer eras, even though it has been 20 years So she's not on my ballot And honestly she kind of mugs it a little bit for me So I don't like the mugging and I was just disinclined with everyone else who was available. 0:08:51 - Speaker 2Wow, shots fired. Yeah, Andrew, Mr Clark, I can do that too. 0:08:58 - Speaker 5Yes, i did have Amy on my ballot because I think that she was important for the show, for the success of that show and making it sort of, you know, rejuvenate itself when it did. And also I kind of see Amy Poehler and Tina Fey as being very important as influences in comedians who are now in their early 20s, who are inspired by those two. So I kind of number one her contributions, the characters that she brought, the writing that she brought, all of those strengths And then also, i think, her importance almost as something that people aspire to become. So now we have all these wonderful young comedians, female and female identifying comedians, who are doing a lot of work. So I kind of give her her props. But I could see and I agree 100% with Andy that you know we're going to get as we go down the list. There are some people who are very, very significant in the history of the show In the 70s. It may be people who just started watching in the last five to 10 years who recognized who. We're going to disappoint each other today, i guess, is what I'm trying to say, but I got to tell you I think Amy belongs in the whole thing. 0:10:11 - Speaker 4Can I challenge John on air right now? You can do whatever you want. John, if I'm not mistaken, I believe you and I are aligned that several of Amy's years are among the shows worse, is that not accurate? 0:10:28 - Speaker 3Yes, there are a couple in there that are rough. 0:10:33 - Speaker 4So, john, i just want to throw that out, not to call out, but being the best of the worst, that is a crazy argument, stop this. 0:10:42 - Speaker 3I'm sorry this is a crazy argument, because if you're going to say that, then we're saying anyone who participated in those two years. The fact is that Amy Poehler was not a cast member for those two years. She was a cast member for much longer, like I said, for six years in a row, from 2002 to 2008,. every single season she led the cast in sketch appearances. To me, she dominated those years on the show which, by the way, weren't just those two bad years. they led into a golden era of the show, probably for the first time in a generation. So I respect and I will have people on my ballot who were on the show in the 70s and the 80s, but we're not doing the Hall of Fame of the 70s, we're doing the Hall of Fame of Saturday Night Live and, let's be real, amy Poehler has been a major part of the second half of the existence of the show. 0:11:27 - Speaker 4Yeah, no argument, just wanted to get that on the record briefly, just for full context, that John does think Amy's era is among the worst. 0:11:37 - Speaker 3I did not know. That is not what I think, but I'll fight you on that another time. 0:11:44 - Speaker 2Yeah, let's move forward here and, Andrew, we're going to continue with you. 0:11:48 - Speaker 5Okay, well, my pick is somebody who, without whom I don't think there would be have been any history of Saturday Night Live. It's someone who, when he sadly passed away, my friends and I held a toga party for which I was roundly punished by my parents. We were at the ripe old age of 16. I'm talking about John Belushi. So I believe that John Belushi absolutely has to be in the Hall of Fame because he and that cast, and him and Dan Acroy particularly, were really what made the whole thing explode. Chevy Chase was a huge part of it, but I think they were the engine that really ran the show And he was the first true, true breakout star. He had a much brighter trajectory, if you ask me, than Chevy Chase. I'm going to. I got to say John Belushi's hands down, in my opinion, has to be in. 0:12:39 - Speaker 2Great pick. 0:12:40 - Speaker 4Thank you, andy, totally agree, yeah, i mean. any words to use to describe John Belushi's legacy on SNL or in comedy have already been uttered before, so I don't have too much to contribute beyond that. continental divide is an underrated romantic comedy. 0:13:00 - Speaker 2All right, mr Schneider, he is definitely on the list. 0:13:04 - Speaker 3I'm of the belief that every original cast member should be in the Hall of Fame just by default for what it's worth. But you know there would be. You know Saturday Live was was good and Chevy obviously brought a lot, but there was nothing like the energy that John Belushi brought to the show, like he made it a, like he made it must watch television because he never knew what he was going to do on a given night, starting all the way from the beginning with the Joe Cocker stuff, moving to the Blues Brothers stuff, like everything. He was a force. So you know, like Andy said, there's been so much written about him. If you know SNL, you know John Belushi, even if he's been gone for so many years, and that's a testament to the legacy of him. So I think it's a no brainer to put him in. 0:13:40 - Speaker 2Yeah, so that's our first, our first, well, in honor of the new Zelda game, our first try for us. So, andy, who have you got up? 0:13:51 - Speaker 4I have Bill Murray, who is arguably the the most accomplished and talented cast member to come out of the show. You know, i think you know. All all things being equal, he does have a bit of asterisk on on his legacy, courtesy of Kiki Palmer, but nevertheless his accomplishments since living leaving 8h are Unrivaled. Give or take a ghostbuster, you know, oscar nomination or Wes Anderson collaboration. But look like, even those merits aside, you know Murray is a pivotal figure in the show's history, the first replacement cast member. There's been what like a hundred and seventy cast members in the show's history. Eight or nine, like John just mentioned, are that original 1975, you know, upstart, not ready for prime-time players. You know Murray sets the mold for joining a cast in midstream, which is a path that almost everyone else in the show's history has has had to emulate in one way or another. And Look, i'll be honest, i'm not in high school anymore. The, that combination of smarm and self-aware irony that made him a legend to Letterman fans and and the geeks and freaks and geeks. It doesn't quite do it for me as it as it once did, but still honker, the nerds, nick, the lounge slinger, his, his awards commentary on update. These are essential early SNL characters. The show simply post-chevy, doesn't exist without them. So that's my argument and stick into it. 0:15:17 - Speaker 2John, how do you feel about Bill Murray? 0:15:19 - Speaker 3Yeah, i totally agree. He's definitely a shoe in for me for the Hall of Fame. His analytics are off the charts. He's also a top five sketchbook episode. Um, get her in the in the history of the show. Just, he was producing every single night once he finally found his groove, i guess towards the end of season two, and he, you know, you don't think of him as when you look back at season three, four, five, lot of people don't think of him as the star. But he really really was. He was so good and did so much. And I Totally agree with Andy. I think that the show is in a dark, dark place if he doesn't jump onto it when he did so. For me I mean, think about that, right, we talk. You know, we may end up talking about Jim Downey at some point tonight. I mean the fact that that Bill Murray and Jim Downey joined the show to add some life into it. When the show is losing Chevy, i mean it just incredible stuff. So for me Can't, can't have a Hall of Fame without Bill Murray. 0:16:08 - Speaker 5Well, we're breaking all the rules of podcasting and radio by agreeing with one another. But yeah, i Bill Murray absolutely. Some people get changed by being on Saturday Night Live. Bill Murray changed Saturday Night Live. He didn't alter himself. I don't believe at all. When he went on that show He had deep us. You know second city chops. The reports about him when he was in Toronto are legendary How he would deal with hecklers, we'll just leave it at that. He didn't take crap from anybody and he's had an absolutely stunning career, dramatically and comedically right. And I work with Robin Duke, who's just retired at Humber, and you know some of the stories she talked about. Bill Murray sort of Helping her when she was on Groundhog Day and Explaining how the cameras worked and how you had to sort of act in order so the editing could happen Shows you that it's not only kind of a creative genius, it's a real technical skill and an understanding of how movies and stuff work. So I think that all goes together for Bill Murray. I agree He's absolutely should be in there. Great. 0:17:15 - Speaker 2Wow, another try, force, boom. Where are we at then? We're back to John, right, yeah? Okay, john, create some controversy. I. 0:17:25 - Speaker 3Mean, i think, controversy was already created, when I suppose so yeah, well, even even going into last season, when the biggest travesty to be left out of getting into the hall of fame to me was Jan Hooks because that was that was insane to me. I mean you're talking about you know, andy was talking about what he sees when he looks for in a cast member. The eye test is definitely there when I was going away. Yeah, i mean this is, this is insanity. I mean she comes in season 12, just is Incredible, like, just can do everything that you possibly would have wanted on the show, and Just the heart and soul of that second generation, the second golden era of the show, and obviously we lost her and 2014 and it was just, you know, her, you know thinking about the stuff She produced with Phil Hartman, and stuff is so heartwarming, so many great sketches, so many amazing impressions to me, you know, i always, you know, hear from people who were Just obsessed with Jan hooks, absolutely fell in love with her on the show, and it wasn't even just that. She was, you know, so beautiful in the way that she performed. She was just so naturally talented and gifted to be on the show and it was so important For the generation that was to come. You hear Tina Fey and Amy Poehler and my riddle talk about how Jan hooks was so important. Tina Fey put Jan hooks on 30 Rock at some point. You know, like that's the type of thing that you know, she. She left a legacy behind and to me she needs to be in all of him. 0:18:48 - Speaker 2Yeah, i agree. She finished last last vote with like what 40%, 39.8%. She's got a long hill ahead. I'm afraid it's not gonna happen in this bet. She's round for her either. But but I agree with you, it's shameful. She's she's an all-timer. She's an all-timer, you know She's in. She's in the female rush more right or the yeah, the female SNL cast rush more. 0:19:10 - Speaker 4Everything that John said about Amy Poehler is true about Jan hooks. I'm gonna do a hot take that minus the analytics. 0:19:18 - Speaker 2Well that's. 0:19:18 - Speaker 4That's Mike Murray. 0:19:22 - Speaker 2So you have, you have her, is it safe to say, then, in your Hall of Fame, andy. 0:19:27 - Speaker 4Absolutely, and it doesn't. I don't even know why, why we should justify it. It's just, it's so clear to me that she belongs there. Why? why even let's have like like 30 seconds of dead space and then just move on. 0:19:42 - Speaker 5Yeah, i mean, i think part of what Jan hook and people in that cast suffer from a little bit is that that skip between Internet and not internet. So a lot of the stuff comes later. And so the other cast members, the later cast members, their stuff is available online a lot more easily than Jan hook stuff Because when it's getting filmed it's not been signed off copyright for Dispersal on the web and everything, so it's you have to work harder to get some of it. So I think actually there's just people who haven't seen what she did with Phil Hartman as much. You kind of have to be a bit more of a of an aficionado. But yeah, there's absolutely no question that the stuff she did with just with Phil Hartman alone is so iconic for that show. I mean, it's hard to imagine her without and the range of characters and also doing a kind of She kind of epitomized, the kind of like I don't know how to put it not po, yeah, post feminist Anxed, being run through Reaganomics and then through the Clint near and everything that kind of. You know, there was always a real edge to her material, even if she was doing like a sweet domestic character. 0:20:48 - Speaker 2Oh, she was great. She was just great. I just recently watched the diner, the Alec Baldwin diner sketch, and just So, so funny. You know, she's just natural gosh. Okay, so far we've had hooks on all three ballots. Another try force That one actually makes a triangle in my little, in my little spreadsheet that I made. Wow, that's funny. So we're gonna come back to Andrew Clark and I'm gonna challenge you to do something other than a cast member. 0:21:19 - Speaker 5Okay, well for me then I would go with Christopher Walken as host. Great, even though I spoke about Elliot Gould as host this season. I and who and I would make an argument for him too. But it's hard to make the argument over Christopher Walken because of his relationship with the show. You can almost give it to him just for cowbell, because it's become. You know that when your sketch has its own range of t-shirts Not just a t-shirt but range you know you've entered the vernacular. I think Christopher Walken Was a sort of must-watch host. People will always be attentive. He again didn't let the show really change what he did. He sort of brought what he did into the show. The fact that he has so many iconic Recur like characters as a as a host, i think is a good argument for Christopher Walken to be, you know, in the Hall of Fame as a host. 0:22:11 - Speaker 2Great John or Andy to either of you have mr Walken in the Hall of Fame on your balance, Oh right. 0:22:18 - Speaker 4Yeah, i mean, look, he has his own best of right, he has recurring characters. I mean, you know I don't remember offhand Deferred a John on the number of times that he's literally hosted, but you know, it almost gets to the point where when you have that, that body of work, you know You're, you're not, you're not a cast member, but there's just so much there that your, your, you know your tombstone deserves a reference to. You know You're time with the show. So shout out to the, the continental. And yeah, i totally agree. 0:22:49 - Speaker 3Yeah, same here He was. I'll say he was a little bit more borderline for me. Nothing against Walken, he didn't make my ballot, but he was. He was close being cut because there's a lot of really good options this time, including among those. I don't think he I wouldn't put him in the upper pantheon of greatest hosts in the history of the show. I think he's probably I mean, unless you're gonna put all the five timers there But I think he's that like next grouping and he's probably near the top of that. So for me there was a few of those on the list and he just made it. 0:23:20 - Speaker 2Oh, wow, okay, you guys have agreed a lot, so we'll go to Andy and, andy, i'll challenge you to do the same thing, something that isn't in the cast member category. 0:23:31 - Speaker 4Yeah, yeah, no, not a challenge at all. It's the, the next name on my list. Matter of fact, it's, it's buck Henry. Bring him on as a host. You know, one of the, the early, important hosts who kind of validates the show right Cuz, because buck Henry belongs in a Different comedic generation. You know, get smart and all that you know. But he's he's, he's a steady presence during those, those for five years, lending, lending a lot of credibility. And then, if I recall correctly, is the host of the, the final show of that era To. You know, and and John mentioned Jan hooks on 30 Rock. I mean, as as as Jane Krasinski's mom, buck Henry, as as Liz lemons dad was, was always so funny to me. But I think his, his tenure on on SNL throughout those first five years Definitely warrants his inclusion onto the hall and and has one of the the darkest sketches in the, the show's history. And I love when, when the show kind of makes, makes a bold play like that and it makes Child molesting part of the fun. You know, cuz you don't see that enough People are so uptight when you agree, John. 0:24:42 - Speaker 3I mean can't, can't, not watch Uncle Roy. Yeah, i mean, i got to talk. I was blessed to get to talk about Buck Henry on one of the episodes of the SNL Hall thing, so I've made my case for him. I am as big of a fan as Buck Henry, as you know. Anyone could possibly be. I think he, like, is so good He people say Steve Martin could have been a cast member. Well, i think Buck Henry could have been a cast member. He fit in so seamlessly. We talked a lot about Buck being the one who would take the sketches that no one else wanted to take. That is such an important Rule as a host and I do believe for decades. When they, you know, bring on hosts, they use Buck Henry as a template for what they look for if a host will return or not. They judge them on the Buck Henry category, like did you do the buck stuff? and I think that he is just to me. We talked I mentioned, you know, the upper pantheon of hosts. I think he's in that, that top room of greatest hosts in the history of the show. 0:25:39 - Speaker 5Andrew, yeah, you're probably gonna regret me on the show because I'm just gonna keep going. Oh yeah, that guy was great. But with Buck Henry I think the other thing that he did for the show was he lent a certain gravitas to the show because you remember, he's someone who Work, you know, adapted cash 22, he did the owl in the pussycat, he worked as a co-writer on the graduate, so he's kind of like Hollywood Hip and so being on Saturday Night Live really I think gave that element to to the show and, of course, to him as well. And then he did. He did so fantastically and he's always so game. So I agree with John's point. Like, if you know, when you talk, when you hear people interviewed who was a great host, they always seem to say cast members It doesn't matter what cast say that the host was game, they were willing to try, they're willing to do something. And you got that in spades with Buck Henry. He was obviously happy to be there and, yeah, some seminal characters and and a lot of his work later. I still love his work in the player you know it's the graduate, but with the stroke I mean he had those improvisational chops that he brought to the show or heaven can wait. 0:26:45 - Speaker 4He's great in that. 0:26:46 - Speaker 2There you go another try for Stryforce. Holy John, will you throw a Curveball here and strike us out? I'm gonna challenge you again to Pick from another category. 0:27:00 - Speaker 3Sure, I would love to other than cast members. I mean I'm gonna try and do something that I've been trying to do since this podcast started, which is get the lonely island Into the Hall of Fame. I mean, what, what is going on with people? I mean, do they not realize that they changed Saturday Night Live for the better? like, the show you're watching now is Influenced by the Lonely Island more than most of the names on this list. Like, let's just be real. So You know, and and outside of SNL was often, you know, influenced by the Lonely Island, including a lot of things you see on social media now. So, but you know, for just talking about what happened on the show, i mean, these guys came in, they wrote Brilliant pre-tape sketches. They went viral. People who were not watching Saturday Night Live came back to the show because of the things that the Lonely Island was producing. They were largely responsible for creating cast members becoming huge stars And as hosts as well. I mean they would bring in, you know, hosts into these Music videos or sketches that they were doing and then people would learn and get to know these hosts and they would become bigger Stars outside of the show. And then, you know, every now and then, they throw in this random Music video with an artist that would just come in. It's like, oh my god, t-pain this year now, like just the craziness that they would get into. I mean, for there's a lot of hyperbole when it comes to the Lonely Island, but I think it's well deserved, because they are some of the greatest writers in the history of the show. 0:28:19 - Speaker 2Absolutely 100%. The most baffling thing so far that has occurred in in the Hall of Fame is the voting for the Lonely Island 52% to start and last year went up to 62.6%, just a smidge under the requisite 66.6, but I just can't figure it out. The. I've made a correction on the ballot this year and I've included any of the group for David Frank and the Davis, for example. I have a parenthetical Al Franken, tom Davis, i have for Lonely Island. I haven't broken down by their members too, so people can see maybe Andy Sandberg and Have a better understanding. We'll see, we'll see. Does anybody else have the Lonely Island on their ballot? 0:29:07 - Speaker 5I didn't, and I think that says more about me than it does. The Lonely Island, to be quite honest, because I think John made a very strong case and I think they're heard a little bit by being a group to be honest, and not just a person. And then when I think about McGroober, which is my favorite film of all time, and that it comes out of the Lonely Island with Jorma Directing it, that I'm almost to just make the Lonely Island put them back onto my ballot just based on that, that McGroober comes out of it, yeah, i would just say they weren't on mine. I think that has more to say about me than it does to say about the Lonely Island, quite honestly, because I Don't think at the time when I was watching it that I understood how important those videos were for bringing new viewers to the show via Online, not through traditional broadcast. And then, of course, later on, i don't want to go on and on, but, like you know, never stop, never stop, stopping. It comes out of it. Yeah, what was like one of my daughter had like on a loop. So I again I think I'm gonna plead the old man card slightly here and so I will yield, if need be to put them on. I'm gonna push over, i'm afraid, but but they weren't on, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be. Do you have to be far too agreeable? I'm sorry, i apologize. 0:30:21 - Speaker 2I will start to be mean. Do you have space on your ballot? Did you use all 15 votes? I'd have to get rid of somebody. 0:30:30 - Speaker 5Let's see, it would have to be. It would have to be a writer, wouldn't it? Well see, i have Jackhand. Well, i shouldn't give it away, so I would have to give away somebody. Can I wait and see? 0:30:42 - Speaker 3Yes, We're gonna convince you Yeah. 0:30:44 - Speaker 5Yes, i'll put them on ice for Andy. 0:30:47 - Speaker 2Where are you at? Do you have a lonely island on yours? 0:30:49 - Speaker 4I'm embarrassed to say that they're not on mine. I I totally, totally agree with everything that John said. You know, we were definitely still in the shadow of the Lonely Island. You know, 15 years later. You know, please don't destroy P Davidson and Chris Redd, like these guys are making just really pale imitations of what Lonely Island did. And you can't write the the history of YouTube without Lonely Island, right? like you really can't. I'm embarrassed, but my philosophy going into this was it's they'll have time to to make it into the Hall of Fame. You know Buck Henry won't. You know Buck Henry's dead. He's not coming back. 0:31:27 - Speaker 3The list is not on the show anymore, andy. I just want you to know that they're not producing new content. They're both Buck Henry and the Lonely Islands. Their careers at SNL are done. Come back and host like there's, but this is not an. Andy Samberg hosting thing. This is the Lonely Island writers on the show as writers on the show See okay, Well, all right. 0:31:46 - Speaker 2Well, let's get cute about this, You know okay so you're gonna be nominated at some point, i'm sure. 0:31:51 - Speaker 4Hold on, let's, let's, let's just double check for a second. So it says Lonely Island as a writer. So that means it's not really the videos, right, it's about they wrote all the videos? Well, yes, but when you watch those videos you're like the writing is really what makes it here. You know, or is it Andy Samberg's performance, or is it T-Pain singing? So if we want to get cute for a second, maybe it's not that at all. 0:32:16 - Speaker 3It's. It's the writing. What this is insane. 0:32:18 - Speaker 2This is what you're. If you're a sketch troupe, you you know you're you're likely going to be Attributed writer status to everything you do, whether it's you know Performance or or not you know. 0:32:34 - Speaker 4I guess my point is maybe Right. It would be a Hall of Famer as a cast member. Maybe Lonely Island, maybe it's not their time yet, i don't know. There's there's a lot of, there's a lot of competitive people here and You know, if I want to justify myself Which I do, it's it's maybe the categories not right. Maybe they shouldn't be here as a writer right now. 0:32:56 - Speaker 2Interesting. 0:32:57 - Speaker 3Well, this is the most insane thing I've ever heard. I love Andy, i this is insane. Okay, nobody is walking around being like oh yeah, i love it. When Rihanna was like that, like oh yeah, that was that, you know. Like it was the Lonely Island It wasn't the people appearing in the sketches with them Like that was great, that was a cherry on top, but this is an insane take. Well, i'm not sure what that meant, but, okay, sorry you, you drove me nuts, that's what. I don't know who Rihanna is. First of all, sorry, canadians. 0:33:31 - Speaker 4Look, look, i mean, this is an important argument to have. I just wonder. I mean the McGroober thing that almost if you guys want to call me out on my BS here, you should say they wrote McGroober, they should be in, you know they wrote McGroober They should be in. 0:33:49 - Speaker 3There you go. 0:33:51 - Speaker 5I'm easily pushed around. I just want to establish that. I hope I've established that for anybody watching, listening at the moment. Yeah, i'm gonna come up tough soon, believe me. 0:34:00 - Speaker 4It was Samberg as a cast member, i'd be like, hmm, but I don't know. Does the whole group deserve to be in? yes, maybe maybe not a couple of cobley Maybe, so I think so. 0:34:11 - Speaker 3Sorry, jamie, i know, i know we don't like to do 20 minutes on the Lone Island, but I just have to ask just one more question. Yeah, just just just as sink Lee explained to me your thesis statement for why the Lonely Island should not be in the Hall of Fame right now. 0:34:24 - Speaker 4Absolutely So. As I said at the start of this podcast you know, if, john, you want to rewind a couple minutes I said that my approach is similar to the sports writers who, philosophically, have blinders on and say I'm not, not anyone from the stair from the steroids era. You know, there's sports writers who say Clemens bonds, they just don't deserve to be in. Or they say, oh well, maybe this person will get in on a later ballot, but right now, historically, i want to get Michael O'Donoghue in, or I want to get Harold Baines in, or whatever you know. So it's just that my argument is more philosophic than it is a Representation of their legacy on the show, because what you said actually was very eloquent and well put. But this is a competitive Conversation and there's a lot of other people who I think aren't in the Hall of Fame yet, you know, including Bill Murray, including, you know, for God's sakes, dana Carvey. They pick up the slots. The slots get eaten up, i'm sorry, by people who've been waiting for years, john, years. 0:35:29 - Speaker 2They've got the call now, though. 0:35:31 - Speaker 4Exactly. Think of Dana Carvey at home right now. You know with his sons What, how he's gonna feel when Jamie calls him and let him know. Do you want to deny? 0:35:39 - Speaker 2him that, no that he can win one of these. 0:35:42 - Speaker 3Oh wow. Let me just say to all the listeners as we wrap up this conversation Andy Hogan is unequivocally wrong about this. Please think about the history of the show and how influential these guys are. 0:35:55 - Speaker 4Think about how Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds aren't in the baseball Hall of Fame. That's where I'm coming from. 0:36:01 - Speaker 2Listen, they potentially cheated. They did cheat, but who? 0:36:07 - Speaker 4cares. So did Willie may. Willie mays cheated who cares? 0:36:10 - Speaker 2Yeah, I remember all right, all right. 0:36:12 - Speaker 3We were covering the show and then we found out that Yorma was doing steroids. Like how crazy was that. 0:36:16 - Speaker 2That's right. That's right. 0:36:18 - Speaker 4I'm sure they were cocaine is the steroids of Studio 8. age Balushi out Yeah right, all right, andrew. 0:36:26 - Speaker 2Who have you got next? 0:36:28 - Speaker 5I'm gonna make things a little controversial and I'm gonna pick Prince as the musical guest. Oh okay, i believe he was on four times. Every time is a home run. It's Prince, he's the greatest, like he should just get in on virtue of having been Prince. I'm a little bit of a fan, but I also think that Prince always brought a little bit of a sense of humor about himself, even when he was being the most Prince like, so to speak. And I also speak as someone who saw Prince live and He wasn't an absolutely Unquestionably probably one of the greatest performers I've ever seen. So I'm gonna say Prince as As musical guests. I want to put it out there Everybody, vote for Prince. 0:37:17 - Speaker 2Does anybody else have Prince on their ballot? 0:37:20 - Speaker 3I don't, i mean I love Prince, prince, i would die for you, but I just. But, yeah, i mean the musical guest category for me is as limited as possibly be because there are so many Like stacked people in the other categories. Yeah, so for me I had to pick one, maybe two, one that I think is at the top of that list, and fortunately there are other people that did have more influence on SNL than Prince did. 0:37:46 - Speaker 2I should think Prince has a career that the trajectory is similar to SNL. It's a few years off. But that first performance in 79 I think it is is like really, really good and He's sort of unknown. You know he's just this, you know Performer, one of those cool ones that you get to see on SNL and turns out they turn into you know A really big deal. And then the right parenthetical on the on the end of his career is just the legend of him playing the. It was the 40th right. 0:38:20 - Speaker 5That's right. 0:38:21 - Speaker 2The after party you know, so really interesting. Cool, andy, who have you got up next? 0:38:27 - Speaker 4My next person is Actually we talked about this briefly Dana Carvey. How is Dana Carvey not in this hall of fame yet? Is this really his first ballot? 0:38:36 - Speaker 2This is his first ballot. Yeah Well, because we produced the show where we You know having a lot of him every year. Right, it's staggered. It's just staggered across the board because I Didn't do, i didn't think of this idea in 1980. If I did, you know that would have been well, that's not here, nor that I mean to me. 0:38:54 - Speaker 4Dana Carvey, you could argue, is the best pure cast member in the show's history. So the fact that he's just now on the first ballot and isn't yet in the Hall of Fame, it raises a lot of Troubling questions. 0:39:08 - Speaker 2Do you think he will get a higher voting percentage Than the current holder, which is Will Ferrell? 0:39:17 - Speaker 4Probably not just because Will Ferrell came of age as a cast member with, with people who you know, maybe Participating this a little bit more. I mean, that's the only argument that I could really understand is that Carvey's, you know, made his debut 37 years ago, you know. so maybe people don't quite appreciate, but when I started watching SNL in the 90s I mean Garth Hansen, franz, Oh my god, absolutely, that's. 0:39:42 - Speaker 2That's why I started watching in 86. It's 91.8% is what will Ferrell got last year. 0:39:48 - Speaker 3Here's. The major difference, though, is that will Ferrell dominated his era, whereas Dana Carvey didn't. He's definitely on my ballot and I agree with the notion that he's one of the best Cast members of all time, but he is among a group of elite cast members, including Phil and Jen, and he slides into that generational group really well. But, yeah, the reason that I loved how Andy said best is because best is typically defined as having like the skill set to succeed on the show. Right, it's like are you a naturally born sketch performer that it was just built in a lab to do Saturday night live? Yeah, and a Carvey is that. 0:40:23 - Speaker 4So there's impressions. Yeah, i mean to John's point and this kind of goes back to our initial Conversation about Amy Poehler. You know, will Ferrell is on at a time that I wouldn't consider a golden age, you know. So he dominated. Yeah, dana Carvey is probably the best, or among the best, cast members of, obviously, a golden age, a second golden age Like murderers row, though it's like. 0:40:52 - Speaker 2You know how do you pick between Gary and and babe, right, you know what I mean. 0:40:56 - Speaker 4Yeah, i mean, they're both first balladers. 0:40:58 - Speaker 5Yeah, Yeah and he also. He's also working with Mike Myers, that's right. This is who's also and he's sort of garth to Mike. I mean that I would agree that he's definitely should be in, because if you try to order an SNL cast member over the phone and Then Amazon shipped it to your house, it would be Dana Carvey, right, right. He literally epitomizes all of the things that you would want and you know, i think he's, he's for me, he's, he's unquestionable. 0:41:26 - Speaker 2Cool, back to John. 0:41:28 - Speaker 3Yeah, so I'm gonna round out my cast category, if that's okay with you, jamie, with someone who I think was so important in the history of the show and that's Jane Curtin. She comes in to host weekend updates right after Chevy Chase and Jess absolutely crushes it, see. You know, shows everybody why. You know She was meant to do that job and it was. You know it was a man's world. Unfortunately, at the time a lot of people felt like it and like for her to break through that mold was so great. I mean, let alone not not not only the stuff on weekend update, but the fact that she would anchor sketches the way that she did and have like play that straight woman role so well, where she would be like you know, think about, like looks at books and sketches like that, where she would be side-by-side with Gilda Radner And Gilda would be doing a crazy character. Or her interactions with Emily Latella or Rosanna, rosanna Dana. She was like to me, the host of the 70s among the cast and She is one of my favorite cast members of all time, if I'm being completely honest. Just her ability to just show like the strength and poise that she did on that show when all this craziness was happening around her, so for me a she went as well great, nicely put Andrew. 0:42:38 - Speaker 5I got. You make some great points And I didn't have her. And again, it's no knock on her, but she wasn't there only because, although I think she was an integral part of that cast, if I had, if there was one person that maybe it's a terrible thing to say, honestly, it sounds like such an awful thing to say, but if she had not, if she, if she wasn't there, would it? would things be that much different? I don't know necessarily that they would, but you know, again, she's incredibly talented. Nobody we're discussing here is bad, let's put it that way. So if they're not getting it, it's not for any deficit on their part, and I think you're making some great points about her And I've heard those arguments made like, hey, jane Curtin was great. She's not getting her props by other people as well. So I don't think you're in a minority, john. So you know you make a good case, but she wasn't on mine. 0:43:33 - Speaker 3Can I? can I push back Andrew for a second? Because please? yeah, you discussed the like your argument is based in value, right? If you were to take Jane Curtin out, how does that change the 70s? So if you were to remove her from the cast? and then everything happens as is, so Chevy Chase leaves the show, who, to you, then replaces Chevy on update? and would that be better? Because I can't envision a scenario where that happens. 0:43:55 - Speaker 5Neither can I. I don't know how to answer that question. I think you make a good point. I guess it's more on the lines of I'm looking at my list and thinking who might? who would I bump for Jane Curtin? If it happens, i'd be happy. You know what I mean. If she gets in, i'll be super happy because I think she's absolutely brilliant. I guess you use the word host in a way. I think maybe she hasn't getting, hadn't got some of her credit because she was an anchor and maybe that's literally and figuratively, in an improv sense. She was an anchor at a lot of those scenes and the anchor doesn't always get all of the attention. You know, she's a little bit I hate to put like football analogy like the offensive lineman. They only get noticed if they make a mistake, if they do their job really well. It doesn't always get seen And I feel like in her cast maybe Jane Curtin was a little bit like that. There were other people getting all the press and she wasn't getting in the press for bad reasons, like bad behavior and those sorts of things. But I can't answer your question. I don't know who I would put in. 0:44:52 - Speaker 3I'm at somewhere right now. Jane Curtin is flashing her bra at the screen just hearing about getting some attention. 0:44:59 - Speaker 5Well, perhaps I hope so, John. she has Jane, I agree. I'm just getting dirty. 0:45:10 - Speaker 2All right, Andy, where are you with Jane Curtin? 0:45:13 - Speaker 4Well. So John detected I flinched a little bit when he brought her up and it's because, to be candid, about 10 minutes ago I realized, with the quirks of us picking one from each category, like Noah's Ark, i'd inadvertently left off a musical guest. So as we were talking, i had to remove Jane Curtin from my ballot. She was on there and I needed to add a musical guest. So, elvis Costello, today's your lucky day, but Jane Curtin unfortunately gets the stick, not the carrot. 0:45:46 - Speaker 2Wow, i'm pretty stunned. This is going to be an interesting vote this year. if you three are representative of the majority, i love to keep her on. 0:45:58 - Speaker 4But it's just the way this is set up. We have to include a musical guest Because, like I said, philosophically a part of me is like if Eminem's not on, i don't know if anyone deserves to be on. 0:46:10 - Speaker 2All right, andrew, your next pick. 0:46:13 - Speaker 5So then, I will be picking from the writer category because I picked a host, i picked a performer and I picked a musical guest, correct, right? And this is going to be very, very difficult for me because I spoke, i was happy enough to speak, about someone who I don't think I'm going to nominate Because does that make any sense? 0:46:33 - Speaker 2I mean, I think what you, the way it's put is, there's what? 45 nominees? 0:46:39 - Speaker 5Yeah, yeah. 0:46:40 - Speaker 2Something like that There's a lot of really talented people and you got to nominate one, but it doesn't mean that when you nominated them, maybe you were influenced by a couple of the other episodes. 0:46:49 - Speaker 5Well, no, i've got to. I got to go with James Downey as a first pilot. 0:46:54 - Speaker 2Yeah, I think so. 0:46:55 - Speaker 5I don't think there's. There's no show without him. He was the guy who also brought a certain impartiality to it And by that he always pushed back, whether it was left or right of center politically. He came to Humber and did a workshop for us and it was great to hear him talk about the work. And one thing I remember him saying was was student asked him about Norm MacDonald and the OJ Simpson jokes And why did they keep going? And I think he compared it almost to Thelma and Louise, like driving off the cliff, like they just couldn't stop. They didn't even dislike OJ or Embersol or any of those things, they just had to keep going. When you look at his influence, particularly on American elections, just some of his, yeah. So to me it's, it's Jim Downey for sure for the writer category, even though I would love to mention Jack Handy, who I'm a huge fan of. But I'm going to go James Downey for my pick today. 0:47:48 - Speaker 2Okay, well, you can have more than one writer. You can, you know you can do whatever you wish, but but I will say James Downey. I'm really interested to hear what Andy and John have to say to. Either of you have James Downey on your ballot, absolutely. You both do So, andy, tell us, tell us why he's on your ballot. 0:48:06 - Speaker 4Yeah, i mean, andrew, hit the nail on the head. You know Jim Downey was on the show. For what? Over 30 years. You know he's he's one of the most important writers in the show's history. He's one of the most important, you know, political, satirical minds or whatever However you want to put it. I love that. He's, even technically a former cast member. You know he just checks so many of the boxes and probably behind the scenes contributed to so many of the cast members that we love too, like he's talked about. You know his, his role helping Chris Farley with, with some of his characters and moments on the show, and not for nothing. Also want to shout out his, his role in there will be blood. Love his little part as Al Rose as well too. So I'm a huge Downey fan and he 100% gets my endorsement. 0:49:00 - Speaker 3John greatest writer in the history of the show No doubt gets in. 0:49:04 - Speaker 5Great, okay. Do you think that there will be blood appearance? was it was influenced by his appearance in? was it Tommy boy? 0:49:12 - Speaker 4or Billy Madison, billy Madison. 0:49:15 - Speaker 5That wonderful speech you know, I wonder. 0:49:18 - Speaker 4PT Anderson is a huge SNL fan, right Like he was there in those early 2000 days when he was courting Maya Rudolph. So yeah, probably I mean he's cast his smigol too in a in a punch drunk love. 0:49:30 - Speaker 2So oh wow, I didn't realize that was smigol Andy. Who have you got next on your ballot? 0:49:38 - Speaker 4The next person on my ballot and I apologize, i'm going alphabetical is Dick Ebersol, actually, who I don't know if that's going to be contentious or not, but you know, a part of me is like you can't write the history of the show without you. literally, he helps create the show in 70 and then he, you know, is such an important, you know voice behind the scenes that that allowed the show to exist until you know, norman Michaels came, came out of his hibernation, you know so there's no Eddie Murphy without you know, dick Ebersol, and just an important person in the history of American broadcasting. 0:50:17 - Speaker 3So why is there no Eddie Murphy without Dick Ebersol? 0:50:21 - Speaker 4Because while Eddie is under Gene Dominion's tenure, technically you know, ebersol is the one that doesn't fire Eddie and then allows Eddie to become as big as he does during his time of the show. But I appreciate the the pushback there. 0:50:41 - Speaker 3I was just gonna say like if you got delivered like a really good steak and it's like sitting on your desk like you're not going to eat it, Right, right, But he doesn't he doesn't, can Eddie either. 0:50:49 - Speaker 4You know, And I just I don't know. I think that it's still, you know, nevertheless it still exists, But I kind of think of it. As you know, the Hall of the Baseball Hall of Fame you got to, you got to have some executives in there too, you know. Or Melvin Miller should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame as well, Absolutely, And Ebersol, I think, is that kind of figure. 0:51:13 - Speaker 2So, yeah, that's my take An architect. 0:51:15 - Speaker 4Yes. 0:51:16 - Speaker 2Yes, john or Andrew is Ebersol on either of your ballots. 0:51:22 - Speaker 3He's not on my ballot for what it's worth. I do think he should be in the Hall of Fame and I think he should get the Lorne Michaels Honorary Award that you gave to Lorne to put in there, because I think he's of the category of his own. But I didn't put him in because, as he is known as his first name, he's kind of a dick, so I sort of left him off. 0:51:42 - Speaker 4Oh, that's the bar. 0:51:43 - Speaker 3Yeah, that's the bar. 0:51:45 - Speaker 4Isn't John Belushi on your list? 0:51:47 - Speaker 3Yeah, look, it's really hard to Oh Murray. No, the real reason, to be honest, is just, I'm looking through this and he makes no sense to put him in any category with any of these other people. So for me it's like his contributions are so different than everybody else here. It's like comparing apples and oranges to me, So I couldn't put him on my list, but I also know he needs to be in there. 0:52:09 - Speaker 5All right, okay, yeah, i didn't have him. I didn't have him, and you know there's some good points, but I don't know. I'd almost say, well then, maybe Rosie Schuster, only because she played an important part of those first few seasons. 0:52:24 - Speaker 4When did she run SNL? 0:52:26 - Speaker 5She never ran it but she certainly played a huge role creatively. I know It was Mary Delorn And this very funny wrote for Larry Sandershow, but I would demure, but I do think he should be in, so I just don't know where you put him. So I think an honorary exec category, maybe we should start. 0:52:44 - Speaker 2The Miller category. That's a great idea. All right, there's a lot of behind the scenes. 0:52:48 - Speaker 5People are for sure. 0:52:50 - Speaker 2Yeah, well, i even think the announcer. I can't think of his name right now off the top of my head. Don Pardo, don Pardo. 0:52:57 - Speaker 4Jesus. 0:52:58 - Speaker 3Louise, right, like Don Pardo, should be in for sure I would recommend to the committee at the SNL Hall of Fame to consider a once a year award to just give someone an auto pass in. 0:53:09 - Speaker 4Yeah, dick Ubersol, don Pardo, jeff Richards, patrick Weathers, eminem, eminem. 0:53:14 - Speaker 5Yeah, james Spoons, but I mean Andy's making a good point, because it was Dick Ubersol, along with Barry Dillard and a few others, who approached Lord Michael's a bit. So he's sort of like is the opening of the door, so to speak. Yeah, i don't know how influential he was in giving Lord Michael's a long run. I think it was 17 episodes or something that they guaranteed. But yeah, it's hard to imagine. but I guess it's spoiled for choice a little bit here. 0:53:40 - Speaker 2John, who have you got next? 0:53:43 - Speaker 3So I'll put somebody in from the musical guest category who, to me, is going in just for being for really fitting into all categories, and that would be Paul Simon. He is not in the Five Timers Club, but he is an amazing host and musical guest in the history of the show, also very influential and, a lot of you know, creative, i'm sure, but he's becoming very good friends with Lord Michael's. But yeah, i mean, paul Simon hosts the most unique episode in the history of Saturday Night Live. The second episode of the show has some really, really great appearances. You basically retire. 0:54:18 - Speaker 2Paul Simon variety show. you mean Yeah, yeah, basically exactly. 0:54:23 - Speaker 3Basically retires on the show, most recently when Seth Meyers hosted the show. He pretty much retired from music after that. But you can see his entire career throughout the history of the show And you know I wouldn't necessarily if someone says, hey, like John, who's the greatest musical guest in the history of the show, paul Simon wouldn't be top of mind. But because Paul Simon is in the musical guest category and he also has those hosting appearances and additional cameo appearances, for me just his contribution to the history of the show would lead him to be my number one musical guest choice. 0:54:51 - Speaker 2Does he appear on any other ballots? 0:54:53 - Speaker 5No, not mine, Just Prince. 0:54:57 - Speaker 2Because he's Prince. You already know. 0:54:59 - Speaker 3No, no no, Why not Paul Simon? Like? what's the reason for not putting Paul Simon on the ballot? 0:55:05 - Speaker 5I guess I just like Prince better, but I can't make any rational argument against Paul Simon, so I'll just plead the. Instead of pleading the fifth, i'll plead the Prince, but I think that next to Paul McCartney, maybe Lord Michaels has a thing for Paul's, but I think as a musical influence. And I think when and I don't want to speak for obviously I'm not speaking for Lord Michaels, but when you I think he always saw the show as part of that whole experience for that generation which was so music being so important. Paul McCartney and Paul Simon, the two Pauls, are the sort of musical anchors of that show, so to speak, and of course, sir, i think, part of his identity as a baby boomer and a member of that waves. 0:55:51 - Speaker 2How about you, Andy. 0:55:53 - Speaker 4I did not have him on my ballot, as mentioned. I'm just sort of disinclined to have musical guests on here. It's just not where I went. The one that I have is Elvis Costello, like I mentioned, but John makes a excellent historic argument in favor of Mr Simon. 0:56:11 - Speaker 2Okay, Let's move forward, then, with Andrew's next pick. 0:56:16 - Speaker 5I've got somewhat of a I think we'll be controversial pick, which is Maya Rudolph. 0:56:23 - Speaker 2Oh okay, Why do you think it's controversial? 0:56:26 - Speaker 5Well, i guess when we start looking at everybody, i mean everybody's so impressive. So maybe I'm just getting starstruck. But for my money Maya Rudolph should be in the Hall of Fame because of her unbelievable character work and her range. Especially the musically Bronx beat was always one of my favorite Sketches that she did with Amy Poehler. So I see her as someone who belongs in the Hall of Fame. But I think if you're looking, you know, and I'll leave it to Andy and John but historically I think you can argue for other people. Like you know, john could say how can you have Maya Rudolph in if you're not going to have Jen? or like how does that make any sense whatsoever? So I'm going partly on my own instinct and intuition, which is not always rational, but I'm going to say Maya Rudolph, i have that I, and she was pretty quick for me to pick her, so I'm going to go for Maya Rudolph. 0:57:21 - Speaker 2How about you, gentlemen, is Maya Rudolph on either of your ballots? No, and is there any remorse here There? 0:57:29 - Speaker 3is I mean like some what? you've heard or Yeah, i mean, look, personal taste, she's definitely on my ballot. I love her on the show. She was, you know, the you know actually watching it growing up. Her leaving the show was one of the most impactful losses I felt while watching the show because I think that she's so important and such a great cast member. But just in terms of where we are at right now in the SNL Hall of Fame voting, there are a lot of cast members I would put above her And even in her own era I don't think she was ever the number one cast member And right now I'm voting in people who are really like dominated the field. 0:58:05 - Speaker 2Yeah, And I mean you've only got what? four votes left as well At this point. You know it becomes, they become more valuable, sort of right. Right, All right, Andy. 0:58:15 - Speaker 4Yeah, i mean, look, i like my Rudolph Again. I'm just a little disinclined to have someone who you know is part of this millennium. That's just again how I went about it. I'm a little bit more slanted to people from the 70s, 80s, 90s. Actually I have a lot of writers on my ballot, to be honest. But that said, one other historic host that did make it that we've talked about briefly is Elliot Gould, again kind of similar to Buck Henry, just someone who you know gets the show early on, kind of brings some cashier when the show needs it, helps, makes it hip, and I think generally people just forget about what a big star Elliot Gould was in the 70s. Long goodbye and whatnot You know. So he's next up. You know, i'm not sure if my comrades are with me on this one, but I think you think about the Mount Rushmore of guests outside, steve Martin and Buck Henry in the 70s. You got to go with Elliot. 0:59:19 - Speaker 3Gould, i think in the 70s, is what is key here. That's why I don't have him on my list right now. I do think he is definitely a Hall of Amor, but I just think that there's hosts that are above him, that transcended multiple eras, that I think are more impactful. 0:59:34 - Speaker 4I would say Well, let's not forget about his season six stint where he's in bed with Denny Dillon and Gail Matthias and whatnot. 0:59:42 - Speaker 3I'm not forgetting about that, but I think like you know him hosting. Thank you, my best. I didn't. I just think in a span of you know those, i guess like five years in one episode. It's still like all in the same generation for the most part. So for me it was a debate for me between Christopher Walken and Elliot Gould, who would take that last spot on my ballot, and I'm pretty sure that Elliot Gould would make my next year's ballot. But I have other hosts that I think are more important or personally ones that I think are more impactful. 1:00:11 - Speaker 5Yeah, i mean, i was between Christopher Walken and Elliot Gould for me and I actually was able to talk about Elliot Gould on the show And I think you know your points are great. The other thing, of course, was you saw his musical chops. Like he had a musical theater background. I think every one of his opening model was as a musical number And he was the first one where the female cast members pretended to have a crush on him. He was the one who came on the show and canceled Star Trek. So he's a lot of really great stuff. And I

