I also want to introduce the audience to Mindy Schwartz. You may see Mindy's picture. Mindy is the co-director and co-organizer of this year's series on medical history and ethics. And it's wonderful to have Mindy with us. Let me welcome everybody to our session today as part of the 40th annual lecture series that we have done since 1981. Our speaker today is Thomas Jacques Murray, OC, which stands for Order of Canada, and MD. Dr. Murray is an accomplished Canadian neurologist, medical historian, author, researcher, and internationally renowned multiple sclerosis expert. He revitalized how medicine is taught at the Maritimes Medical School. He received his early education at Pictu Academy in Canada. Dr. Murray then studied pre-med at St. Francis Xavier University before graduating from Delhousie Medical School in 1963. After two years of general practice, followed by postgraduate studies in Halifax and in London and in Toronto, Dr. Murray joined Delhousie Medical School staff at the age of 31, jointly accepting an appointment as a neurology fellow at the Victoria General Hospital. In the decades that followed, Dr. Murray became a national and international leader in multiple sclerosis research. With more than 400 publications to his credit, he significantly increased our understanding and treatment of the autoimmune disease that affects more than 100,000 Canadians. He founded and directed Delhousie's multiple sclerosis research unit and became a founder and president of the International Consortium of MS Multiple Sclerosis Centers. His interest in MS also led to the development of Canada's first MS patient database. In 1985, after heading the Department of Neurology, Dr. Murray was named Delhousie's eighth dean of medicine. He transformed the school and medical education more broadly, leading the charge to replace traditional lectures with problem-based cases and introducing social accountability and affirmative action as key concepts in the curriculum. His most lasting accomplishment as dean of the school may be the creation of Delhousie's world-renowned Medical Humanities program. It allows students to participate in disciplines like music, dance, creative writing, history, and visual arts while completing their medical degrees. We need science, Dr. Murray once said, continuing, but science also needs the humanities to understand human values and the human questions and the human decisions that must guide our use of science. The end of the quote. Dr. Murray served, this is very important, as the first Canadian physician who was the chair of the American College of Physicians, and which in fact he was for two terms, and remains a member of the Order of Canada, the Order of Nova Scotia, an inductee in the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame. He's won five honorary degrees and many awards, recognizing his research achievements, but it's his vision for treating and training the whole person, body, mind, and spirit, that makes Dr. Murray one of Delhousie Medical School's most inspiring personalities. Today, Dr. Murray is going to present a paper to us entitled, it's a paper that attracts me enormously, entitled, what to do if the president is incapacitated, the history of the 25th Amendment. I suspect, Dr. Murray, that relates to the university, to the United States rather than to Canada. Yes. Please, it's all yours. Well, thank you very much. Now I'm going to start with this idea of what you do when a national leader such as a president becomes ill, but remains in power. And it's not just a US problem. It's a problem for every country, but the US is actually the only country that did anything to address this important question. It's not surprising that world leaders become ill while they're in power. Many of them achieve their positions later in their lives. And there are lots of examples of this occurring in most countries. These are national leaders, just as an example, who had strokes but stayed in power. I arranged a symposium in Washington some years ago on the issue of illness in national leaders. And one of the speakers that I invited was Leslie Payeson, who spent his career working for the CIA. And his job and his unit surveyed the health, mental health, and physical health of all the leaders in the world. And he indicated in a slide, it's interesting. It's the only time I've had a speaker who had to get his slides cleared by the CIA before the meeting. But what he indicated was on average, six leaders in the world will suffer an assassination each year or an attempt, and one will be successful. Two leaders per year will have a heart attack while they're in power. One to two leaders per year will be diagnosed with cancer. One leader per year will suffer a stroke. So you can see that illness in national leaders is a significant issue. It is a particular issue for the US. These are presidents who had periods of incapacitation while in power. Now, some of them were very short and some of them were, as we'll see, quite prolonged. So it is an important issue to look at. I'm going to be talking to the fellows at the center after this talk is over. And there are a few ethical issues that might be considered as we go along. One is, what is the right of the president to privacy? What is the public or the political right for them to know about the health of the president? And the president's physician, what is his duty? Is it only to the patient? Or does he have a role and a duty in relation to the country? And there are ethical issues that surround physicians who comment on the health of the president. And that's referred to as the Goldwater Rule. And we'll come back to that. Now, why bother to talk about the 25th Amendment? Well, periods of incapacitation, as I've shown, are common in US presidents. It's important to understand the process and the difficulty in applying it. And you should understand something about the 25th Amendment and its background, because it's constantly in the news and it's in a lot of TV plots. In the past year, these are just screenshots from the television showing that the 25th Amendment is repeatedly being discussed and applied. Now, there was a vote to use the 25th Amendment, but the vote did not come to fruition because Vice President Pence, who is responsible for evoking the 25th Amendment, refused to do so. If you watch television, all of these shows have had an episode, at least one episode, involving the 25th Amendment. Now, what I'm going to talk about is what the Constitution says about presidential disability, examples of the presidential incapacity, the history of the 25th Amendment and how it came about, a working group on presidential disability, which I sat on, and then we'll talk a little about the Goldwater Rule. Now, at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they came together. They thought they were going to redraft the Articles of Confederation, but it became the drafting of the American Constitution and presidential disability was discussed at that meeting. But a very important question was raised by John Dickinson from Delaware. When they were discussing presidential disability, he stood up and said, what is the extent of the term disability and who's to be the judge of it? In other words, how do you define disability in a president and who makes that judgment? That will continue to be an unclear issue for 180 years. Now, what the Constitutional Convention said was on removal of the president, death, resignation or inability, power will pass to the vice president. Both president and vice president, or if both are removed, then the Congress will decide who is the president. But it was unclear from that who makes these decisions. It also was unclear what act means. If you act as a president, are you president? Are you an acting president or what? So let's look a little at some of the illnesses that have occurred and problems that have occurred and why in fact, presidents were not in fact, removed from power when they were ill or incapacitated. And this is the list that I showed earlier of all of the presidents who had periods of incapacitation while they were president. And some of them were somewhat difficult. William Harrison died when he was in office, but the vice president, John Tyler, got involved in the discussion of, is he an acting president or is he the president? He insisted before taking that job that he was the president. And so the others that followed that also insisted that they were not acting, they in fact were presidents. President Garfield's assassination were more complicated. He survived two and a half months after he was shot. The vice president Chester Arthur, however, refused to take power. And so the president remained in position of power although was unable to make any decisions or act responsibly. So who was in charge? It was not clear at the time. He would not take over the position of an acting president because he said that all his decisions would be questioned if the president recovered. Probably the best documented was Woodrow Wilson because in the last 17 months of his presidency, he was in an upstairs bedroom of the White House most of the time hemiplegic dysphasic and unable to really take the decisions that he should. The vice president was reluctant to act. And so the president remained in his position. Now, most of the decisions we now believe were made by his wife Edith. And my wife thinks that's the perfectly reasonable way to proceed. But this is not what the country expected. There was another question at the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency of whether or not he had Alzheimer's disease. Now his physicians denied that but recognized and diagnosed Alzheimer's after he left the presidency. But many people questioned at the time if Nancy Reagan was acting like Edith Wilson. But she said, no, she was giving them the answers to questions just because this hearing was not good. You may wonder if there were ever healthy presidents. Well, there were. Ford was, Carter was, Obama was, Clinton was. So let's talk about the 25th amendment because it tried to address all of these difficulties. The person who saw the problem was Eisenhower. Now he realized that during the time he was president, he had three times that he was ill. He had a heart attack in 1955. He had intestinal obstruction and surgery in 56 and 57. He had a stroke. Now at the time, the physicians not only tended to lie about the seriousness of his problems but they even lied to him. He saw the