In this colorful conversation, Daniel Belkin and Mitch Belkin speak with Carl Schneider, JD about informed consent and the problematic nature of IRBs. We discuss the difficulties of patient education and whether patients actually want medical knowledge in order to guide their decision-making. We discuss the onerousness of IRB regulation, event licensing, the costs of inhibiting knowledge generation, as well as the paternalism of IRBs. We cover how "protections" for vulnerable groups counterintuitively harms these groups by preventing both the generation of knowledge and the development of treatments. Professor Schneider argues that IRBs should be abolished and the system of informed consent ought to be reconsidered.Who is Carl Schneider?Professor Carl Schneider is a lawyer and bioethicist. He is a Professor of Ethics, Morality, and the Practice of Law at University of Michigan. After attending University of Michigan Law School, he served as law clerk to Justice Potter Stewart of the United States Supreme Court. Schneider has authored several books, including The Censor's Hand: The Misregulation of Human-Subject Research and The Practice of Autonomy: Patients, Doctors, and Medical Decisions.What is the External Medicine Podcast?The External Medicine Podcast explores some of the most exciting ideas in medicine. Co-hosted by Daniel Belkin, MD, and Mitch Belkin, MD.Follow us at @ExMedPod Subscribe to our Youtube channelConsider supporting us on Patreon