problem and he said, now through each of these instances, there was some gap that could have been significant in which I was a disabled individual. And you have to remember, this is the Cold War. I think there should always be someone at the helm that knows he has the right duty and responsibility of making a decision. Now after Kennedy was assassinated, Eisenhower of course was then in retirement. But he wrote to the junior senator, Birch Bayh, the chairman of the committee on constitutional amendments and said, there should be a clarifying amendment on presidential inability. Well, he did form, Bayh did form a committee. And in 1965, they presented this. It took 18 months to get it ratified by the states but in 1967, Johnson announced the approval of the 25th amendment. And the 25th amendment has a number of important sections. The section three says there can be a voluntary passage of power to an acting president. The president says then, when he's well again. Now that would be an example of something that would occur if the president was gonna have anesthesia for an operation, he could voluntary pass the power to a vice president. And then when he's recovered and feeling well again, he says that the 25th amendment is now over. But there's a section four. And this is the one that tends to vote most of the controversy. Section four says, well, if the president is unable to do that voluntarily, then involuntary passage of power to an acting president can occur when the president is incapacitated. The vice president and a majority of the cabinet, 15 of them or a body determined by Congress can inform the house and Senate that they agree on incapacity. The vice president then automatically becomes in charge. The president, if he disagrees and says, no, I'm not disabled or incapacitated. The vice president and the cabinet have four days to convince the house and Senate. And if they can't, then two thirds or two thirds of the house have to agree. And if they can't agree, then power goes back to the president. It's difficult. It's very difficult to evoke the 25th amendment. A lot of discussion in the past year about it, but I don't think people realize how difficult it is to enact. Couple of examples, 1981, Reagan was shot. He's more seriously ill than the public knew at the time. And that's been published since. He had immediate surgery, so article three couldn't be used. And article four should have been used, but vice president Bush was on an airplane. In 1985, there is some controversy about whether it was used when Reagan had colon cancer operation because there were apparently two letters. And Reagan later denied that the 25th amendment had been used. So up to this time, the 25th amendment had never been used. So a working group on presidential disability was then formed. In May 1994, President Carter invited the American Academy of Neurology to establish a working group on presidential disability. And I had been vice president of the American Academy of Neurology. And became involved with this. And this is the later report. And on the right, there is a very thick book of all of the discussions, committee meetings, and papers that were presented. Now, the working group was very interesting. I'm sure all of you have been on committees. And committees aren't always interesting, but this one was fascinating. On the committee were all presidential historians. All presidential physician back to Johnson. Those who had published on illness in presidents. And I had published on illness in other national leaders. And there were two senior representatives in the Washington press. And interestingly, two original committee members from the 25th amendment in 1965. And that's Birch Bay and John Freerich. And each meeting, we had a different president attend. Now, at that time, as the chairman mentioned, I was chairman of the American College of Physicians. And my office was just off to the right of this picture, looking down on Independence Mall, where the first discussions about presidential disability occurred. And also the American College of Physicians helped fund this working group. So as chairman, I was asked to be a member of it. So we were gonna look at section three about the voluntary passage, section four, the involuntary passage, and all of the difficulties in employing the process. Now, at one of the meetings at a coffee break, I talked to Birch Bay and said, you know, the 25th amendment that you and your committee drafted is very difficult to evoke. And he said, we did that on purpose. He said, it should be very difficult to remove a president. The 25th amendment protects the president and the will of the people who elected the president. So it's not a coincidence that the 25th amendment is very difficult to employ. In our committee, we had subcommittees. One was on balancing the issue of public disclosure with the president's presidential confidentiality. Also identifying criteria for disability and impairment. How do we determine what those really are? It was a subcommittee on advantages and disadvantages having a formalized contingency plan for the disability. We also looked at the position of the physician to the president and the White House medical unit and how their responsibilities play out in the 25th amendment. And I was on that subcommittee. And then we also even looked at the role of the president's spouse in all of this. So let's look a little at the physician to the president. One of the questions is how much does the public have a right to know about the president's health? Does he not just have all of the rights of privacy of any other citizen? Or does the public who always wants to know have a right? Does the media have a right? Because they demand answers to all these questions. And the other question is whether the president's physician has a duty to society as well as to his patient because it becomes a bit of a conflict of interest. So we know that politicians cover up their illness and they do so with good reason. And the reason is the public wants to know that there are good examples that show when they know they won't vote for the person who has any signs of weakness.  Now Hula Tang, a British physician did a study some years ago and published a book on what the leaders to national leaders or the physicians to national leaders and how well they function. And he noticed that often they're untrained for their responsibilities because the president for instance can call anybody to be his physician. And that could be a friend from his hometown. But their responsibilities are major. They become in charge of the White House Medical Unit. And it's a very complex issue when the president moves because the White House Medical Unit is responsible for the health, not only of everybody in the White House when they're there but when the president travels. We also know that physicians to national leaders often lie. They'll often say the leader is healthy when he's not. We know that they often act because they wanna please the leader and they really like their job. They do not recognize that they have a duty to society. They feel they have a duty only to their patient who happens to be a leader. The advice they give, and this was a problem with the physicians to Eisenhower, their advice is often political, not the best medical advice. Now, one of the reasons that they don't act in any other way is that they have no guidelines. There's no guideline to say how the physician should act other than caring for his patient. We also know, and there are very good examples of this that the physician can be manipulated by the leader and one of the difficulties, of course, is that a president and other national leaders, they're used to giving orders, not taking them. And so they very often do not listen to their physicians. Now, here's an interesting example. When FDR died, his physician said it came out of a clear sky. He said, there was no indication of imminent danger. But others had noticed that in his last years, FDR looked very ill. At Yalta, for instance, both Churchill and Stalin commented on how unwell he looked. Now, when FDR was examined by consultants and physicians, they were told to keep no notes and no records. We know that he was admitted to Walter Reed over 30 times, often under other names, and all those records have disappeared. But one of the cardiologists, Dr. Brun, did keep a record of his blood pressure. And this shows, if you look down the lower part, during the time of World War II, his blood pressure was going from 226 over 118 in 1945, just before his death, his blood pressure was 300 over 190. Now, not many of us have ever seen a blood pressure like that. So what is clear is did not come out of a blue sky. So it's another example of a physician continually telling fibs to the public about the health of presidents. And the media made a big issue out of the recent discussions of the health of the president when Dr. Sean Connolly repeatedly went in front of the media, but evaded most of the questions, was very cheerful about how well President Trump was and later admitted that he was just trying to keep things on a positive light. Now, one way I said more presidents have died of assassination and diseases while in office. So the president's health is much more about the secret service than about the president's physician. So what did our committee say? Well, they said, we're not gonna change the 25th amendment, maintain the 25th amendment, no additional amendments, but there needs to be guidelines for how it's applied. The other important recommendation was that the 25th amendment should be used on every occasion. So it's not unusual and that people just get used to the idea that anytime the president is unable to make decisions for an hour or two or while under anesthesia or whatever, you just apply the 25th amendment and people get used to it and don't get upset about it. There should be a formal contingency plan agreed to before inauguration about how things would be carried out if that was necessary. Now this will turn out to be a bit controversial, but I thought it was a really important recommendation of the committee. People wondered, in the case of incapacity, why don't they just ask the doctors? Well, if you thought that the doctors were gonna say, well, the president is incapacity, nobody is ever gonna give the doctors that kind of power. What they said was, let the doctors determine the presidential impairment. They can say, what is wrong with the president? It