Our guest this week is Larry Siegel. He is the Gary P. Brinson director of research at the CFA Institute Research Foundation. Prior to that, he was director of research for the Ford Foundation's investment division for 15 years. Siegel began his career at Ibbotson Associates in 1979. He specializes in asset management and investment consulting and has served on various boards as both an advisor and a director. He has also served on the editorial board of the Financial Analysts Journal and currently serves on the editorial board of The Journal of Portfolio Management and TheJournal of Investing. Siegel is a prolific writer and has authored several critically acclaimed books in recent years, including Unknown Knowns: On Economics, Investing, Progress, and Folly as well as Fewer, Richer, Greener: Prospects for Humanity in an Age of Abundance. He earned his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Chicago and his MBA in finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.BackgroundBioUnknown Knowns: On Economics, Investing, Progress, and Folly, by Laurence SiegelFewer, Richer, Greener: Prospects for Humanity in an Age of Abundance, by Laurence SiegelResearch"Lifetime Financial Advice: Human Capital, Asset Allocation, and Insurance," by Roger Ibbotson, Moshe Arye Milevsky, and Kevin Zhu, ResearchGate, January 2007.Popularity: A Bridge Between Classical and Behavioral Finance, by Roger Ibbotson, Thomas Idzorek, Paul Kaplan, and James Xiong, Jan. 15, 2019."Bursting the Bubble—Rationality in a Seemingly Irrational Market," by David F. DeRosa, SSRN, April 29, 2021."Equity Risk Premium Forum: Don't Bet Against a Bubble?," by Paul McCaffrey, CFA Institute, April 8, 2022.The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, by Erik Larson, April 6, 2021."Value Investing: Robots Versus People," by Laurence Siegel, larrysiegel.org, June 30, 2017.Endowments and Investing Lessons"Don't Give Up the Ship: The Future of the Endowment Model," by Laurence Siegel, larrysiegel.org, April 7, 2021."Where's Tobin? Protecting Intergenerational Equity for Endowments: A New Benchmarking Approach," by M. Barton Waring and Laurence Siegel, larrysiegel.org, April 21, 2022."Debunking Nine and a Half Myths of Investing," by Laurence Siegel, larrysiegel.org, March 12, 2020.Inflation"Protecting Portfolios Against Inflation," by Eugene Podkaminer, Wylie Tollette, and Laurence Siegel, The Journal of Investing, April 2022."The Novelty of the Coronavirus: What It Means for Markets," by Laurence Siegel, larrysiegel.com, April 1, 2020."Will Demographic Trends Drive Higher Inflation and Interest Rates?" by Laurence Siegel, larrysiegel.com, Feb. 10, 2021.Other"Cliff Asness: Value Stocks Still Look Like a Bargain," The Long View podcast, Morningstar.com, May 31, 2022."Tom Idzorek: Exploring the Role of Human and Financial Capital in Retirement Planning," The Long View podcast, Morningstar.com, June 7, 2022.TranscriptJeff Ptak: Hi, and welcome to The Long View. I'm Jeff Ptak, chief ratings officer for Morningstar Research Services.Christine Benz: And I'm Christine Benz, director of personal finance and retirement planning for Morningstar.Ptak: Our guest this week is Larry Siegel. Larry is the Gary P. Brinson director of research at the CFA Institute Research Foundation. Prior to that, he was director of research at the Ford Foundation's investment division for 15 years. Larry began his career at Ibbotson Associates in 1979. He specializes in asset management and investment consulting and has served on various boards as both an advisor and a director. He has also served on the editorial board of the Financial Analysts Journal and currently serves on the editorial board of The Journal of Portfolio Management and The Journal of Investing. Larry is a prolific writer and has authored several critically acclaimed books in recent years, including Unknown Knowns: On Economics, Investing, Progress, and Folly as well as Fewer, Richer, Greener: Prospects for Humanity in an Age of Abundance. Larry earned his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Chicago and his MBA in finance at the University of Chicago, Booth School of Business.Larry, welcome to The Long View.Laurence Siegel: Thank you.Ptak: Thank you so much for joining us. We're really excited to chat with you. I wanted to start with your early career. You worked for Roger Ibbotson early in your career. In fact, you were Ibbotson's first employee if I'm not mistaken. Talk about Roger's influence on you and more broadly, the impact he has had on our understanding of markets and investing.Siegel: Roger was not only my first boss, he was my first finance professor at the University of Chicago. So, I got fed the Ibbotson—and to give credit where it's due, to Sinquefield—view of the markets early. I was 21 years old. And I would describe that view as that asset classes are what's important; that security, individual securities, are best viewed as components of asset classes, although when you get involved in the business, you realize that you have to understand the market at the security level, too; and that long-term performance is very strongly in favor of equities. So, at the time, pension funds, who were the main customers for Ibbotson Associates' work, had relatively little in equities, and one of our missions was to improve the returns of those funds and thus for the sponsors and the employees by holding more equities. This was in the early ‘80s. I was hired in 1979. So, you can see that was a good strategy.Benz: So, sticking with your background in your early career, you think young professionals should have a grounding in the humanities and liberal arts. Why is that?Siegel: Well, not every single one needs to, but the ones who are going to rise to the top in the business need a grounding in the common cultural heritage of the human race, and that's given by humanities and social sciences that the liberal arts broadly construed. Investors invest in businesses or governments, but mostly businesses, and businesses exist to serve the needs and wants of people, an ever-changing group of people around the world. So, without a deep understanding of human affairs—in other words, of the why of business—young investment professionals are likely to fall into some intellectual traps: short-termism, geographically narrow thinking, where you only think about your own country, and a bunch of other well-documented behavioral biases—you shouldn't do that.Ptak: Maybe a dumb question to follow up on that: Why doesn't the market do a better job of creating incentives to ensure that younger professionals—let's talk about those who are heading into finance and in investing in particular—that they have a liberal arts background and they're able to better avoid some of those traps? Why haven't those incentives really taken shape and why is it still so typical to see this procession of MBAs and people with the traditional finance background dominating finance and investing?Siegel: Well, if you're as old as me, I'm 68, you have observed that it used to. The market, when I was getting out of school, was in a very different position. There weren't many MBAs. It was an unpopular decision to go to business school. And most of the people who were accepted in business school had an Ivy Plus background where a liberal arts education is required in order to graduate. By Ivy Plus I mean the University of Chicago, Stanford, Northwestern, places like that, plus the Ivy League. So, this staffed the investment business with a fairly broadly educated group of people. What happened in the next 40 years is that business got too big. And the MBA programs mushroomed from a little specialty of a dozen or two dozen schools to something that everybody felt they had to get in order to get a job. So, it just became more of a trade school degree rather than an academic degree. And I'm sorry if I'm offending anybody here, but that's the way I see it. And the investment business became more of a trade. So, the market became less efficient, I think, because it just got so big that it had to pull in a lot of different people, including people who had specialized early because they wanted to be in finance because they were seeing people in finance made a lot of money.Benz: Speaking of specialization, do you think that the only way to truly specialize is to have had a generalist humanistic education first? In other words, are the most successful specialists people who trained as generalists first and is there any evidence for this?Siegel: I think there is among CEOs and maybe CIOs, chief investment officers. The greatest businesspeople in the world have generally had a pretty broad background and a lot of them started, the legend is in the mail room, but they may have started in engineering, accounting. They may have started in sales. Whatever they did, they found their way to the investment business through a kind of evolution over time. An organization needs foxes and hedgehogs. Isaiah Berlin, drawing on an ancient Greek story, said that there are two kinds of people of foxes who know a little about everything and hedgehogs who no one big thing. Einstein, for example, was a hedgehog. He really only cared about physics, and he was very productive. We would have a very different world without him. I am suggesting that you're better off looking for foxes, but you also want to have a few Einsteins in there, and an organization that consists entirely of foxes would be very unfocused and would be more like a college dorm than a business.Ptak: Wanted to shift and talk about something that seems like it's been an awfully short supply lately, which is optimism. You wrote a book called Fewer, Richer, Greener, evincing optimism about the global economy and humanity in general. Have you always been an optimistic person? Or has it gone back and forth or been situation dependent?Siegel: I've always been an optimistic person in terms of my intrinsic biases. I do know enough economic history and regular history to know that living conditions have improved so much in the last 250 years, and actually in the last 50, that you'd be kind of crazy to deny that things have improved. This is a bad year and a bad decade. And it's very easy to become pessimistic when you read the news or check the stock market or look at the world situation with wars and so forth. But underneath the surface of all this chaos and negativity, technology is continuing to advance at an amazing rate of speed. And what we really rely on for economic growth is improvements in technology, where I use the word technology to mean it very broadly. Technology is not just the gadgets or computing power. It's biology. It's social technology—my ability to gather together a bunch of people in a Zoom meeting from all over the world and have a board meeting. And as this technology has grown in the broad sense, we have made our lives much easier; work has gotten easier. We do less of it. The 80-hour work week has now become a specialty of doctors, lawyers, and CEOs. Coal miners—my father-in-law was a coal miner and he worked 80 hours a week in a coal mine when they let him. He would have preferred to work 40, but he needed the money. So, we have an economy in which we produce an awful lot without doing all that much, frankly. We have probably the easiest lives of any population that's ever existed.Benz: Optimism seems like one of those secret weapons in investing, in finance in that if you're optimistic, you're more likely to stick with it, stick with your plan, and markets have tended to reward people who have stuck with it over the longer term. But it's hard to be optimistic about the long term given how unknowable things are. So, is the equity-risk premium compensation for subjecting ourselves to that unknowability?Siegel: Yes. There are two kinds of risks. One is fluctuations in asset prices. We all know what that is. The market just went down 20% or 25%, and we're feeling it. And we might forget this, but it went down 34% in a month in the spring of 2020, which is a profound dislocation in the markets. And a few months later, we forgot it. The other kind of risk is actually more profound, and it's the possibility that our general expectations for assets are wrong. And if you look back, equities have returned about real 7%, 7% plus inflation. Going forward, it's pretty unlikely that they're going to do that over the next 20 or 30 years just because of the high prices. Even if economic growth were as rapid in the future as it was in the past, you want to pay less rather than more for the stocks. So, right now, they're selling at a premium to their historical average. That conventional asset-allocation input of equities generate 6.7% or 7% real is almost certainly too optimistic, and we've got to do what Jack Bogle said, which is budget for it. We can't all earn alpha and earn a higher return, because the net alpha in the market is 0, so we would all be trying to take it away from somebody else. We have to budget for lower returns.When you look at the bond market, it's even worse. Bonds seem to be priced to yield about real 0%  to real 1%. That's much lower than the historical average, about half the historical average.Ptak: You got that right. It looks like real yields across the yield curve 49 to 99 basis points as of yesterday, which would be July 11, so a pretty paltry real yield. I did want to, if I may, stick with the general topic of optimism and its nexus with investing, talk about that in the context of value investing. I sometimes wonder if value investing pays off because it's so repulsive over long stretches that it's almost impossible to be optimistic. That does, though, raise questions about the implications for its practical usability. For instance, if investors are likely to give up on it because they do find it so repulsive when it underperforms growth as it had done until relatively recently, they might miss out on some of that payoff, which can come in bunches. Or do you think that's off base? Do you think that value investing really is usable, you just have to stick with it long enough?Siegel: I think that value investing is usable. But you shouldn't concentrate your whole portfolio in it. What we've seen is that the pendulum has swung between value and growth in very long cycles and large cycles where value does much better or much worse for the entire time that data are available. Fama and French did this back to 1927 and you get these five- to 15-year swings, which is so long that people give up on either value or growth at exactly the wrong time. So, in 2007, value had outperformed massively, and it was a great time to buy growth stocks because we were just about to enter not a tech bubble but a period of tech innovation that produced huge returns for a decade and a half. Anybody who went against the grain, anybody who went against the tide and overweighted growth stocks did much better than the market from 2007 until a year or two ago. Now people are saying, only growth works, so value is disgusting. And the more disgusted you are, the more likely it is to work. I would overweight value right now, but not all the time.Benz: I wanted to ask about intuition. It's something that tends to be greatly valued in everyday life, but it can lead us astray when it comes to investing. For example, in March 2020, which you referenced earlier, few of us expected the great snap back in the markets because intuitively we knew the pandemic would be bad for humanity. Do you think intuition was a better model for investing before markets became so efficient or has it never really worked?Siegel: Well, informed intuition, if you've spent a lifetime in, let's say, engineering and you know something about the way that computers are put together or the internet is put together or something, you might have had the intuition that this was going to be a profound change in the way everybody did everything and you bought those stocks. But the problem is that most people who bought the stocks in the first tech wave, in the 1990s, bought them without knowing anything about the individual companies. They were right about the technology; they were wrong about the companies. So, you would now have a portfolio of AltaVista and Netscape and AOL and a bunch of other companies that had promised but they were just outcompeted by somebody else. So, I would rather hang my hat on analysis than intuition unless you just happen to be one of those people with special inside knowledge but that is obtained legally. But most people who think they have inside knowledge don't. So, I would try to avoid relying on intuition too much.Ptak: Wanted to shift and talk about your role at the CFA Institute. You have a lot of experience assessing research proposals in that role. What are the best pieces of research have in common based on your experience?Siegel: Well, they draw heavily on theory to make practical recommendations that can be implemented in the short to medium term. And going back to Roger Ibbotson, we published a piece in 2007 on lifetime financial advice that came from Roger with several colleagues. We are about to publish, but have not yet received the manuscript, the second installment of that from Paul Kaplan, Tom Idzorek, and a third author whose name I forget, and that will come out later this year or early next year. So, even though they're 15 years apart, the Ibbotson people have an integrated theory of investing insurance, annuities—all these different tools in order to provide people with a lifetime income that's secure and yet has the room for adding value through either asset allocation or security selection alpha. So, that's the kind of research I like most. We sometimes have also done pieces that step outside of the box of the Financial Analysts Journal or the Journal of Portfolio Management -type of research and look at a broader set of issues—for example, geopolitics, demography. There was a beautiful piece by David DeRosa on bubbles. He's against them. I don't know how he can be for or against bubbles. Either bubbles are or bubbles are not. But he takes the position that what we think are bubbles are mostly rational responses to circumstances and then when the circumstances change, the bubble bursts. But it wasn't a bubble; it was rational at the time. I don't know that I buy that 100%, but it sure was interesting reading his logic because he expresses it so well. So, these are the kinds of research I enjoy the most.I've also done some of my own research here. I am compiling for the CFA Institute Research Foundation a book on the equity risk premium, which was a symposium of 11 fairly famous people—Marty Leibowitz, Rob Arnott, Cliff Asness and so forth—which I led. I'm not one of the famous people, but I know them all socially, so I was able to get them to come. And I edited it with a co-editor, Paul McCaffrey, who is producing a book on that as we speak. It could come out in the next month.Ptak: I did want to ask you about what's become the new rage in investing research and portfolio management, which is combining quantitative and human-driven decisions. If you had to draw up a CFA curricula for a bot, how would it differ for the current human-based curricula? And on the flip side, how do you think the current human curricula ought to be reshaped to account for the rise of things like machine learning? Is that something you've given any consideration?Siegel: A little bit. I'm writing a book review right now for Advisor Perspectives, which is an industry newsletter, a very good one. And the review is of a book by Erik Larson that's called The Myth of Artificial Intelligence. I'm giving it a good review, so you can see where I'm going to come out. I believe that machine learning is a real thing. Machines can be programmed to learn, and that's a valuable tool in investment management. But when you step beyond that to the idea of artificial general intelligence, I think it's an illusion caused by very fast computers, very big data and very clever programmers who want to create that illusion. So, we have had 300 million years of evolution—not as human beings obviously but as animals—to develop a set of connections in our brains that actually are intelligent. Yet intelligence in the sense that we are talking about now didn't really emerge until the last 200,000 years. So, it is rare. It is fragile. And we don't know what it is. It's like Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography: We don't know what it is, but we know it when we see it. And to imagine that we're, as human beings, of one level of intelligence, whatever we are, can build a machine in a few decades of those 200,000 years that's more intelligent than we are with all that evolutionary heritage is frankly ridiculous. These machines are going to do what we tell them to do. But if we tell them using instructions that are crafted well enough, it will give the illusion of being intelligent. When I don't know how something works, like everybody else, I tend to think it's magic. I'm driving and there are two or three cars lined up at a red light, it immediately turns green and makes the other traffic stop because it's a smart red light, and all it's doing is counting the number of cars that are waiting for it to turn and changes the cycle, changes the frequency, according to the traffic instead of operating on a fixed time cycle. But it looks like a pretty smart red light when you haven't encountered it before and you say “Gee, that's really amazing.” Well, I think that AI as we're experiencing it now is kind of the same as that. It's just a technology that other people understand because they developed it, but we don't because we don't have the knowledge and so we feel like it's magic or intelligence, whichever you want to call it.Benz: There's been a lot written about the glut of skilled, highly trained professionals in the investing field. Can you talk about the level of competition you see now versus what you saw earlier in your career?Siegel: The industry has become way too big. Every stockbroker has become a financial advisor. Ninety-six percent of them ought to tell people buy, hold, diversify, and rebalance and minimize taxes, and then they have to fill in that outline through implementation. In other words, somebody has to do it; their clients aren't qualified to do it. But they should mostly be telling people to buy index funds and to use premixed asset-allocation decisions that conform to what somebody at the headquarters has decided is optimal. To add value for an individual, what you really need to do is be more like a psychologist and a life counselor who says, “You have too much debt, you're not saving enough; you have too many houses; at some point your assets become a liability.” Or you don't have a house at all, you are a renter—you might want to consider a house as a hedge against inflation. But telling them which securities to buy or micromanaging the list of mutual funds, to me, is a fool's errand for most people.Inside the business, that's the public-facing side. Inside the business there are too many security analysts, too many asset allocators, too many broker/dealers. And I think that competition has become more and more people fighting over fewer and fewer real alpha opportunities, and that's why the competition feels so fierce. It used to be an easy business. And it's not easy anymore because the market is more efficient, I guess.Ptak: Wanted to shift gears and talk about asset allocation, specifically the 60/40 portfolio. And my question for you, which is a question I think many are asking, is the 60/40 debt. It's having one of its worst years ever. But the paradox is that yields are now, albeit they're still paltry, they're now a little bit higher and valuations are a tad lower, which you'd think would boost the 60/40's future prospects. What's your take on the 60/40, Larry?Siegel: I think that it's a pretty good consensus outcome of people buying what's available in the market. If you look at the supply of securities, it has to be somewhere around 60/40 because everybody holds it, and the supply and demand have to equilibrate in the long run. But why do issuers produce that ratio? I think that the underlying reason is that for a very long period of history, bonds were a very good investment. If you didn't have 40% in bonds, you wanted to, because they were producing high real returns. And that period is roughly 1981 to 2007. It's a long time. From 1940 to 1981, bonds did terribly because interest rates were going up and up and up, and we didn't have a lot of 60/40 portfolios, but what we had was mostly 0 or 100. Institutions bought fixed income to fund their pension plans. They bought fixed income to fund if there were insurance companies. The big money was in fixed income and equities were this gravy—you sold some stocks to some rich people. And over time as the stock market went up and the bond market didn't go up, you had greater interest in equities, and the consultants who emerged from this world of pension funds settled on 60/40 as a consensus. And so, you've got what I call the standard model. The allocators picked from a list of active managers in each asset class, usually buy way too many of them, didn't have access to index funds or didn't want to buy them. And so, they compared the performance of their active managers to benchmarks, fired the underperforming ones, gave more money to the outperforming ones, and since these things tend to run in cycles, generally underperform the market. They also had to have an overall asset-allocation policy where 50/50 was the tradition that they'd been coming from, but they moved it up to 60/40 because the stock market was beating the bond market and it just stayed there. Stocks are risky. So, 70/30 or 80/20 seemed like it was too volumed. We're all human, and we do what we see the person next to us doing. I think it's really just consensus-building, although there is a supply aspect to it. You have to buy what's out there. And if we all decided to increase our allocation to equities, we couldn't. But we would just be buying them from each other. This is a point Cliff Asness made. He can usually be counted on for very good thinking.Benz: Our research has found that fund investors tend to do a really poor job of utilizing so-called liquid alternative funds. If you take the illiquidity and gates away from alternatives, do you think they can still work for individual investors in the form of liquid alternatives?Siegel: Well, the term liquid alternatives has changed over time. When I started hearing about liquid alternatives in the early to mid-90s, it meant hedge funds and to some extent managed-futures funds because the stuff they were buying was liquid, and then the illiquid alternatives were venture capital and private equity. Over time, liquid alternatives have come to mean liquid to the investor. And when you securitize an alternative investment, you've removed—so that you can trade it like a stock—you've removed the one thing that has tended to give alternative investments better returns, which is the lockup. If you can lock up somebody's money for a long time, you can take risks that don't necessarily pay off in the short run, but that may pay off in the long run. If you take that away, I would rather just invest in liquid nonalternatives, stocks, bonds, and some real estate. Although some people call real estate an alternative. It's the oldest asset class, so I'm reluctant to put it in the alternatives bucket.Ptak: Wanted to shift and talk about endowments. You spent a good chunk of your career in the endowment world. And as you know, a lot of ink has been spilled concerning debates over the endowment model. Some decried it as costly and complex, others defend it as path-breaking. What are the lessons an advisor or an individual investor should take away from the success of the endowment approach? And conversely, what are the lessons they need to unlearn, so to speak?Siegel: I'll start with the last one because it's so easy. The lesson they need to unlearn is that if David Swensen can do it, so can I. He and the people at other big endowments and foundations have access to the best funds because they come to you, you don't have to go ferret them out. The best people they can afford to hire, outstanding analysts and other chief investment officers who can make millions. And if they do lose money, they have this capability of withstanding some pain. A foundation, in particular, which doesn't have professors to pay, or buildings to maintain, or students to give scholarships to, has to pay out 5% of whatever it has at the time, so if it loses some of the assets, their liabilities go down too in a one-to-one correspondence and so, at some level, they don't care. Of course, they do care because it's always better to have more money to give away than less. But the foundation isn't going to be destroyed by a 20% decline in the market.Endowments are a little trickier because the liabilities are not so flexible. If you start paying your professors less, they will just go to another place that doesn't pay less. Students will do the same thing. But these institutions also have a lot of reserve in their fundraising ability. An ordinary individual investor doesn't have any of this backstop. If I want to raise funds, I have to work harder. I'm already working as hard as I can. And I don't have the option to reduce my liabilities by saying I'm just not going to pay them. So, individuals have to be inherently more conservative. You get older, life becomes a race against diminishing capabilities and your risk level has to go down as you get older. So, there's a lifecycle effect that institutions don't experience. So, I would say that's the main lesson is, endowments and foundations have generally done well, but they have some structural advantages over individuals. Unless you have a rich uncle—a university has a rich uncle—which is the alumni and yet that's not an unlimited resource any more than your rich uncle is. But it is a backstop for bad performance.Benz: One investing paradox is that success demands humility, but humility is a tough sell. What's the humblest thing an investor can do to boost their odds of success while also attracting clients? Is it to have a long time horizon?Siegel: Well, the humblest thing an investor can do is buy index funds. It says to the client, I don't know what stocks are going to do best, but other people collectively as a market make pretty good decisions, so I'm just going to trust them to say the prices are roughly right. And when you buy an index fund, you're making a bet that the prices are roughly right. They're obviously not exactly right. In terms of having a long time horizon, it can be humility, or it could be hubris. I can claim to have a long time horizon, but I don't know what liabilities I'm going to face tomorrow, so I better have a short time horizon with some of my investments and I could also live 30 more years, so I need to have a long time horizon with other parts of my portfolio. But the time horizon issue I don't see so much as humility versus hubris, but it's a planning tool that a lot of people don't use effectively.Ptak: One of your more popular pieces of writing in recent years was an article you wrote on investing myths. If I'm not mistaken, I think you've updated it a few times to this point, the most recent being in 2020. Why'd you write it, and how would you change it if you were to update the piece yet again today?Siegel: I wrote it because somebody in Brazil paid me to come down there and give a talk on Siegel's Nine Myths of Investing. So, when that gave me an outline I had to fill in. Most of the myths have changed over time. I've updated it every two to five years. And what would I change now? Well, first of all, you'd have to go back and look at what the myths are. I don't really think I have time to go over all of them. But the one that I would change today is that stocks and bonds are always negatively correlated, so each is a good hedge against the other. It's not true. It runs in cycles. There was a period where they were positively correlated in the ‘90s and then before that at some other time, and all of a sudden, it's back. So, with stock market down, the bond market is also down, and people say, "Diversification doesn't work." Well, first of all, nobody told you to go out and buy the longest bond. Diversification within the bond market works in the sense of holding some less-volatile, shorter-term securities. They sacrifice some yield in order to get that safety. Secondly, stocks and bonds will again be uncorrelated or negatively correlated someday. But this is not that day. And there are other assets. The one that comes to mind is the original alternative investment: cash. Right now, you're losing money in cash in real terms, because inflation is so high. But, on average, over time cash has paid a percent or so over the inflation rate. And then the other one is real estate. I keep coming back to real estate because it has become the unloved stepchild in the investment world. And other than their house, nobody has any. The last time I heard somebody talking about real estate as an investment was probably in the decade of the 2000s, and probably it was going up a lot. Then there was a crash. And the crash stuck in people's minds while real estate itself turned around and went up again. And there may yet be another crash, but it's just another asset class that should probably be in your toolkit.Other myths—I kind of went out on a limb in the last version of that article and started talking more about social and political issues. One is that we can transition to entirely green energy without disrupting the entire world economy. We can't. We either have to transition slowly, which may not be good enough, but I actually happen to think it is, because energy transitions have taken a half century or so—wood, coal, coal to oil, oil to natural gas, and so forth—and the next transition is not going to be all solar and wind. Nuclear power is going to be a vital and probably the most important part of it. So, if the myth that you're subscribing to is the, let's call it the European version, although that's not quite fair because they have plenty of nuclear power in Europe. It's not going to happen, but we're going to need all the energy we've got, because the world is getting richer fast. Growth rates in China are down to 5%. That's still huge. Indonesia is higher than that, and it's a country of 300 million people that most Americans couldn't find on a map. The energy demands are going to be huge from all these different parts of the world that are growing and becoming middle class. And so that myth is something I spent a little time on in the article and I would write more about it next time.Benz: You more or less predicted the spate of inflation we would have before it happened. In fact, one of the myths you wrote about in 2020 was that the government could borrow all it wanted without sparking inflation. What did you see then and what do you think people should be monitoring to assess how long high inflation will persist into the future?Siegel: My forecast at the time was based on basic economic history from the 1700 and 1800s, which is that when the government borrows more money than it can pay back, it's going to pay it back anyway but in cheaper dollars. And the way that you get cheaper dollars is to have inflation. Inflation is a transfer of resources, of real resources, from savers who are bondholders and cash holders, to borrowers, which in this case is the government itself. So, it's tax. So, when you have a budget—that's how government budgets, it's out of balance by a lot for a long time— you're going to have a lot of inflation, because it's the only way the government is going to be able to make those payments on the bonds. I didn't see anything in the economy other than the budget deficits. And it was so early that you could say, I was wrong. There's not much difference between being a decade and a half early and being outright wrong. So, I'll say I was wrong.What I didn't see was the supply catastrophe that came with COVID and our response to COVID. So, when you get a supply shock like the one we've just been through, prices are going to rise, and you don't even need an unbalanced government budget, you don't need budget deficits for prices to rise when there are shortages of things because by ships not being able to dock and workers not coming to work, we just have never seen anything like this. And so, I think the inflation rate will come down from these astronomical rates to something more normal, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, but we're not going to go back to zero to 2, because governments have over-leveraged, and deleveraging is always inflationary.Ptak: What role do you think top-down macro should play in an allocation and investing process? Obviously, it's hard to correctly make a macro bet, though we've just talked about one you did correctly make, but it's even harder to translate that into a successful investment. So, should most people just avoid macro and diversify and call it a day?Siegel: If you mean macro bets to guide your general asset-allocation philosophy, I think you should. In other words, if you believe, as I do, that global economic growth, while slowing, is going to be very large in absolute terms for a very long time. In other words, the absolute terms meaning the number of overall dollars, or whatever your currency is, generated by the world economy that you want to hold equities because bonds don't give you a claim to that growth. And they give you a very indistinct claim I wouldn't bank on it. But international investors say that when a country is growing rapidly, the currency goes up, so you get a little bit of diversification that way. But equities are much more powerful, and international equities are frankly cheap relative to the United States. So, that's a macro bet, and I'm recommending it. But again, I recommended it for a long time. I thought the U.S. was expensive. It hasn't been cheap since the 2007-08-09 period. So, you should make an evaluation of those conditions and implement it through your portfolio.In general, most Americans suffer from home country bias because the U.S. is so big that you can get a pretty diversified portfolio with just the S&P 500 actually, because that's a lot of stocks, and those are all the big caps. If you lived in Belgium, you would not be under the illusion that Belgium was the whole world. It's just you can reach the border in an hour from anywhere in the country. So, you've known since you were a little kid that there's a big world out there. We Americans just don't have that intuition. So, that's why I'm saying that international is a macro bet that is reasonable to make. Now, if by macro bets you think that you act like a hedge fund and you think that the pound is going to crash, and that oil is going to go to $70 and then back to $110. No, individual investors should not do that.Benz: People aren't very good at respectfully disagreeing these days. You're someone who seems unafraid of having a fulsome debate. Besides stepping away from social media and the internet, what are some things we can do to exchange differing views without becoming polarized?Siegel: Well, if I knew I would run for President. People have become dug in—I don't like it at all. Spend a quarter of your reading time reading points of view that you know in advance you're going to disagree with, see how that person expresses themselves and what arguments they make and trying to take their side mentally while you're reading it. Consider maybe I'm wrong, maybe they're right. If I name some names, that would be too obvious where my biases are. But I would read the moderates on the other side, because the extremists are extremists, and they overstate everything. That's about all I can think of other than be nice. If the people you care about and generally respect have different views from you, ask yourself why. It's not because they're crazy or stupid or evil. It's because they've looked at the same data in the broad sense. They've looked at the same world and come up with different conclusions. Try to think about why that might happen, and then picture them doing that to you. That's about all I have to say about that.Ptak: Well, that's great advice and I think a great way to close this conversation, which we very much enjoyed, Larry. Thanks so much for your time and insights. We very much enjoyed having you on The Long View.Siegel: Well, thank you very much.Benz: Thanks so much, Larry.Ptak: Thanks for joining us on The Long View. If you could, please take a minute to subscribe to and rate the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.You can follow us on Twitter @Syouth1, which is, S-Y-O-U-T-H and the number 1.Benz: And @Christine_Benz.Ptak: George Castady is our engineer for the podcast and Kari Greczek produces the show notes each week.Finally, we'd love to get your feedback. If you have a comment or a guest idea, please email us at TheLongView@Morningstar.com. Until next time, thanks for joining us.(Disclaimer: This recording is for informational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice. Opinions expressed are as of the date of recording. Such opinions are subject to change. The views and opinions of guests on this program are not necessarily those of Morningstar, Inc. and its affiliates. Morningstar and its affiliates are not affiliated with this guest or his or her business affiliates unless otherwise stated. Morningstar does not guarantee the accuracy, or the completeness of the data presented herein. Jeff Ptak is an employee of Morningstar Research Services LLC. Morningstar Research Services is a subsidiary of Morningstar, Inc. and is registered with and governed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Morningstar Research Services shall not be responsible for any trading decisions, damages or other losses resulting from or related to the information, data analysis or opinions or their use. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. All investments are subject to investment risk, including possible loss of principal. Individuals should seriously consider if an investment is suitable for them by referencing their own financial position, investment objectives and risk profile before making any investment decision.)

Cruel and unusual punishments. General aspects. The Constitution was amended to prohibit cruel and unusual punishments as part of the United States Bill of Rights as a result of objections raised by people such as Abraham Holmes and Patrick Henry. While Holmes feared the establishment of the Inquisition in the United States, Henry was concerned with the application of torture as a way of extracting confessions. They also feared that the federal government would misuse its powers to create federal crimes as well as to punish those who committed them under the new Constitution and thus use these powers as a way to oppress the people. Abraham Holmes, a member of the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention for the federal constitution, for example noted in a letter from January 30, 1788 that the new Constitution would give the U.S. Congress the power "to ascertain, point out, and determine, what kind of punishments shall be inflicted on persons convicted of crimes." He added with respect those who would belong to the new government under the new Constitution: "They are nowhere restrained from inventing the most cruel and unheard-of punishments, and annexing them to crimes; and there is no constitutional check on them, but that racks and gibbets may be amongst the most mild instruments of their discipline." Relying on the history of the Eighth Amendment and its own case law the Supreme Court stated in Ingraham v Wright (1977) that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was designed to protect those convicted of crimes. The Supreme Court consequently determined in Ingraham that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause limits the criminal process in three ways: "irst, it limits the kinds of punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes, for example, Estelle v Gamble, supra; Trop v Dulles, supra; second, it proscribes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime, for example, Weems v United States, supra; and third, it imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such, for example, Robinson v California, supra." In Louisiana ex rel. Francis v Resweber, (1947), the Supreme Court assumed arguendo that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Robinson v California, (1962), the Court ruled that it did apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson was the first case in which the Supreme Court applied the Eighth Amendment against the state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Before Robinson, the Eighth Amendment had been applied previously only in cases against the federal government. Justice Potter Stewart's opinion for the Robinson Court held that "infliction of cruel and unusual punishment is in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, such as John Bingham, had discussed this subject: Many instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guaranteed privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatsoever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, "cruel and unusual punishments" have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none.