is the politicians who decide if the president is unable to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the presidency. So they separated the two. They said that the doctors can determine what impairments are there. They passed that information to the politicians, but the politicians then decide on whether he can continue to be president. They also suggested that the president should appoint a senior physician to the White House who's responsible for the president's health and for the White House military medical unit and is the principal source of information on any impairment in the president. The senior physician should make use, however, of the best consultants available at any time. They did discuss a great length, the difficulty of the patient's right, the president's right to privacy and the public's right to know. And then I can tell you that they did not make any firm decisions on these. It's just too complex for them to deal with. They did decide, however, that information about the president's health, it has to be determined by the president that the physician will talk, but if he does, he's the principal source of information about the president's health. Shouldn't come from other people. And they recommended that 25th Amendment is a remarkable, flexible mechanism for determining presidential disability and implementing the transfer of power. And this power should be widely known and destigmatized because you know, presidents didn't want to have a period in which they weren't president during their term. So they wanted to destigmatize the whole process and make it a normal action. Now, not always agreed. We had a minority opinion in our report on the two-stage process. Now I said that I rather like the idea of separating that, but John Freerick, Joel Goldstein and Birch Bay gave a minority opinion and we should listen to that because John Freerick and Birch Bay were members of the original drafting of the 25th Amendment. They said the constitution stipulates only one determination. It determines presidential ability as a political process. It doesn't recognize a medical process. Now, the politicians can get the best medical opinions, but the process is a political one. So that was the minority report there. And there was another minority report. And these are heavy hitters too, because these are all individuals who have written books about illness in presidents and the history of illness in presidents. They said that the president's physician is in the conflict of interest. So he should act for the president, but there should be a consulting commission on presidential health to provide advice to the president's physician. So this is an independent group established by Congress and free from presidential pressure. So Congress would appoint a group of outstanding individuals who would then act on oversight of the presidential health. Now, many of us don't like this idea, but it's been raised in other countries as well. I think, at least my personal opinion is that it puts this group in conflict with the president's physician and the president. That they would see this as a conflict to them and would attempt to cover up. We did present this report to President Clinton. Now, it has been used since, so it is working and it is being destigmatized. Twice it was used by George W. Bush. It was raised in the past year in discussion of President Trump. There are two ways to remove a sitting president. One is by the 25th Amendment and the other is by impeachment. And in January, after the riot on Capitol Hill, the issue was raised at that time and individuals at the time said that either they apply the 25th Amendment or apply impeachment. And that got into the conflicts that occurred in January of this past year. And these are some of the discussions that went on over television at the time, because it was a very heated period in political life in Washington. Now Nancy Pelosi, this is reflecting back on the concept that there should be an independent group overseeing the president's health, established a commission on presidential capacity to discharge the powers and duties of the office. So this is an independent oversight commission to assess inability. Now it didn't get anywhere, but it has not dead and it probably will be a continuing discussion. Now at that time in the past year, there were a lot of professional comments by physicians, psychologists and psychiatrists on the president's health. Now what we have to reflect on is what is called the Goldwater Rule. And the Goldwater Rule is in section seven of the American Psychiatric Association Principles of Ethics. And it says it's unethical to give a diagnosis for a public figure you have not examined. But there are a number of examples. And the one that got, I think the most publicity was his niece, Mary Trump, who is a psychologist. And she said he displays narcissistic personality behavior and that he's dangerous. And that's the whole tenor of the book. Now, does she have a right to do that even though she's part of the family? Well, she may be part of the family, but Trump is not her patient. John Gartner, a psychologist, advocated using the 25th Amendment because he said Trump had malignant narcissism which is a psychiatric condition that makes you evil. It combines narcissism, paranoia and psychopathy. And before the impeachment, more than 800 mental health professionals signed a letter to Congress, warning that ignoring the psychological aspects of humiliating Trump could lead to catastrophic outcomes. Again, here we have 800 mental health professionals commenting on the health of the president who is not their patient. They also use this outline which you can download from the internet which is the definition of malignant narcissism and you can just check off the boxes. And you might, for a matter of interest, download it sometime and see if it actually applies. Now, the psychiatrist also wrote a book. 27 psychiatrists gave papers in a book called The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. Now, the question is, are they breaking the Goldwater Rule? Trump is not their patient, but they argue they're assessing dangerousness, not making a diagnosis. Now look, the Goldwater Rule, just as a matter of historic interest, goes back to the time that Goldwater was running for president. And there was a button that every Goldwater supporter had which said, in your heart, you know he's right. And so a contrary one was put up which said, in your guts, you know he's nuts. And Fact Magazine did a survey of 1189 psychiatrists in the United States and asked if Goldwater was psychologically capable of being president. And they said, no. Now, Fact Magazine, you have to understand that those psychiatrists weren't coming forward and saying that Goldwater was not competent. Fact Magazine did it as a poll. So they were asking if the president, or if Goldwater was capable of being president. So it's a different kind of answer. And Goldwater sued the magazine and he was successful. And it was after that that the American Psychiatric Association, very upset about all of that, put section seven in their Principles of Ethics, saying it's unethical to give a diagnosis of a public figure you have not examined. So that's now the Goldwater Rule. Now the Goldwater Rule has some critics. Some oppose the Goldwater Rules arguing that psychiatrists have a social responsibility. And diagnosis is also about observed behavior, not just interview. And they apply what they say is the Tarasoff Rule, which says a therapist has a responsibility to warn of serious danger to another. They'd have to make the argument though that they're a therapist, but the person they're talking about isn't their patient. So the working group, we published this booklet and we presented this to President Clinton. And the recommendations, as I mentioned, maintain the 25th Amendment, evoke 25th Amendment every time it's appropriate, have an agreed consignancy plan, have impairment as a medical decision, inability as a political decision, and the physician can talk about the president's health, but he can't lie. Well, I hope this little overview of whether it has been an interesting period explains why the application of the 25th Amendment is very complex and why, as Senator Beye said, it's supposed to be difficult. So the discussion is not over. The discussion of the 25th Amendment oversight the presidential's health, the right to information about the health of the president. These discussions are going to continue. So the story is not over, but my talk is. Thank you very much. These are a couple of my Christmas tree decorations from the time at the White House. Thank you so much. That was wonderful talk. Mindy, are you there? You bet, right here. Do you want to handle the questions? I'll be happy to handle the questions and also say a few words. I would love questions here because one of the things, and Jack, I'm sure you know this, I'm a Sherlock Holmes fan, and Conan Doyle said when physicians go wrong, they're the worst of criminals. They have nerve in all the knowledge. And so one of the interesting, you talked a little bit about extreme narcissism, but I'm also interested in a further talk about what's going on. And the other interesting over thing is there's a bunch of political leaders who are physicians. Isn't the head of Syria an ophthalmologist? I think so, and I think there was one person in Congo or something who was also a doctor. So there's been a bunch of political leaders who have also been physicians, so that's an interesting overlap. Another historian commented once that physicians often get involved in politics, but they seldom rise to leadership. And he said, and it's a good thing they do. Absolutely. Anybody have any questions or want to continue this conversation? I think, first of all, I want to thank you. I think it's terrific. And I'm glad you highlighted, I had no idea that you were on that commission and that was just fortuitous here that you would give a good talk on an interesting topic. So I'm showing all my cards, but I just think it's really fascinating how, and the previous histories of the presidents, like I'm very fascinated by, do we know if Reagan had Alzheimer's during his presidency? Is there more data? What I can tell you is that his physicians were on our committee and they say no. Okay. But he was diagnosed after, however, there was a lot of comment during his presidency. And so that we, whether you feel that it's another