In 1964 the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a ruling that reversed a previous ruling by the State of Ohio banning the showing of what they deemed an obscene film entitled The Lovers that was being screened at the Heights Art Theatre in Cleveland Heights, Ohio. After yielding remarkably different opinions across the bench of the Supreme Court, Justice Potter Stewart's opinion was most unique stating, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be (obscene), and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.  But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.” There are troves of content available and promoted on the idea of leadership. Leadership, although hard to define, is a trait among people that one could easily mimic Justice Stewart's opinion by saying, “I shall not define (leadership), but I know it when I see it”. Leadership is birthed out of the Latin word “ductus” which suggests the ideas of guiding, conducting, drawing, pulling, taking, commanding, marching, and forging. Leadership can be hard to define because leadership is complex, and explains why developing leaders require focus, attention, and a roadmap. In its simplest, purest form, the dictionary defines leadership as “the action of leading a group of people or an organization.” It may also be helpful to have a peek into what leadership is not.  Leadership is not coercing, forcing, cajoling, conniving, or deceiving.  Leadership is not commanding, controlling, dictating, or forcing.  That is an authoritarian mandate, not leadership. Leadership is guiding and going before.  Leadership is embracing a continual state of risk because under healthy leadership, followers always have an option. How can you tell the difference between a leader and a manager?  A leader casts vision, influences behavior, and inspires accountability and action.  A manager ensures that the strategic elements of the vision are mapped out and executed.   The 1960's in America were a time of significant civil unrest, and also a time of significant leadership as President John F. Kennedy casts his Moonshot vision, and Martin Luther King Jr led his infamous march on Washington. JFK never set pen to paper with rocket engineering plans or fuel displacement calculations, and yet he led thousands of young scientists to do what was impossible. MLK set a flame using the words of his mouth to ignite a peaceful resistance among thousands towards a racially integrated and unified vision acknowledging that “we must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.” Leadership is a conviction towards healthy transformation, towards creating opportunity, towards inviting those who desire a peace-filled future into a life forward motion. Dr. King compelled such motion through his vivid invitation saying, “If you can't fly, then run, if you can't run, then walk, if you can't walk, then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.” What is leadership?  Here is a potential definition to guide us… Leadership is one person, or a group of people, who are compelling willing followers to keep moving forward to a defined and shared vision. Over the coming modules, we will be walking through and defining the ingredients of what healthy leadership looks like so you can begin to feast and compel others to move forward. Leadership may still be hard to define, but you will know it when you see it. ACTION: write a one-sentence definition of what you think leadership is and share it at your next team meeting.