example of physicians, perhaps giving a better light on their patient or not is still up for discussion. Yeah, you mentioned another thing I want to bring, that was interesting. I read a little bit about the history of FDR, which is fascinating on many levels. And his, just like you said, you didn't really need an expert. I think his early physician was an ENT doc before he got broomed. That's right. Famous article on him. But the other thing is as hard in modern times to appreciate the level of censorship that has been gone on in previous generations at different times. I mean, I remember learning that Wilson never mentioned influenza. He never talked about it. I mean, pandemic of worldwide catastrophe. We hear, we're watching CNN and we're watching the numbers day by day. It is hard for us to fathom the leader of the free world and such an important person, never mentioning the disease that we use as kind of the benchmark of all subsequent pandemics. I just think it's absolutely fascinating. That's right. Anybody else have any interesting either comments or ideas? Hey, Jack, Tony reader from Neurology. Yeah. Do you think that leaders should take a test online, artificial intelligence or something every day or week to prove their fit? Well, you know, people have suggested that, but most of the discussion has been, we don't require that of anybody else except pilots. Right, right. And there's always been an objection to that kind of intrusion. But people have repeatedly raised this idea that leaders should have regular assessments. Now, one of the things you'll notice is that presidents do that. In other words, they'll have a battery of tests every so often, but you will only hear about it if the tests are normal. And so, and you may remember, there was a competing Dole and Clinton, I think, were competing with their cholesterol levels and blood pressure and that sort of thing. That's because they were normal. They're not gonna reveal anything if their tests aren't normal. The other thing about that is just a minor thing. And that is that often they get over tested. They don't follow the recommendations that we would have for anyone else who was 60 or whatever. Can I just take another thread since nobody seems to be volunteering and I have a million questions. You raised the issue of presidential wives kind of surreptitiously. And one of my friends emailed me about, don't you think other wives would have done what Edith Wilson did? It is interesting the role of wives, presidential wives both for good and for bad and for controversy. And I don't know, there's famous presidential wives like Lincoln's wife who suffered terribly and was also vilified. So I just think it's very interesting because a lot of politicians may have been successful because they had smart, motivated, accomplished, you know, efficacious women at their side and sometimes leading them. Well, I think that's right. And it's interesting that our first meeting, we had our first meeting was at the Carter Center. And Jimmy Carter actually discussed this issue. He was asked about, you know, do you think other wives would act like Edith Wilson? And he said, of course they would, you know, because they're all strong women and they're all intelligent and they're all very knowledgeable about the political process because they're part of that life. So he thought, yeah, that wouldn't be unusual at all. That's great. Anybody else wanna take advantage of one of the most interesting lectures we've had in a long time? I mean, I could go all afternoon. I think this is terrific. The other thing is that, Okay, wait a second. We gotta get Jay next, okay? Okay. No, Jack, you wanted to say something, but we're sorry. I'm just gonna say that the US is, you should be complimented because it's the only country that takes this seriously. And it's the only country that's really addressed it. But every country, I mean, there are lots of examples in Britain, Australia and Canada and elsewhere. None of them have really given any thought to it because they think that the parliamentary system that they use can easily deal with it. But actually it never deals with it well. So there are lots of other examples that are worth looking at as well. And Churchill was a real study about not only about his health, but about his attitude and treatment of his physicians. He would argue the president of the Royal College of Physicians out of his diagnosis. Yes, and my question was actually very similar. I was curious about other countries having this, having anything sort of similar and you're probably exactly right in countries that are not so executive centric as ours is, that's not so, this is, they might feel that's not so, not so similar. I'm curious if there's any, been any sort of development at sort of state levels for like say similar like equivalence for governors have there been any states that have thought about this kind of question? I don't know that, someone else may know. I was just curious about that. I don't know, it's a great question. We should see if we could find out. One of the things I should point out about this whole process that we didn't discuss very much. And that is that many of the examples, if you read about illness and national leaders are in lots of books and papers about this, they mostly talk about individuals who developed, who had strokes or heart attacks or whatever. The most difficult issue is mental problems. For instance, the most dangerous examples are leaders who are paranoid.  And so it's not the stroke or the heart attack or whatever, that's really the big issue. Cause they're quite obvious. The problem is when you have people like Stalin or EDMN or Hitler, even though some of them, particularly Hitler developed physical illness, but their problems were paranoia and other aspects that made them dangerous. And they're the most difficult to address and to judge. Take the floor. Yeah, it's not so much a question, but just based on what you just said, the observation that kind of had been sticking with me through this talk is that it's a particular and almost a different scenario when it's a question of mental incapacity. And with the 25th amendment because at the end of the day, the physicians who are examining and advising the president and the vice president and the cabinet and everybody who's making these decisions all have their own political biases and agendas. And so whereas if you're saying, okay, the president's had a stroke, you can look at a CT scan, you can look at an MRI, you can do a physical exam and look at their objective findings. If you think the president has cancer, you can get a biopsy and look for cell atypia, but we don't have any sort of objective criteria for, I mean, in psychiatry there are criteria, but a lot of it is so much, I think more related to the interpretation of the examiner. And so I almost wonder if there needs to be a different system for the assessment of incapacity. Just like, I believe it was, Dr. Reeder spoke up and said like an AI assessment. I think it's just a really unique and difficult thing to assess. Yes, that is the most difficult aspect. And in fact, at the present time, there's no answer. And one of the things about politicians is not in their interest to be examined. And then there's a whole nother issue about having more women leaders in office and raising the issue of people who develop postpartum illnesses, postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis. It just, there's a lot of other spinoffs on this conversation. Yes. Another issue that almost never gets discussed, but there are a number of examples in national leaders in alcoholism. Also in the post-war period, a number of national leaders, including in the US, were heavy users of amphetamines. Now, some of us are old enough to remember when amphetamines were not regarded as being dangerous. I mean, university students took it to stay up all night for studying for exams and truck drivers took it to stay on the road. And a lot of people were taking it for weight loss. And so amphetamines were not regarded as being that dangerous in the 50s and 60s. And a lot of national leaders to keep up with their schedule, we're taking heavy doses of amphetamines. The only one who admitted it, although we have records on some others, was Anthony Eden. And Anthony Eden later addressed the issue of why he mismanaged the Suez crisis as being the heavy doses of amphetamines that he was taking at the time. Yeah, and there's some interesting literature on the fact that the Germans used it. There's a book, Karla Kearns reminded me of this, but my husband read a book on the use of amphetamines as part of the whole, you know, Nazi program to really keep people up and, you know, do kind of terrible things they did. Hitler was getting a lot of amphetamines from his physicians, the ones he didn't shoot. Both, talking about difficulties of a national leader with his physician, both Stalin and Hitler often shot their physicians. Anyway, anybody else, or anybody? They're dramatic form of feedback. Yeah, all right. Anyway, this was terrific, Jack. I think it was a really engaging and high level discussion and so much food for thought. And I'll just check in with Mark, but I have a feeling you have a hand power before you meet with the fellows, but I wanna thank you on behalf of the McLean Center and Mark and myself and everybody who listened. That was terrific. And I'm so glad that you were able to come and share both your experience with us and also make us think in a way that I think few of us really thought before. So thank you so much. Thank you, it was a pleasure. Jack, thank you so much. I agree with everything that Mindy has just said. And it was quite an inspirational talk. I had heard of the 25th Amendment, but I never knew that it had come out in 1965 and that it had been analyzed and pursued for many years since then and that it had been approached, if not invoked, not infrequently. Quite amazing. But yeah, let's gather with the fellows at 1.30 and I hope the fellows will come on board with if possible with a few questions. We look forward to it. Thank you again so much. Thank you, bye-bye. Thanks Mindy, bye-bye.


Hey, we're looking for UX design interns. Oh, okay. I'm applying. Applying? Oh, wait. The requirements... So, we need someone that has over two years of work experience, a college degree, needs to master all the design tools, and you're going to be great at UI UX principles. Oh... Okay. I'll see you later.


Good morning folks Steve Rhodes coming to you live from the shores of a very sunny pleasant Delray Beach, Florida. Well, it's partly sunny right now. We got to all US indices basically all US indices trading the upside the Nasdaq 100 is down 50 cents out there. So we'll call that flat the Dallas flat. It's up two points. S&P's up five. Russell's up 14 7 tenths percent of a move up there. The semis are up nine points. You've got gold trading up 22 bucks. Silver's up 24 cents. Slytherin Coot is up a buck 30. You've got the US dollar index. It's up slightly out there 30 or treasuries up six ticks. Natural gas is basically flat out there. Let's figure out what all that means by looking at that nine panel market update chart. We begin the ES mini upper left hand side. We get a close today about 53 22 75. There will no longer be a topping pattern. It will negate that roadsman to indicator top. That's real possibility with a spot volatile dig still below its 50 day expense moving average of 50 days at 13 76 spot printing out 13 01. The Nasdaq NQ out there has got a roadsman to indicator top and prices basically been trading sideways. It remains above the top of its daily profile. So overall it's a neutral type signal. The US dollar index earlier in the day trying to take out that TD nine count top. In order to do that, you need to see a close of 104 19 out there. Goldilocks is trying to take out its TD nine count top and that needs a close today above 22 23 30. If we get that, that's going to signal that gold wants to make its move to the 23 27 level. That would be the one to one A to B equal CD projection level. The case of silver just a good old fashioned consolidation with inside profile level supported 24 34. I'm sorry 24 36 resistance up at 25 51. If we take a look like we include it's trying to break out in order to do that, you need to see a close of the top of that profile 83 12. In the case of natural gas. Well, you don't see here. It has triggered roadsman to indicated signal indicated. It's by the D point pattern. So that's going to require another bullish reversal candidate confirm its next pattern out there and a 30 year treasury looks like it wants to go target that one 20 23 to 120 104 level. Wow. We got through that really quick out there. If we take a look at what the equity futures are doing in other major currencies out here with new all time highs as we speak in terms of euros in terms of pounds. The same thing is true for the Dow equity future contract, making new all time highs today in terms of those two currencies. Well, guess what? They're not sellers over there. So be careful on the short side. Even though we've got those sell signals on the daily timeframe charts, they just simply haven't taken old fact the Russell 2000. All it needs to do today is close above. Let me give you that number. He closed up 21 46. We're 21 51 right now and it gates his TD night cut top. It says we had higher folks day two for the trader's edge show. But if you have to start your Thursday, have a terrific one markets are closed tomorrow. So we'll see you back again on Monday. Take care.


Hi, everybody. Everybody doing okay? Yeah, feel good? So far, great day. CEC Arts Link. Maybe we should just quickly say who we are and what organization we're from and maybe what place we're from, too. So I'll start. I'm Barbara Lanseers and I am the Executive Director of the Trust for Mutual Understanding, which is based in New York City, but I make my home in the Hudson Valley, New York, which is a very pretty place. Hi, I'm Angelique Power. I am the President and CEO of the Skillman Foundation. We're based in Detroit. I'm from the south side of Chicago. I'm from Hyde Park. Sorry, I'm not a mic person. I'm Petty Washday. I'm from Macassie, Tommany, Omaniwee. I'm from Machiappi. I'm from Washi Chuye. I'm Oglala Lakota and was born and raised on the Pine Ridge Reservation. I am here representing an organization I've been with. I time it by when my daughter was born. She's 24 now. So I've been there for 24 years. So I'm honored to be here. The organization's called First Peoples Fund and we're based in Heisapa, the beautiful Black Hills in southwestern South Dakota of Pine Ridge Indian Reservation where I grew up. La maya. Thank you. We have never met in person before. This is what brought us together. And we had a couple different planning calls, which it seems like everybody did their due diligence in planning. But that was such a joyous experience for me, learning about you all and your work, and seeing how my work was sort of intertwined. So thank you CEC for bringing us together in this thoughtful way. But there were a series of questions. I'm just gonna blanket us a little bit with questions. The questions that came up during our preparatory conversations, which were centered around philanthropy, we each have our own individual philanthropic practices. And I think we could easily say that they're not, our practices are not necessarily mirroring the wider philanthropic practices that exist, particularly in the United States. So during our conversations there were all these questions that came up that we deal with, the three of us on a daily basis. So I'm just gonna float them out into the atmosphere for all of us. So how do we describe our personal perspectives and our own individual practices? What are we each doing differently that goes against the grain of what's commonly thought as business as usual in philanthropy? How are we disrupting power structures and undoing harm from the inside as opposed to pushing from the outside? How are we deprogramming what has been programmed? And how do we shift the field towards more holistic thinking? So these are the kinds of the big questions that we are grappling with. And I thought it was fun because I'm a theater person by training and also a writer, so I love a metaphor. And during our conversations we were describing ourselves and our practices in these metaphoric ways.  I'm actually, I see myself, I aim toward being a tree. And that's my work though, but I feel like in my work I'm a gardener. Yes. Okay, okay.  And I feel like a baker. And so I thought maybe we could just sort of dive into these metaphors, tree and gardener. Can we start with you with the tree and the gardener metaphor? Well, the tree is more recent. When I moved to Detroit, I got a coach and she was like, who's a famous person that you can channel when things get rough? Like who's someone you really admire? And I was like, well, I'd like to channel a tree. That's famous. That's pretty famous, right? But I do feel like that's ultimately the being that I admire the most, very rooted. There's like a network. Trees are very connected to each other. They're constantly in mutual aid. They're sending communication. They're taking care of each other. And then they're like stretching toward the heavens. But philanthropy to me is, you know, I ran a different foundation here called the Field Foundation. And that was a complete experiment in if racial equity in philanthropy is an oxymoron or not. And I never solved that riddle, but I do think that bringing in a lot of different people to try to rethink what we're doing is really important. And then I left for a variety of reasons and moved to a new city that's completely different and Field Foundation is a beautiful, incredible place. But it became really important to me in realizing when you move, it's really important to not take the work with you, right, like that there's so many people that are incredibly thoughtful people working in philanthropy and then they burn out, they bump their heads against things and then they leave and all of the people who were supported by their work stop being funded and all those types of things. So the gardener is really the idea that my job is really the soil to create very fertile, nourished. I'm sorry, I have to drink some water. All of a sudden it's, if you get up here and it's like a wall of dryness, I don't know. I was like feeling it build to, I was like, I know I need water, I know I need. But that's really what my job is and it's the people that I work with and the people around me, but you know, we focus a lot on systems on the irrigation system, if you will, let's keep going with the metaphor. I love it, I'm into it. But ultimately that's what I am. I'm a gardener, I'm a cultivator of people and ideas and my main goal is that it's not about me and that when I leave, like the whole soil is so nourished that the work can continue. It's beautiful. Lori, can we talk about your Weaver Connector self? Yeah, I think the Weaver Connector comes from just, I always say that the work at First Peoples Fund didn't start when I started there, when my daughter was one or conceived. Is it started much more before that? And so the work in Indian country and the work that I've done is a continuation from previous folks, from when I started out in this work when I was my daughter's age at 24. And so I feel like the Weavers and the Connectors are all those indigenous women from around the world, from Chiapas to Blackfeet Nation, a long time wonderful woman, Eloise Cabal, who took on the whole entire United States government and the largest lawsuit in this country, who I had the wonderful privilege of working with and it was just the mismanagement of the tribal trust or the trust funds held in trust by the federal government. So the work at First Peoples Fund really stems from those relationships. And then I think about just values and how we're raised in community and probably every one of us in this room has the aunties or the uncles or someone who's making something with their hands at the kitchen table, right? I see her over here. She's working away, because that's how she thinks and I see artists, they have to be doing something with their hands as they're talking to you or they're so disconnected from the conversation because I saw a Chanupa yawn over there. I was like, oh yeah, because we're gonna talk about philanthropy. I can honestly, philanthropy was, but... We're usually the downers in the room, you know? We're usually, ugh. Yeah, so I just wanna say it really comes from those relationships and connections and then just growing up on the res in South Dakota, just thinking about in any community those cultural protocols when you enter somebody else's home or place and how your aunties and then expect your grandmothers to be, as we say, a good relative. We all say that, that's not First Peoples Fund. We all know that when our auntie walks in the room we have to sit up straight and, you know, or we're gonna get asked to do something. But on the other hand, I was also the other one in the family where the roles between men and women sometime, like I want it to be outside with my grandpa at the ranch. Chanupa and I both grew up in Indian Coway families too, but I always want it to be outside and not in the house, right, doing all the other stuff. So I think about that in just the strength of indigenous folks and all of you folks in the room that have shared their stories. I'm so moved by all of the artists. I'm a culture practitioner, I'm a weaver, but I'm not doing these brilliant creative work that all of you are doing in the name of social justice and just the impacts on your communities, you know? And hearing the young woman from Ukraine were absorbed in trauma and my wrists, because we have to unravel 120 some years of disruption.  