In 1964 the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a ruling that reversed a previous ruling by the State of Ohio banning the showing of what they deemed an obscene film entitled The Lovers that was being screened at the Heights Art Theatre in Cleveland Heights, Ohio. After yielding remarkably different opinions across the bench of the Supreme Court, Justice Potter Stewart's opinion was most unique stating, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be (obscene), and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.  But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.” There are troves of content available and promoted on the idea of leadership. Leadership, although hard to define, is a trait among people that one could easily mimic Justice Stewart's opinion by saying, “I shall not define (leadership), but I know it when I see it”. Leadership is birthed out of the Latin word “ductus” which suggests the ideas of guiding, conducting, drawing, pulling, taking, commanding, marching, and forging. Leadership can be hard to define because leadership is complex, and explains why developing leaders require focus, attention, and a roadmap. In its simplest, purest form, the dictionary defines leadership as “the action of leading a group of people or an organization.” It may also be helpful to have a peek into what leadership is not.  Leadership is not coercing, forcing, cajoling, conniving, or deceiving.  Leadership is not commanding, controlling, dictating, or forcing.  That is an authoritarian mandate, not leadership. Leadership is guiding and going before.  Leadership is embracing a continual state of risk because under healthy leadership, followers always have an option. How can you tell the difference between a leader and a manager?  A leader casts vision, influences behavior, and inspires accountability and action.  A manager ensures that the strategic elements of the vision are mapped out and executed.   The 1960's in America were a time of significant civil unrest, and also a time of significant leadership as President John F. Kennedy casts his Moonshot vision, and Martin Luther King Jr led his infamous march on Washington. JFK never set pen to paper with rocket engineering plans or fuel displacement calculations, and yet he led thousands of young scientists to do what was impossible. MLK set a flame using the words of his mouth to ignite a peaceful resistance among thousands towards a racially integrated and unified vision acknowledging that “we must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.” Leadership is a conviction towards healthy transformation, towards creating opportunity, towards inviting those who desire a peace-filled future into a life forward motion. Dr. King compelled such motion through his vivid invitation saying, “If you can't fly, then run, if you can't run, then walk, if you can't walk, then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.” What is leadership?  Here is a potential definition to guide us… Leadership is one person, or a group of people, who are compelling willing followers to keep moving forward to a defined and shared vision. Over the coming modules, we will be walking through and defining the ingredients of what healthy leadership looks like so you can begin to feast and compel others to move forward. Leadership may still be hard to define, but you will know it when you see it. ACTION: write a one-sentence definition of what you think leadership is and share it at your next team meeting.

Obscenity. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the First Amendment's protection of free speech does not apply to obscene speech. Therefore, both the federal government and the states have tried to prohibit or otherwise restrict obscene speech, in particular the form that is now called pornography. As of 2019, pornography, except for child pornography, is in practice free of governmental restrictions in the United States, though pornography about "extreme" sexual practices is occasionally prosecuted. The change in the twentieth century, from total prohibition in 1900 to near-total tolerance in 2000, reflects a series of court cases involving the definition of obscenity. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that most pornography is not obscene, a result of changing definitions of both obscenity and pornography. The legal tolerance also reflects changed social attitudes: one reason there are so few prosecutions for pornography is that juries will not convict. In Rosen v United States (1896), the Supreme Court adopted the same obscenity standard as had been articulated in a famous British case, Regina v Hicklin (1868). The Hicklin test defined material as obscene if it tended "to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall". In the early twentieth century, literary works including An American Tragedy (Theodore Dreiser, 1925) and Lady Chatterley's Lover (D.H. Lawrence, 1928) were banned for obscenity. In the federal district court case United States v One Book Called Ulysses (1933), Judge John M. Woolsey established a new standard to evaluate James Joyce's novel Ulysses (1922), stating that works must be considered in their entirety, rather than declared obscene on the basis of an individual part of the work. The Supreme Court ruled in Roth v United States (1957) that the First Amendment did not protect obscenity. It also ruled that the Hicklin test was inappropriate; instead, the Roth test for obscenity was "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest". This definition proved hard to apply, however, and in the following decade, members of the Court often reviewed films individually in a court building screening room to determine if they should be considered obscene. Justice Potter Stewart, in Jacobellis v Ohio (1964), famously said that, although he could not precisely define pornography, "I know it when I see it". The Roth test was expanded when the Court decided Miller v California (1973). Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if: (a) ... 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest ... (b) ... the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) ... the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Note that "community" standards—not national standards—are applied whether the material appeals to the prurient interest, leaving the question of obscenity to local authorities. Child pornography is not subject to the Miller test, as the Supreme Court decided in New York v Ferber (1982) and Osborne v Ohio (1990), ruling that the government's interest in protecting children from abuse was paramount. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

The 1964 Supreme Court Case Jacobellis v. Ohio presented a highly subjective question to the justices: what is obscenity or pornography? How do you define it? Where do you draw the line? In response, Justice Potter Stewart gave us the iconic line, "I know it when I see it." His ambiguous answer works fine for humans who can make judgement calls on the fly, but the algorithms that rule our lives need rules that are much more concrete. Say you flag something as inappropriate on social media. How is artificial intelligence meant to answer a question that even the Supreme Court could not definitively pin down? That's where humans come in. Mary Gray, an anthropologist and co-author of the book,“Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley From Building a New Global Underclass,” explores the work and lives of the real people behind online processes that internet users may assume are purely algorithmic. From analyzing medical tests, to flagging questionable social media posts, to identifying your rideshare driver, Gray argues that the human touch of “ghost work” is not only essential, but this hidden workforce will continue to keep growing.

The culture bandwagon is picking up steam.  Everyone is citing its organization's “culture” as the foundation for its activities in the hope of meeting a rapidly evolving standard for organizations.  In its latest corporate compliance guidance, the Justice Department, along with numerous regulatory agencies continue to cite the importance of a company's  “culture of compliance.” But when it comes to defining the terms, how to manage a company's culture and how to measure, monitor and measure a company's culture – everyone responds with a blank stare.  That is when we hear the Justice Potter Stewart famous definition of obscenity, “I know it when I see it.” To provide my own perspective on some of these issues, I am dedicating this podcast episode to corporate culture.  My answers may not be “correct” or even “persuasive,” but the dialogue has to begin.  I have long advocated for practical approaches to defining, managing and maintaining a company's culture.  As I often write, culture is a company's most important “internal control.”  

#crispr #genetics #stanforduniversity #invitrogametogenesis #dna #geneticeditingHenry T. (Hank) Greely specializes in the ethical, legal, and social implications of new biomedical technologies, particularly those related to genetics, assisted reproduction, neuroscience, or stem cell research. He is a founder and immediate past president of the International Neuroethics Society; a member of the Multi-Council Working Group of the NIH's BRAIN Initiative, whose Neuroethics Working Group he co-chairs; chair of the Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Committee of the Earth BioGenome Project; and chair of California's Human Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee. He served as a member of the Committee on Science, Technology, and Law of the National Academies from 2013-2019; Neuroscience Forum of the Institute of Medicine from 2012-2019; as a member of the Advisory Council of the NIH's National Institute for General Medical Sciences from 2013-2016; and from 2007-2010 as co-director of the Law and Neuroscience Project. Professor Greely chairs the steering committee for the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics and directs both the law school's Center for Law and the Biosciences and the Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society. Greely is also a professor (by courtesy) of genetics at Stanford School of Medicine. In 2007 Professor Greely was elected a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, received Stanford University's Richard W. Lyman Award in 2013, and the Stanford Prize in Population Genetics and Society in 2017. He published The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction in 2016 plus CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans. Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty in 1985, Greely was a partner at Tuttle & Taylor, served as a staff assistant to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, and as special assistant to the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense. He served as a law clerk to Justice Potter Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court and to Judge John Minor Wisdom of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. https://law.stanford.edu/directory/henry-t-greely/ https://twitter.com/hankgreelylsju Watch our highest viewed videos: 1-India;s 1st Quantum Computer- https://youtu.be/ldKFbHb8nvQ DR R VIJAYARAGHAVAN - PROF & PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR AT TIFR 2-Breakthrough in Age Reversal- -https://youtu.be/214jry8z3d4 DR HAROLD KATCHER - CTO NUGENICS RESEARCH 3-Head of Artificial Intelligence-JIO - https://youtu.be/q2yR14rkmZQ Shailesh Kumar 4-STARTUP FROM INDIA AIMING FOR LEVEL 5 AUTONOMY - SANJEEV SHARMA CEO SWAAYATT ROBOTS -https://youtu.be/Wg7SqmIsSew 5-TRANSHUMANISM & THE FUTURE OF MANKIND - NATASHA VITA-MORE: HUMANITY PLUS -https://youtu.be/OUIJawwR4PY 6-MAN BEHIND GOOGLE QUANTUM SUPREMACY - JOHN MARTINIS -https://youtu.be/Y6ZaeNlVRsE 7-1000 KM RANGE ELECTRIC VEHICLES WITH ALUMINUM AIR FUEL BATTERIES - AKSHAY SINGHAL -https://youtu.be/cUp68Zt6yTI 8-Garima Bharadwaj Chief Strategist IoT & AI at Enlite Research -https://youtu.be/efu3zIhRxEY 9-BANKING 4.0 - BRETT KING FUTURIST, BESTSELLING AUTHOR & FOUNDER MOVEN -https://youtu.be/2bxHAai0UG0 10-E-VTOL & HYPERLOOP- FUTURE OF INDIA"S MOBILITY- SATYANARAYANA CHAKRAVARTHY -https://youtu.be/ZiK0EAelFYY 11-NON-INVASIVE BRAIN COMPUTER INTERFACE - KRISHNAN THYAGARAJAN -https://youtu.be/fFsGkyW3xc4 12-SATELLITES THE NEW MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR SPACE RACE - MAHESH MURTHY -https://youtu.be/UarOYOLUMGk Connect & Follow us at: https://in.linkedin.com/in/eddieavil https://twitter.com/intothechange