But then knowing that you have to sit in it deep, you have to really sit in it deep to get through it, but people come in and wanna change and say, oh, let's do this now and you have no say in that. So I think the artists are, and we don't even call ourselves artists in our communities, you know, our folks don't really see ourselves as artists. You know, they see themselves as makers of something or creators of something, so I'll stop there. I like the tree, because you took me right home because I was thinking about for Sundance ceremony how when we take down the tree, we go into ceremony and we hear the stories of how the trees spoke to each other and the one being sacrificed to come into ceremony and then how you have to, it can't, you have to move it, you know, without touching ground till it gets to its place where it's gonna be raised and be there for a year and it gives itself to the people, so thank you for sharing that. It's so nice to hang out with you again, Laurie. Hey. It's so good to see you. I like the tree too. I like the tree too. She shook up a foundation that I set on. She was, came in and said what she had to say and we worked together, so it was all good. Do you remember that? Yes, oh yeah, yes, yes, yes. Yeah, my metaphor is baker, which is hilarious because please don't put me in a kitchen. I'm terrible. I'm not a very good cook. I'm not a very good baker, but philanthropically, the foundation that I work for is a foundation that's rooted in exchange. So exchanges across geographic boundaries and borders and cultural exchange, exchange in the arts, protecting of the land, how do we meet each other? And so if I think about people as ingredients and you think about creating the right space, safe space for people to come together and bring their whole self, and then you have this exchange that happens and it's like baking something, right? There's like you have eggs and flour and milk and sugar and with enough heat under the right conditions that those ingredients become something new and transform one another. And so we had one of our founding trustees, this amazing woman, Elizabeth McCormack, who passed away at the age of 99 and 2021 was one of my mentors. And I asked her one time, Elizabeth, how do you express, what's the ethos of the trust for mutual understanding? And she said, oh, it's simple. It's we meet and we change each other. And so that's what I think about as the baker. Like these ingredients come together, you work together under the right conditions and then you come out of the exchange completely transformed. So I like our metaphors. Lori, you mentioned something just now and also in our preparatory call where you were talking about being a good relative and how that's not only part of your philanthropic practice, that's part of who you are and what your people believe. So will you talk a little bit more about that? I think in Chanupa talked about a little bit about it, you know, in the morning, this morning, you know, just really about the protocols in community and when you enter a community and family and you know, just really, which is really a lot of first people's funds, you know, values around humility and respect and honor. So one of our really signature awards we have is the Jennifer Easton Community Spirit Award. And we honor, you know, culture bears are tradition keepers, knowledge keepers who selflessly give of themself in community. And they're usually the really quiet ones that are working really hard, you know? So when I see even language like disruptor or reparations, you know, I just think about like Dolores Churchill in Alaska and Lonnie Hatch in Alaska and they're just living off the land and gathering the materials they need to survive, right? And but if I told Dolores you're a disruptor, she would just, I could just see her just laugh. She's like 94 years old now and I just love her dearly. But you know, just these language that get imposed up, someone said reparations earlier. I'm like, I had to look that one up in a dictionary originally just to see where it came from in this thing we call philanthropy. So I think, you know, for me, it's just in our communities that you have to be in there for the long haul, right? You know that generationally the work you're gonna do is not gonna be seen until, you know, the trees aren't gonna start growing until we're long gone, right? And that's why I say the work is a continuation of everybody's contributions to First People's Fund. And it did start with one philanthropist, you know, like yours, her name was Jennifer Easton and she lived in Mohawk territory and, you know, would see the Weavers out gathering their materials for ceremonies and then she would also see what was happening, you know, to the land, you know, in terms of I think they had a super, super fun side up on Mohawk at the time that sister friend, Gadji Cook, was fighting against the contamination that was on that reservation. So, you know, she was hearing all these things and she decided, you know, as a young woman, her father was in the rubber business and then apparently rubber made eventually bought their share of it. So they became part of, you know, this world we know nothing about, right? Their shares in rubber made. But she gave all, she chose to give all her wealth away to Indian country and First People's Fund was one of those. Asumasil Foundation was another that just supported women who needed whatever, if they needed tools or if they needed to go to college or if they needed to get a car. And then she also supported Buffalo Restoration and then the Sundance Institute's native program. And people would ask her, why do you give to that, you know, to the Indian people or whatever? And she's like, well, because if I take my money away, who's gonna replace it? And that's really how it was at the time. You know, we didn't have a lot of resources coming to Indian country in this thing we call philanthropy.  This is our money. Anyways, came from our land, you know. So like that. So, and that's not me, but I can do that easily. But I don't do that today, because I'm grandma now. No, no problem, no problem. But go ahead, that was, I'll stop there. That's great, that's great. Thank you, thank you. And then Angelique, I know when we were talking, we were talking about our own philanthropic practices. You said something that I was struck by where you were talking about the process is the outcome, which seems very much in my idea in line with the tree metaphor too. So we talk a little bit more about that. Yeah, a lot of what I was thinking about was actually entering a new place and moving to Detroit, which is very different than Chicago. And the way that I wanted to enter in was by listening for a long period of time. And so I spent a year sitting with different people and just asking like some basic questions, like what do I need to understand about Detroit? What do I need to understand about philanthropy, about skillmen, and then like how are you doing right now? Cause this was 21 and we were in the midst of COVID and just the world. And like what do you as a human need right now? And through that, all of these conversations, I learned so much about the city. I heard people talk today about sitting in the non-binary, sitting in the discomfort for a while, not solving, not compartmentalizing, not jumping to a conclusion, which is actually really hard for me to not do. Like I can listen for a while and I'm like, I get it, I get it, okay, we're gonna do this, we're gonna do this.  I'm a doer and I'm a builder. And so I knew that I was giving myself a very hard assignment. But what it revealed is like there are multiple truths that operate at the same time of a place and they're all valid. And so my assignment isn't to solve at all actually. And so through the conversations, we transitioned into this other phase of collectively designing what this grant making is going to look like. But I often get asked like, so what's the impact on what are the metrics and how do you measure? And that is what I think, like it's actually just about a recipe. It really is just about people coming together to co-design solutions. And if we believe that we need each other and that together we're going to create this future that we wanna live in, then we live in that future already. Yeah, so. Yeah, that's beautifully said, beautifully said. I wanna do time check because but I see, there you are Max. I was like, where did you go? Oh good, okay, we're so good. Good job, these preparatory calls were excellent. So I want to move to a question that I sent you all ahead of time. But what are each of our thoughts around how we have created different ways to form relationships between funders and grantees? There's obviously a hierarchy. There's obviously a power structure. It's very difficult to get away from that when money is involved. But how do you feel like in your philanthropic practice you are trying to do that differently and forge relationships differently? I'll start with you, Angelique. I was like, Lori, you get to answer. Or we can start with Lori. Well, I actually want to reference Lori. So Lori sits on the board of a different foundation and she was referencing where I came in as a consultant. And so I remember a conversation we had and I was asking you a similar question. Like what is the power? How do you disrupt a power dynamic? And you said, there is no word for power in my language. It's energy. Yeah. And that just like blue, it still blows me away. And so I think about that, like how do you shift energy? I'm also like a pretty self-deprecating person. I do not, I feel like Edith Ann, that's a very old reference, but that's like Lily Tomlin sitting in like a big oversized chair. I feel like I always like show up very differently in different spaces. I just, I feel like people are, really you're the president of a foundation? Like they made that choice. That's an interesting choice, you know? So I try very hard to not like believe my own hype or believe the hype of money. And also know that like my job is not as an expert, but as just like to move capital around. And then I also don't forget that I am a dollar sign. Yeah, yeah. Like I think that's really important to recognize and there's tremendous amount of need. And so I think that a part of it is also like know how you're seen, know who you are, know the difference between the being, your assignment and like what you're meant to do in this moment. Yeah, thank you. I just wanna lift you up for a moment too, because like it's rare to have a black woman of color, you know, leading a foundation, right? So it's rare for us to be able to have those kinds kind of conversations, because most of our colleagues, you know, within philanthropy are all at the program officer kind of level. So they do the really hard, hard work to advocate for all of us, right? And you know, a group of us started the Intercultural Leadership Institute. And it was us always sitting on the outside, you know, around the circle in these things we call cohorts and not being able to really relate to some big institution in Washington, DC's model of marketing strategies or whatever. And so we decided to start the Intercultural Leadership Institute based on that. And so we've rode the surfboard and the waves and the bronc ride on the horse and all of that just, you know, in terms of getting more resources to our community. But we're always often come to and approached after the fact when they mess something up or whatever.  So, but what we do now is we, you know, I think the one thing I would say about philanthropy is be ready to just walk away.   We work all day, we work for our communities. And then we're sitting here until midnight trying to create something cause we did something wrong, you know? And so, and then there's another one kind of in the hopper now that, you know, is a real struggle for all of us. And it's a huge amount of resources. And at that same point, we all decided, you know, this is not worth it, you know? So then we're back at the table, you know? But we kind of take the, you know, the negotiation and say, this is how we're going to do it, right? So just share that. That's great. That's a really important learnings. Yeah. And so we have a minute. So I'm just going to wrap up a little bit. I just want to say, you know, in talking about relationship funder grantee relationship, I'm really honored to be here because CEC Arts Link is one of the longest standing grantees of the trust for mutual understanding. We've been working. Yay! We've been working with CEC since 1992. So that precedes, predates my time at TMU. I've been there for 16 years now. And that predates Simon's time at TMU. But I've been able to see from where I sit, the organization go through many iterations. And this is a really exciting time, I think, for the organization. And we, I think, have, I hope, from my perspective, a relationship of deep listening, a relationship of very frequent communication, and respect for each other. Even though there's a power dynamic and there's a wallet and all those things, I feel like we really try to bring our humanity to the table every time we meet. And I personally benefit so much from this relationship. So I think it's amazing to be here with you all and to have met you all, not through funder convenings and not through anything related to foundation work or philanthropy or, as you say, the thing we call philanthropy. I would like to use that if that's okay. But to have met you two, who I feel so inspired by and grateful to know now and feel in network and community with through this grantee that's, I think, such a special, wonderful organization. So this has been wonderful. The talk and the preparation. So thank you both. Amaya. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you.


When they see a reversal they automatically think this is the bottom right and the one thing we've always talked about is nobody knows what a bottom is until major levels get tested. Welcome to Access a Trader the number one community for those who are committed to taking control of their trading in order to achieve success profitability and longevity. Thank you for joining us. Here's Dan Shapiro to help you find your edge, master your process and own your future. Hey guys, good evening everybody. Welcome to another edition of the Access a Trader.com Monday Update Show. Hope everybody is doing well. Again, hopefully everybody had a great weekend. So let's talk about the day. Pretty quiet session today. I think everybody could pretty much attest to that. Majority of the day index is down. The Dow was down 200-300 points all day. The Nasdaq was going from positive to negative. In figure after last week's almost 4% decline in the Nasdaq you kind of wanted to see what happens next. And today was basically a session. It felt like an inside day all day and the way it ended it wound up being an inside day all day. And one of the clues, well one of the things I think a lot of new traders when they see a reversal they automatically think this is the bottom, right? And the one thing we've always talked about is nobody knows what a bottom is until major levels get tested. And obviously this is a level we talked about during the weekend update and this is the level that until, in my opinion, I think they need to test at least successfully once again to be able to go higher. But the most important part is the difference between stocks moving up and stocks moving higher. The most basic clue of technical analysis is stocks need to take out the previous day's highs. The ETFs need to take out the previous day's highs. And if you look at all the major indexes, for example, the QQQs, right? Friday's high was 335, today's high was 329. As much as nice little reversal today into the close, keep this in mind, this reversal happened after three o'clock, right? I already logged off. I think a lot of people logged off. The market was pretty much dead for the first four hours a day. There was like three natural pivots. We'll talk about that in a second.  And again, since we closed below the 50 day moving average, this is again week, let's see, the day 10, right? Day 10, day 11 of all that's going on. Besides, look, is it possible, like we talked about in the video on the weekend, is it possible to get a, you know, a couple of dead cab bounces? Absolutely. Again, if you reference everything since that initial tear down of that support on January the 4th, we had a bunch, right?  And like I said, no matter how bad or good the market is, you're always going to have moves in the opposite direction. So I don't think anything got resolved today. For the majority of day, you had a very big disconnect. Some stocks were weak. Some stocks were strong. I think for an active market to be structurally, organically good, everything needs to trade on one side of the market. You can't have Microsoft strong Facebook weak. You can't have Apple strong Tesla weak. You know what I mean? They all have to trade as a tribe.  This is kind of where we are. We're underneath the water. And it's like a drowning victim being able to get a little bit of air before they're putting back down. And again, the reason why the market turned around today, and you can see is why all these lines, I think a lot of new traders starting to realize how important these lines are, that all the cues did today was hold right above the Bollinger ban. And that's a very, very important part of it. And again, is it possible we get a dead cab bounce back into the five day moving average? Yeah, I think we can. You know, I think we can. Personally, again, I have some longs I'm watching. You know, I have maybe some dead cab bounces like an Amazon, on NVIDIA, Tesla is kind of trapped still in the middle of the range. And obviously the big story today was the announcement that Elon Musk is taking Twitter public for $44 billion. I think it works out to that initial number of 5420 they talked about. So Twitter is going private. Again, I don't know what Elon has in store for store for Twitter. But again, we'll see, right? We're all on it. We'll see. We'll see what positive changes that could possibly be done to it. But more important is the dynamics of the market and the stocks that are weak to continue to be weak. Netflix, for example, is seeing a lot of $200 $200 puts for the week for the weeklies coming in. We saw some 190s coming in. We saw some July 165s coming in. A name like for example, like an ISRG today, again, little dead cab bounce after this atrocious move on earnings Friday. You know, I'm still watching this thing.  I'm still definitely watching this thing in the next couple of days. Maybe he finally confirms his bottom channel here and has his next 15, 20 point move down as well. But the most important part is again, when you're looking at charts today, you'll see even the stocks that reversed. There's just no room, right? Look at all these stocks. You know, you have Apple, right? You had a nice hammer here. Listen, again, like I said, is it possible to get a dead cat bounce back to the five day moving average? Yeah, why not? You know, why not? We'll obviously be watching for these names, but the point is look how much supply there is. And the only way Apple is going to get above supply is when it comes out with earnings and tomorrow starts up again, right? We have technology earnings starting up again tomorrow. Let me just give you guys kind of a, let's see what tomorrow is. We got, we got Microsoft, Google. We saw some pretty, pretty aggressive bets on Microsoft with the downside today as well. But Microsoft, Google tomorrow, GE, Visa, Chipotle, you got JetBlue, TripleM, UPS, Pepsi, Texas Instruments. But Wednesday, you got Boeing, Facebook, PayPal, Ford, Qualcomm, TDOC, Pinterest, Spotify, Potato, Patato. And then Thursday is obviously going to be the big ones.  