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Professor Henry T. (Hank) Greely, of Stanford Law School, to discuss gene editing, the bioethics involved in gene manipulation, the legal considerations of developing new biotechnologies, CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), the line between good and bad, and quite literally, the future of humanity.     What does the birth of babies whose embryos have gone through genome editing mean—for science and for all of us? Professor Hank Greely explores this question and more in his new book, CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans. Hank’s new book comes out February 16th and today he and Aaron discuss CRISPR capabilities, the potential “butterfly affect” editing genes may have, and what the ethical concerns are surrounding gene manipulation. In his upcoming book, Professor Greely tells the fascinating story of He Jiankui’s 2018 human experiment and its consequences; he explains what He Jiankui did, how he did it, and how the public and other scientists learned about and reacted to this unprecedented genetic intervention. Today, Hank talks about this further, and the conversation revolves around He Jiankui’s 2018 experiment, today’s COVID vaccines, DNA, RNA, and MRNA. Hank explains how he feels about “slippery slopes” and expresses his opinions and predictions about what will happen with this new technology. Are we playing God?   A graduate of both Stanford University and Yale Law School, Hank Greely is the Dean F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law; Director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences; Professor, by courtesy, of Genetics, Chair of the Steering Committee of the Center for Biomedical Ethics; and the Director of the Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society. Professor Greely specializes in the ethical, legal, and social implications of new biomedical technologies, particularly those related to genetics, assisted reproduction, neuroscience, or stem cell research. He is a founder and immediate past president of the International Neuroethics Society; a member of the Multi-Council Working Group of the NIH’s BRAIN Initiative, whose Neuroethics Working Group he co-chairs; chair of the Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Committee of the Earth BioGenome Project; and chair of California’s Human Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee.   Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty, Professor Greely was a partner at Tuttle & Taylor, served as a staff assistant to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, and as special assistant to the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense. He served as a law clerk to Justice Potter Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court and to Judge John Minor Wisdom of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.   Listen now!   To learn more about Professor Greely, please click here. To check out Professor Greely’s 2016 publication, The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction, please click here. To order Professor Greely’s brand-new book, CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans, please click here. There are more ordering options available here. *Note: Professor Greely’s new book will be released on Feb. 16th   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Henry T. (Hank) Greely   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Facebook: @GOODLAWBADLAW Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

“Roe v. Wade has no foundation in either law or logic; it is on a collision course with itself.”  Edward Lazarus, a former law clerk to Roe's author, Justice Harry Blackmun, who writes: As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather. . . . . What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent. ... The proof of Roe's failings comes not from the writings of those unsympathetic to women's rights, but from the decision itself and the friends who have tried to sustain it. Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.7 Ten Legal Reasons to Condemn Roe v. Wade 1.    The umpires are there to call balls and strikes. In real baseball they cannot be players as well.   The Roe Court far exceeded its constitutionally designated legal purpose and authority.  Under the U.S. Constitution, the power to make laws is vested in Congress and retained by state legislatures. Elected representatives are the proper ‘makers of law.’ These elected officials then answer to the voters. The role of the judiciary in constitutional review is to determine if the law being challenged infringes on a constitutionally protected right. It is not the role to then somehow come up with new laws of their own tastes and inclination. Justice O'Connor, quoting Chief Justice Warren Burger: Irrespective of what we may believe is wise or prudent policy in this difficult area, "the Constitution does not constitute us as 'Platonic Guardians' nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, 'wisdom,' or 'common sense.'"8 In Roe v. Wade and its companion, conjoined case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court struck down criminal laws of Texas and Georgia which outlawed certain abortions by finding that these laws (and those of the other 48 states) violated a "right of privacy" that "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." But such a right is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution nor even derivable from values embodied in it. It was a preference to have such a right and Justice Blackmun’s writings actually set themselves to devise the ‘rules’ that would then ‘emanate’ from such a preferred right. He simply made up new, substitutionary laws and imposed them on all the states!  In his dissenting opinion in Doe v. Bolton, Justice Byron White, joined by Justice William Rehnquist, wrote: I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers ... and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 states are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court. 2. The Roe Decision seriously misrepresents the history of medicine and society’s view of abortion. Justice Blackmun admitted to a serious fascination with the medical profession. Later in Doe v. Bolton we will see an almost passionate commitment to ‘protect the physician from the cloud of possible prosecution.’ The Mayo Clinic, for whom he served as legal counsel, admits to Blackmun’s unique obsession with the medical profession.  Proceedings of the Mayo Clinic Francis Helminski, J.D. Volume 69, Issue 7, p 698-699, July 01, 1994 Although three previous justices of the United States Supreme Court have had formal medical training, none has had more influence on medicine than Justice Harry A. Blackmun. Blackmun, a mathematics major at Harvard College, considered medical school but instead chose legal training. After becoming familiar with the legal work of the Mayo Clinic while practicing with a Minneapolis firm, he was internal legal counsel for the clinic from 1950 to 1959. Blackmun's work contributed to the development of the clinic, especially in the establishment of Rochester Methodist Hospital. As a Supreme Court Justice, Blackmun's concern for medicine was evident in many of his judicial opinions, including Roe v Wade and Regents of the University of California v Bakke. In Roe, he rested much of the constitutional foundation for legalized access to abortion on the integrity of the physician-patient relationship. The apparent purpose of the Roe opinion's long historical excursion is to create the impression that abortion had been widely practiced and unpunished until the appearance of restrictive laws in the prudishly-Victorian 19th Century. One example is adequate to show the distortion of Justice Harry Blackmun's version of history. He must overcome a huge hurdle in the person of Hippocrates, the "Father of Medicine," and his famous Oath which has guided medical ethics for over 2,000 years. The Oath provides in part: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."9 This enduring standard was followed until the Roe era and is reflected in Declarations of the World Medical Association through 1968: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception. ..."10 But Justice Blackmun dismisses this universal, unbroken ethical tradition as nothing more than the manifesto of a fringe Greek sect, the Pythagoreans, to which Hippocrates is alleged to have belonged! 3. Roe wrongly characterizes the common law of England regarding the status of abortion. The Court's language in Roe offers a plastic analysis and conclusion – "it now appears doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus" – is patently false on its face. The Common Law drew its principles from Natural Law. Until quickening there were no objective signs that a human life was present. Quickening, the moment that movement can be detected, was considered objective scientific fact that the fetus was indeed definitively alive.11 William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769), an exhaustive and definitive discussion of English common law as it was adopted by the United States shows that the lives of unborn children were valued and protected, even if their beginning point was still thought to be "quickening" rather than conception: Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as the infant is able to stir in the mother's womb.    For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb ... this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.12 Until well into the 19th century, it was assumed that a child's life may not begin – and certainly could not be proven to have begun to satisfy criminal evidentiary standards – prior to the time the child’s movements were felt by the mother ("quickening"), at approximately 16-18 weeks' gestation. The science of the time was being applied to the enforcement of the law. After the invention of the modern microscope (1836) and the widespread, objective scientific revelation that mammalian life begins at conception, English law then increased the penalties for killing a child before quickening. Consistent with the principle that the law needs to follow objective, observable facts, in 1861 Parliament passed the Offences Against the Person Act. This law extended protection of the life of the child throughout pregnancy. This law was gradually whittled-away starting in the 1980’s. But the Act continued to protect pre-born life in Northern Ireland until 2019.20 The Roe Court looks at the distinction in early common law concerning abortions attempted before or after "quickening," wrongly. It falsely assumes that the law allowed women great latitude to abort their children in the early months of pregnancy. This is like saying people had an unspecified right to hack websites before such acts were criminally prosecuted. The law is designed to enforce known and demonstrable crimes. A law could not protect a human being it did not know to be alive. But as demonstrated by the Offences Against the Person Act, when the facts are known, then the law can be enforced. 4. In Roe, the Court downplays and distorts the purpose and legal weight of state criminal abortion statutes that had been deliberated and passed by the several states In the 19th Century, in virtually every state and territory, laws were enacted to define abortion as a crime throughout pregnancy. They contained only narrow exceptions, generally permitting abortion only if necessary to preserve the mother's life. The primary reason for stricter abortion laws, according to their legislative history, was to afford greater protection to unborn children. This reflected a heightened appreciation of prenatal life based on new medical knowledge. (See the Offenses Against the Person Act in the U.K.) Dr. Horatio R. Storer… etc is significant that the medical profession spearheaded efforts to afford greater protection to unborn lives than had been recognized under the common law's archaic "quickening" distinction. The existence of such laws, and their clear purpose of protecting the unborn, rebuts the Court's claim that abortion has always been considered a liberty enjoyed by women. These laws show broad acceptance of the view that the life of an unborn child is valuable and should be protected unless the mother's life is at risk. In that case, of course, both mother and child were likely to perish, given the primitive care then available for infants born prematurely. How does the Court get around the impressive body of laws giving clear effect to the state's interest in protecting unborn lives? It attempts to devalue them by ascribing a completely different purpose: the desire to protect the mother's life and health from a risky surgical procedure. Applying the maxim "if the reason for a law has ceased to exist, the law no longer serves any purpose," the Court declares that abortion is now "safer than childbirth." Therefore, laws banning abortion have outlived their purpose.   5. A privacy right to decide to have an abortion has no foundation in the text or history of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade locates a pregnant woman's "constitutional" right of privacy to decide whether or not to abort her child either "in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty ..., as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people." The Court does not even make a pretense of examining the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment, to determine if it was meant to protect a privacy interest in abortion. Clearly it was not. The Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to create any new rights, but to secure to all persons, notably including freed slaves and their descendants, the rights and liberties already guaranteed by the Constitution. Several rhetorical devices are used to mask this absence of constitutional grounding. The Court mentions several specifically enumerated rights which concern an aspect of privacy, for example, the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." However, the Court fails to connect these to the newly found "right" to abortion, because no logical connection exists. Justice Blackmun attempts to graft abortion onto the line of decisions recognizing privacy/liberty rights in the following spheres: marriage (Loving v. Virginia, striking down a ban on interracial marriage); childrearing (Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, upholding parental decision-making regarding their children's education); procreation (Skinner v. Oklahoma, finding unconstitutional a state law mandating sterilization of inmates found guilty of certain crimes); and contraceptive use by a married couple (Griswold v. Connecticut). Certainly marriage, and building and raising a family are fundamental aspects of human life that predate human laws and nations. They are implicit in the concept of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, though even these rights are subject to state limitation, such as laws against bigamy, incest, and child abuse and neglect. But abortion does not fit neatly among these spheres of privacy. It negates them. Abortion is not akin to childrearing; it is child destruction. A pregnant woman's right to abort nullifies the right to procreate upheld in "Skinner." He no longer has a right to bring children into the world, but only a right to fertilize an ovum, which his mate can then destroy without his knowledge or consent. The fear of government intruding into the marital bedroom by searching for evidence of contraceptive use drove the Griswold Court to find a privacy right for couples to use contraception in the "penumbras, formed by emanations from" various guarantees in the Bill of Rights. But, however closely abortion and contraception may be linked in purpose and effect, they are worlds apart in terms of privacy. Abortions do not take place in the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms, preventing them does not require investigation of private sexual behavior, and they involve personnel other than the spouses. A "privacy right" large enough to encompass abortion could also be applied to virtually any conduct performed outside the public view, including child abuse, possession of pornography or using illicit drugs. The liberty interest to be protected from state regulation is never really defined in Roe. Instead the Court describes at some length the hardships some women face, not from pregnancy, but from raising children: Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by childcare. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. By this reasoning, one might argue that Roe's liberty encompasses ridding oneself of unwanted toddlers! Ordinarily, the defense of rights requires us to forgo lethal methods and use means likely to create the least harm to others. We may not, for example, surround our house and yard with a high voltage fence to deter trespassers. This principle is upended in the abortion context. Adoption, for example, would effectively eliminate all the "hardships" of raising "unwanted" children by non-lethal means. 6. Although it reads the 14th Amendment extremely expansively to include a right of privacy to decide whether to abort a child, the Court in Roe adopts a very narrow construction of the meaning of "persons" to exclude unborn children. Much is made of the fact that "person" as used elsewhere in the Constitution does not refer to unborn children when, for example, discussing qualifications for public office or census-taking. That point proves nothing. The Supreme Court has held that corporations are "persons" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and they are not counted in the census, nor can a corporation grow up to be president. The Roe Court also ignored the clear and uncontested biological evidence before them that individual human lives begin at conception: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." This is question determined by science, not philosophers or theologians or politicians. But while seeming to sidestep the question, the Court in fact resolved the question at birth, by allowing abortion to be legal throughout pregnancy. In the same vein, the Court refers to the unborn child as only a "potential life" (indeed, an actual life) from the moment of his or her conception. The Roe opinion states that a contrary finding on "personhood" would produce the opposite result (presumably foreclosing the mother's privacy right to an abortion). One does not have to be a "person" in the full constitutional sense, however, for a state to validly protect one's life. Dogs can be protected from killing although they are not "persons."13 And under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), people are prosecuted, fined and jailed for acts that may harm creatures, such as sea turtles, that are not "persons" in the full constitutional sense. Sea turtles are protected not only after they are hatched, but even while in the egg. In fact, each sea turtle egg removed from its nest constitutes a separate violation under the ESA, regardless of whether the sea turtle egg contained an embryo that was alive or "quick" or "viable" or even already deceased at the time of the taking.   7. The Roe Court assumed the role of a legislature in establishing the trimester framework. Roe holds that in the first trimester of pregnancy, the mother's "privacy interest" in an abortion trumps state regulation. From the end of the first trimester to the child's "viability" – which the Court presumed to be no earlier than 26 weeks – the state can regulate abortion practice only in ways reasonably related to advancing the mother's health. In the final trimester, the state – in the interest of protecting the "potential life" of the child – can regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary to preserve the mother's "life or health." Health (see point 8 below) is the exception that swallows the rule. Pre-decision memoranda among members of the Roe Court acknowledged the serious flaw in establishing arbitrary, rigid time frames. Justice Blackmun himself admitted it was arbitrary.14 A reply memorandum from Justice Potter Stewart stated: One of my concerns with your opinion as presently written is ... in its fixing of the end of the first trimester as the critical point for valid state action. ... I wonder about the desirability of the dicta being quite so inflexibly "legislative." My present inclination would be to allow the States more latitude to make policy judgments. ..."15 Geoffrey R. Stone, a law clerk to Justice Brennan when Roe was decided, was recently quoted as saying: "Everyone in the Supreme Court, all the justices, all the law clerks knew it was 'legislative' or 'arbitrary.'"16 Justices O'Connor, White and Rehnquist denounced the arbitrary trimester framework in O'Connor's dissenting opinion in Akron: [There] is no justification in law or logic for the trimester framework adopted in Roe and employed by the Court today. ... [That] framework is clearly an unworkable means of balancing the fundamental right and the compelling state interests that are indisputably implicated. The majority opinion of Justice Rehnquist in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services states: The key elements of the Roe framework – trimesters and viability – are not found in the text of the Constitution or in any place else one would expect to find a constitutional principle. ... the result has been a web of legal rules that have become increasingly intricate, resembling a code of regulations rather than a body of constitutional doctrine. As Justice White has put it, the trimester framework has left this Court to serve as the country's "ex officio medical board with powers to approve or disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States."   8. What Roe gives, Doe takes away. Many Americans believe that abortion is legal only in the first trimester (or first and second trimester). Many pollsters and media outlets continue to characterize Roe v. Wade as the case which "legalized abortions in the first three months after conception."17 In a recent television appearance, NOW's former president Patricia Ireland falsely claimed that "thirty-six states outlaw abortion in the third trimester." As noted above, under Roe state laws banning late-term abortions must contain a "health" exception. Health is defined in Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, as including "all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." This definition negates the state's interest in protecting the child, and results in abortion on request throughout all nine months of pregnancy. The fact that the Court buries its improbably broad definition of health in the largely unread opinion in Doe v. Bolton makes it no less devastating.   9. The Court describes the right to abortion as "fundamental." The Supreme Court has found certain rights fundamental. Expressed or implied in the Constitution, they are considered "deeply rooted in the history and traditions" of the American people or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," such as the free exercise of religion, the right to marry, the right to a fair trial and equal protection. A state law infringing on a fundamental right is reviewed under a rigorous "strict scrutiny" standard. In effect, there is a presumption against constitutionality. The Roe Court claims abortion is fundamental on the ground that it is lurking in the penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment, along with privacy rights like contraceptive use. It's ludicrous to claim abortion is deeply rooted in American history or traditions or that our governmental system of "ordered liberty" implicitly demands the rights to destroy one's child, but it was an effective way to foreclose state regulations of abortion. The strict scrutiny test was later abandoned in Casey.   10. Despite the rigid specificity of the trimester framework, the opinion gives little guidance to states concerning the permissible scope of abortion regulation Abortion decisions that followed Roe chronologically have not followed Roe jurisprudentially. Many decisions have five separate opinions filed, often with no more than three justices concurring on most points. Eight separate opinions were filed in Stenberg v. Carhart (which effectively nullified laws in over two dozen states banning partial-birth abortion). The 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey could have resulted in Roe's reversal. The Casey Joint Opinion (there being no majority opinion) comes close to conceding that Roe was wrongly decided: We do not need to say whether each of us, had we been Members of the Court when the valuation of the state interest came before it as an original matter, would have concluded, as the Roe Court did, that its weight is insufficient to justify a ban on abortions prior to viability even when it is subject to certain exceptions. The matter is not before us in the first instance, and, coming as it does after nearly 20 years of litigation in Roe's wake we are satisfied that the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe's resolution of the issue, but the precedential force that must be accorded to its holding. Instead they jettisoned Roe's trimester framework and standard of legislative review, but kept Roe alive: Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Casey, in which he is joined in part by Justices White, Scalia and Thomas states: Roe decided that a woman had a fundamental right to an abortion. The joint opinion rejects that view. Roe decided that abortion regulations were to be subjected to "strict scrutiny," and could be justified only in the light of "compelling state interests." The joint opinion rejects that view. ... Roe analyzed abortion regulation under a rigid trimester framework, a framework that has guided this Court's decision-making for 19 years. The joint opinion rejects that framework. ... Whatever the "central holding" of Roe that is left after the joint opinion finishe[d] ... Roe continues to exist, but only in the way a storefront on a western movie set exists: a mere facade to give the illusion of reality. And later in that dissent: Roe v. Wade stands as a sort of judicial Potemkin village, which may be pointed out to passers-by as a monument to the importance of adhering to precedent. But behind the façade, an entirely new method of analysis, without any roots in constitutional law, is imported to decide the constitutionality of state laws regulating abortion. Neither stare decisis nor "legitimacy" are truly served by such an effort. Roe makes no legal sense whatsoever. It is Doe v. Bolton, handed down the same day, and 'interlocked' by Justice Blackmun, it is Doe that explicitly authorizes medical killing, "without the shadow of possible prosecution."