Market leaders. So yeah, we're set up this week. And obviously, again, like I said on the video, over the weekend, I think we'll get a lot more cloudy. Again, for the bull case, they need these stocks to beat their numbers. They need these stocks to blow away these numbers because again, there is a lot of supply. And for the bulls to make any type of really aggressive noise that's more sustainable than like a last hour turnaround is again, they have to slowly but surely get above the five day reclaim the 10, reclaim the 20. And again, like we talked about in the video, the 347 supply needs to be, needs to be reclaimed. If that happens, then yes, you can start swing trading again, you can start putting on risk. But the 50 day what was the support now a supply needs to get back on. So pretty quiet day again, pretty quiet day, like I said, three natural, maybe it was four, four natural pivots today. Again, it felt like just to put it in layman's terms.  That's what it felt like today for the first like four, five hours a day. It's like they almost stopped the market from going lower at one point that that was down 300. So, you know, 500 point turnaround is nothing to sneeze at. But I think a lot of people were uninterested in this. And that's the most important part. Remember, it's all about perception. It's all about how you handle news and how you handle the technical landscape. But right now it's all it is right now we still haven't taken out the previous days high. Obviously, if we if we are going to dead cat bounce tomorrow, and that's a very, very big if, but if we are going to dead cat bounce tomorrow, we have to at least take out and start building above the 330 level on the cues for a possible move to this 335, 336 level on the five day supply. Like I think that would be a big victory for the bulls. If the bulls can't reclaim today's highs, then again, this will start another series of lower highs and just start resuming the sell off below this 322 area, which I believe then you will see this 317 test, which is the double bottom from January, excuse me, March, the 14th. So that's it. That's pretty, you know, pretty basic stuff. When you look at the spies, when you look at the spies, you know, again, same thing, you had this kind of like, you had this bounce. I just don't even even know what area this was. But again, you had this bounce after a pretty, you know, pretty ugly decline from this 450 level. Again, can the can the spies get back to this 435 area in the next couple of days? Yeah, sure. Why not? Right? But just always remember, bounces in a sell market environment, those are the hardest days, because a bounce can happen for two points, a bounce can happen for 20 cents, or a bounce can happen for 15 seconds and then start turning around. Again, when you don't have a safety net, and your safety net is the previous day's low, the hardest days that any trader is going to experience is a green day in a sell market environment. And that's kind of what we are. But again, beggars can't be choosers. Again, life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. So let's talk about today's, today's action. Like I said, pretty slow day today. Amazon, you know, look, Amazon, you know, went down 20, 30 points, 28, 72, if it builds below can flush. I mean, there wasn't a lot of aggression today. There really wasn't, you know, Amazon went down to what 2840s. Again, it's saved on the Bollinger Band, which kind of got it back up here. And to it, it was impossible, at least for me to trade, it just went down like 10, literally at the open 442.75, if it builds below can flush, you can see pretty big move.  So if you got some God bless, way, way too thin, TTD never got there. eBay just sat there all day. Amat only went down like less than a dollar. Netflix got hit, right? Netflix definitely got hit. They took out the earnings lows. He started seeing the 200 weekly puts come in. Netflix was like, oh, nice move. Nothing, nothing crazy, but nice move here. So you had this, here's the 210 level, right? Here's the 210 level. And it took out this whole area and went all the way down to 204 and change. I have to assume if the market resumes any weakness, this will be the first one to get hit. Nice little move there. NVIDIA 19650, this is to the upside. This was, there was actually a couple of upside pivots. 19650 needs to build for cash flow. NVIDIA ran up a couple of points. Amazon 28, 97, 2900 could give some cash flow and initially ran up about 12 to 15 points. And then later in the day put up a $40 candle. And I said, look, nice pop, take your money, right? Take your money. Again, when you're trading to the upside and the sell bias market, you don't have a lot of time to kind of sit there and react. You have to just take your money on the way up. 207 on debt, punch a shot of 200 went down to 204. So that's it.  The scoreboard is the scoreboard. Personally, I thought this was a very quiet day as a possible. The market buys sometime for the next couple of days and just kind of goes sideways. Yeah, it's possible. But again, you never know. And that's the greatest part about it is and the most important thing you have to remember, especially as a new trader, again, you're not trading because the market is open. You're trading because you're getting value. Value doesn't mean you're trying to squeeze out 50 cents out of Netflix. Value means you have a big measure potential at the stock confirms that level. It has a high probability of getting there. Trading for the sake of trading, all you're doing is burning mental equity and all you're doing is burning money for absolutely no reason. It's like for you poker players, imagine holding a 27 offsuit. All you do is playing 27 offsuit and you're putting your money in the middle of the table. While you know, eventually, you're going to wind up getting kings, queens and aces. Why not wait, right? Why not wait for those queens, kings and aces? It's not a race. It's not a popularity contest. You're not doing it for the likes. You're doing it because you're trying to grow your capital on a nice organic move. And again, at the end of the day, it's all about longevity. Guys, have a great night. God bless and I will see you all tomorrow.


What if I told you that the biggest thing that will perpetuate a procrastination problem is your own ambition? Stay with me as I expand this idea. So when a person is really struggling with procrastination, typically there's this inner voice and it's telling them it's laying a guilt trip on them and it's what I call the little inner half to voice. You have to do that. You need to do that. You should do that. You should have done it yesterday. It's too late now. It's not going to be good enough. And what I try and do is I help people to first of all identify that that voice is actually not me at all. So you're kind of dissociating from it and then choosing a different inner talk, a different ethos philosophy for yourself, different story and it's very effective. There's lots of things you can do but one of the main things is not even the psychological stuff of changing your story or changing your narrative. It's putting in boundaries and only making small commitments, not taking on too big of a task. Now here's the thing. This is where we'll see a regression. Person will say okay, David is saying only commit to small tasks. They go away and they put that into practice and invariably it'll work. They're no longer resistant to taking action because the nervous system has not been asked to take on these gargantuan tasks. It's more cooperative with taking on these small commitments and their procrastination is going to go on away and they're noticing funnily enough counter-intuitively that they're getting a lot more done. Now that's great. It's almost as if problem is solved. The tricky thing here that we need to remember is that you get into a pattern then of high productivity and the inner critic or that it'll have to voice very subtly starts to have this expectation that you are now this person who does a lot and every day a lot is required of you.  You should have done it yesterday.  The cycle can be that you overcome it by realizing I need better boundaries and only small commitments to small tasks. With that it'll work. You'll get over the procrastination. You go back into high productivity but this expectation comes in again that puts you back into the procrastination problem.  It doesn't matter how effective you become and to do that we need to kind of on a daily basis remind ourselves really we're changing our complete, our work ethos, our whole relationship to productivity. Gone will be the hustle culture, the grind, do more, push yourself and now it's going to be self care, self maintenance, small consistent daily growth, small steps, steps that I know I can achieve, steps that seem uncomfortably easy. Almost as if well that's too easy. That's the right steps. That's the right amount of a commitment you should be making to yourself on any given day. Anything that comes after that is a bonus but that's where we begin. So just watch out for being a victim of your own success when you start to get over procrastination. It's a very subtle thing that programming of that hustle culture of the self improvement thing do more, do more, do more is very deeply ingrained in us and it can come back in as this expectation to achieve more and be doing more all the time. But keep practicing the story. There's a story technique I talk about in my book on procrastination. It's very effective for this little daily reminders. It's not really self affirmations or even like law of attraction stuff. It's more of a daily reminder of how you are relating to yourself in terms of these projects that you're taking on. Am I going to support myself unconditionally? Am I going to give myself healthy boundaries with this project? Am I going to see every project as important but none as important as me? These are the ideas we discuss in that book. So I hope that was a useful video guys. It might help some of you guys out there that have had you go over it but you kind of regress a little bit. Don't feel that anything has gone wrong. You can be actually a victim of your own success in that regard as I've explained. So I hope that's a useful video and I don't know if you've got any comments or feedback let me know below and I'll see you again in the next video. Take care of yourself. Bye for now.