First Draft Episode #221: Tahereh Mafi and Sarah Enni open the mailbag! Tahereh Mafi is the New York Times bestselling and National Book Award nominated author of the Shatter Me series, as well as A Very Large Expanse of Sea. The final book in her Shatter Me series, IMAGINE ME, hits shelves March 31, 2020. Watch this episode as a video on the First Draft podcast IGTV channel on Instagram! Links and Topics Mentioned In This Episode I mention the previous mailbag episode (check out the podcast version here), which featured Zan Romanoff, author of A Song to Take the World Apart, Grace and the Fever, and the forthcoming Look (listen to her episode of First Draft here). I cite Morgan Matson as my hero for writing lengthy contemporary young adult novels, like the New York Times bestselling The Unexpected Everything and Save the Date (listen to Morgan’s First Draft interviews here and here)! I positively could not keep myself from mentioning The Four Tendencies again, Gretchen Rubin’s metric for analyzing how you (or others in your life) respond to expectations. Seriously, take the quiz already! Maurene Goo used Rilo Kiley lyrics before The Way You Make Me Feel in the epigraph because she got permission from the band A brief primer on how the Walt Disney Company has impacted IP law — though in 2024 that may be up, and Mickey Mouse could be in the public domain for the first time. Tahereh’s husband, Ransom Riggs—New York Times bestselling author of the Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children series (listen to his First Draft episode here - and heads up that the newest book in the series, The Conference of the Birds, is coming out January 14!)—has a very different writing style than she does. A marathon runner, rather than a sprinter. I reference one of the most famous phrases in the entire history of Supreme Court opinions: "I know it when I see it." The phrase appears in Justice Potter Stewart's concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, a pornography case decided by the Court in 1964. Room by Emma Donoghue features a child narrator, but is decidedly not a children’s book. When Tahereh wrote Furthermore, she was shocked to learn from her editor that she had actually written a middle grade novel, rather than a young adult novel Suzanne Collins is returning to fiction in the spring with a new Hunger Games novel, The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes. The Fault in Our Stars by John Green brought on a surge of contemporary YA fiction Microsoft Word, Scrivener, and Highland 2 are all great options for writing software   I want to hear from you! Have a question about writing or creativity for Sarah Enni or her guests to answer? To leave a voicemail, call (818) 533-1998. Subscribe To First Draft with Sarah Enni Every Tuesday, I speak to storytellers like Veronica Roth, author of Divergent; Linda Holmes, author and host of NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour podcast; Jonny Sun, internet superstar, illustrator of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Gmorning, Gnight! and author and illustrator of Everyone’s an Aliebn When Ur a Aliebn Too;  Michael Dante  DiMartino, co-creator of Avatar: The Last Airbender; John August, screenwriter of Big Fish, Charlie’s Angels, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory; or Rhett Miller, musician and frontman for The Old 97s. Together, we take deep dives on their careers and creative works. Don’t miss an episode! Subscribe in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. It’s free! Rate, Review, and Recommend How do you like the show? Please take a moment to rate and review First Draft with Sarah Enni in Apple Podcasts, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Your honest and positive review helps others discover the show -- so thank you! Is there someone you think would love this podcast as much as you do? Please share this episode on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, or via carrier pigeon (maybe try a text or e-mail, come to think of it). Just click the Share button at the bottom of this post! Thanks again!

What constitutes bad termination? In the words of Justice Potter Stewart, "I shall not today attempt to further define [it]... But I know it when I see it." In today's episode, R shares their story of termination that we can clearly know to be bad. But is it unethical? Ben and Carrie search for answers and discuss a pantheoretical framework for good termination. Thank you for listening. All reviews, ratings, Facebook likes, and feedback to soothe Ben's anxiety are greatly appreciated. Show Notes: Donate to Project Reunify Codes of Ethics on Termination in Psychotherapy and Counseling Comparing therapist and client perspectives on reasons for psychotherapy termination Do all therapists do that when saying goodbye? A study of commonalities in termination behaviors The Termination Checklist (International Center for Clinical Excellence) Very Bad Therapy: Website / Facebook

In the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall. This podcast does not mean that the producers of this podcast have an opinion or are taking one side over the other. It simply means that this is a recording found and so it is now an episode. if the counter arguments are located they to will be aired. if proper broadcasting requirements are met. Thank you Public Access America PublicAccessPod Productions Footage downloaded and edited by PublicAccessPod Podcast Link Review us Stitcher: http://goo.gl/XpKHWB Review us iTunes: https://goo.gl/soc7KG Subscribe GooglePlay: https://goo.gl/gPEDbf YouTube https://goo.gl/xrKbJb

Amy has just discovered Vaporwave because of Mitchell’s mild case of love for the genre (it is probably more than mild.) Jacques requested it and E&E went with it in their first ever exploration of a single genre. It has a wide range of sounds within the genre and Amy says “like” quite a bit and confuses Justice Clarence Thomas with Justice Potter Stewart. Voicemail: 731-400-BUDS(2837) Email: eandepod@gmail.com

Bio  Henry T. Greely (@HankGreelyLSJU) is the Director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences; and Professor (by courtesy) of Genetics at the Stanford School of Medicine. He is also the Chair of Stanford's Steering Committee of the Center for Biomedical Ethics and the Director of Stanford's Program in Neuroscience and Society. Hank specializes in the ethical, legal, and social implications of new biomedical technologies, particularly those related to neuroscience, genetics, or stem cell research. He frequently serves as an advisor on California, national, and international policy issues. He is chair of California's Human Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee, a member of the Advisory Council of the NIH's National Institute for General Medical Sciences, a member of the Committee on Science, Technology, and Law of the National Academies, a member of the Neuroscience Forum of the Institute of Medicine, and served from 2007-2010 as co-director of the Law and Neuroscience Project, funded by the MacArthur Foundation. In 2007 Professor Greely was elected a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty in 1985, Greely was a partner at Tuttle & Taylor, served as a staff assistant to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, and as special assistant to the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense. He served as a law clerk to Justice Potter Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court and to Judge John Minor Wisdom of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He received Stanford University's Richard W. Lyman Prize in 2013.  Resources Stanford University Center for Law and the Biosciences War & Peace by Leo Tolstoy News Roundup N.Y. Times: Data Firm with links to Trump Campaign Exploited Facebook User Data  The New York Times dropped a bombshell story on Sunday and it has sent Washington and the stock market into a tailspin. The Dow dropped more than 1%, or by over 300 points, Facebook lost some $37 billion in value, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg saw his net worth decline by $5 billion. In addition,  Congressional leaders including Dianne Feinstein, Amy Klobuchar, John Thune, Adam Schiff, Mark Warner and Chuck Grassley are just HAMMERING Facebook at this moment and I wouldn't want to be in Zukerberg's shoes right now. The New York Times investigation alleges that a London-based company called Cambridge Analytica, with deep ties to Republican donor Robert Mercer, who invested $15 million in Cambridge Analytica, Mercer's daughter who's on the board of Cambridge Analytica, and none other than Steve Bannon, who allegedly named the company, exploited Facebook user data to influence the 2016 presidential election to target users based on their psychographic profiles—things like religion, life statisfaction, conscientiousness, and extraversion. Of course, it's illegal under U.S. election laws to employ foreigners in political campaigns. So, The Times alleges, Cambridge set up a shell corporation and hired a Russian-American front man, Alexander Kogan, who was a researcher with the University of Cambridge. Kogan then created a Facebook personality quiz that paid users to share their private information and download the app. Some 50 million users were affected. This quiz allegedly scraped their information, and Cambridge Analytica gave him $800,000 for it. A former Cambridge Analytica employee, Christopher Wylie, was the whistleblower in all this. Facebook says it would suspend working with Cambridge Analytica and conduct an internal review, including the hiring of a forensics team. Channel 4 News London reported in an internal investigation that Cambridge Analytica uses bribes and sex workers to entrap politicians. This is just the surface. Summarizing every detail of this is way above my pay grade. But it's just layers upon layers of deception and bullshittery. You can find summaries and analysis in The New York Times, Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. Trump administration issues new Russian sanctions on same day it reveals attacks on power plants Russia has stepped its capability with regard to cyberattacks on nuclear power plans, water, and electric systems, according to U.S. intelligence officials.The country now has moved from having the ability to surveil American power plants to having the ability to disable them anytime tensions escalate, and in a similar manner with which it disabled power in the Ukraine on two separate occasions in 2015 and 2016. The accusations came on the same day the Trump administration imposed new economic sanctions against Russia for its role in hacking the 2016 presidential election. Sanctions include freezing assets and prohibiting business deals from being transacted with two-dozen Russian individuals and entities. Nicole Perlroth and David Sanger report in the New York Times and Jonathan Easley reports in The Hill. First pedestrian casualty for self-driving cars Ali Breland reports in the Hill that a 49-year-old woman was struck and killed by an Uber fully self-driving car while she was walking through a crosswalk in Tempe, Arizona on Monday. The state attracted Uber because of its deregulatory approach to self-driving vehicle technology. The National Transportation Safety Board announced that it would be investigating. Uber has suspended its testing of self-driving cars in Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto. Walmart whistleblower sues after reporting e-commerce cheating A former Walmart executive has sued the world's largest retailer for firing him after he reported that the company was fudging its e-commerce results to show better numbers against Amazon. The complaint alleges that Walmart mislabeled products and deliberately failed to properly process returns in order to inflate sales numbers. Jonathan Stempel and Nandita Bose report in Reuters. Japanese regulators raid Amazon Ali Breland reports for the Hill that Japanese regulators raided Amazon last week. Japan's Fair Trade Commission may be concerned about Amazon's alleged practice of strong-arming suppliers to show cheaper prices on Amazon as compared to their competitors in Japan. Amazon recalls portable chargers  Amazon is recalling 260,000 AmazonBasics portable chargers after it received 53 complaints that they were overheating. One person reported being burned by the charger's battery acid. Four others reported fire and smoke. Kate Gibson reports for CBS. Google introduces wheelchair accessibility in Maps Google released Thursday a new wheelchair-friendly maps navigation feature. The feature will include accessible routes and information on accommodations in public transportation. Josh Delk reports in the Hill. Google bans Bitcoin ads  Google has decided to ban ads for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Facebook had previously initiated a similar ban. The company did not state why it decided to make the policy change. However, it comes as many in the policy community have expressed concern that online ads could be used to promote cryptocurrency scams. Daisuke Wakabayashi reports for The New York Times. Microsoft logs 200 discrimination, harassment complaints over 6 years Ali Breland reported in the Hill that, according to court filings filed by women suing Microsoft for gender pay and promotion discrimination, women working at the company lodged some 238 gender discrimination or harassment complaints between 2010 and 2016. Of the 118 that were gender discrimination complaints, Microsoft found only one to be “founded”. According to Natasha Bach at Fortune, Microsoft has changed the way it addresses harassment complaints by banning forced arbitration agreements. The question, of course, is whether that's enough. Conservative forms bogus company to lure tech workers Finally, Gizmodo reports that James O'Keefe—the undercover conservative activist— created a fake company and sent in employees of his Project Veritas organization to pose as recruiters. These fake recruiters then reached out to employees at major tech companies like Twitter to interview them and record their responses. In one case, an employee stated that Twitter hired few conservatives and secretly hid content posted by conservative users in a practice called “shadow banning”. Project Veritas then allegedly posted the videos as evidence of an anti-conservative bias at Twitter. Twitter has denied in Congressional testimony that it engages in shadow banning activities.

In the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall. This podcast does not mean that the producers of this podcast have an opinion or are taking one side over the other. It simply means that this is a recording found and so it is now an episode. if the counter arguments are located they to will be aired. if proper broadcasting requirements are met. Thank you The reargument can be heard here: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/334/reargument.mp3