I'll tell him I have a bunch of folks with me, but that you're going to put me through, but he'll have to do most of the talking. Thank you, Mr. Pearson. He has a lot of folks with him. We're going to put you through, but you might be expected to do most of the talking, and he'll just do the listening. All right? Thank you. All right, I can, I don't have to talk to him now. Is the better, hello? Yes, sir. All right. Would it be better for me to call back later? Let me check just a moment. He asked if it would be better for him to call back later. Tell him I've got him all day long. Just tell him no. Tell him I've got the Security Council right after this. Got the British Foreign Minister and others, and the leadership that this is just the worst day of the year for me, and everybody has to do it right now, and I'll be on in just a minute. Thank you. Mr. Pearson. Yeah. He says he can't think of any time. The day looks pretty rough, so if you'll just hold on. He'll be right with you. All right. Thank you. Do you have a talk, Ed? No, I know you can't talk there. The reporters told me that you were terrific last night. They got a big vote from everybody. Say, I'm leaving the Samsonville, and Louie and I are going over to Russia and probably Hungary and Budapest, and newspaper trip. But I'm writing a book on Khrushchev, and I don't know whether I'll see him or not. But I just thought I'd check in with you. I was trying to figure out if I could, didn't want to buddy any waters or this very delicate operation that you got going, and I know how difficult it is, and I know what you're trying to do. I'll tell you what I told them last night, and it wasn't on the record, and I wouldn't want this to be on the record, but I think that if you could use it discreetly, I think it might be helpful to you. I said that Weekend, Eisenhower went in there in 54, and he played those people that he would help them. The Congress came along and ratified that in 55 by a vote of 82 to 1, which said that when any country in that area is attacked or faced with aggression, it will come to their rescue. That was the CETO Treaty, and there's only one person that voted against it, 82 to 1 in the Senate. That was before I became president, and that's Eisenhower's commitment. He had hundreds of people in there. Kennedy came along. He reaffirmed the commitment, although he had to keep the treaty, just like our treaty, if we don't have it there, we don't have it in Berlin, and it's not worth a dime. The first to announce it would be the Russians if we broke the test ban or the friendship we'd call it be right down our neck if we broke any treaties. Besides, there are hundreds of little countries like Greece and Turkey that look at us and the Truman Doctrine that are watching to see if if we can help hold this little country from aggressors, that maybe they got a hold. If we can't hold them, well, then they'll all be gobbled up, as Hitler gobbled up the low countries, and I don't want to have another Munich, and I don't want to be another Chamberlain. So I came in and said, Taft said that he wouldn't disagree with Roosevelt what he's doing in Korea, but he did the wrong way, that he ought to be in on the takeoffs if he's going to be in on the landings and Congress ought to be asked for its expression. So I went to Congress and said, you give me your views. And the Congress in August of last year, passed a resolution saying that I should protect against all aggressors that are necessary and all the power of the United States forces. So I read them that. Now, there are people that want us to pull out. Morris is one. Others say, well, you can have a military solution and this and that. We have to analyze that. Let's put it under microscope. I got a treaty, 82 to 1. I got a resolution, 502 to 2. And that resolution says that Congress approves and supports the determination of the President to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack and to prevent further aggression. And the United States is prepared to take all necessary steps as the President determines, including the use of all armed forces necessary to assist any member of our protocol state of the Southeast Asia Defense Treaty. So Congress did that in August. They did it in 55, 82 to 1. They did it in August this year, 502 to 2. So I don't much believe I can break her commitment. I don't bleach, I can walk out. I think if it did, they'd take Thailand. I think they'd take Cambodia. I think they'd take Burma. I think they'd take Indonesia. I think they'd take India. I think they'd come right back and I think we'd have another Munich and I think the aggressors feed on blood and so forth. So that's number one. I'm not coming home. They may get another President, but I'm not going to pull out. Now the second thing is negotiation. That's the second course. Negotiation, I've said, in every state of the Union have 40 different speeches. I'll go anywhere. I'll do anything. I can do and see in an honorable way to promote peace at any time. I didn't just say the Russians. I didn't just say the British. I didn't just say the French. That said anybody anywhere at any time offers any hope or peace. Okay, now let's see whether I need to go to Hanoi or not. Let's see whether I need to go to Peking or not. My last intelligence from Hanoi. Well, first I'll say from Peking. It sums up pretty well. And this is the literal quotation. Bacitong says that Emperor Johnson must know that he cannot win at the conference table what he has lost on the battlefield. Now that's so far that's pretty strong for China. And they denounced Russia this morning, yesterday morning, for what they had done.  So Hanoi, I got a most recent report, says that they think that the South is crumbling, that they will not talk negotiation. They will not have any consideration to it until we pull back to San Francisco and we get out until they take over South Vietnam and they'd be glad to talk. Now, I don't know how you can negotiate when there's no one who wants to negotiate. We encourage the Russians and the British without weakening our hand, without changing our government and without letting the South near the East think we're running out. We did everything we could to encourage them to see what track they could keep open. But they didn't get there far. We have even encouraged the French who talk big about negotiation and every time they say, I say, well, they go in and say, well, we're sorry, but in the time that's not right, you've got to be more militarily strong, more military power. So I can't find anybody to negotiate with. And if I negotiate with them, I have no reason to believe that being any better are stronger than 54 or 62 and they don't keep those and I don't know how to make it self-enforcing. So it doesn't look to me unless they leave the people alone and if they keep spreading aggression, I don't think I can run and I think I'm committed to defend them and if they won't negotiate with me and they say they won't negotiate and I can't say that I won't negotiate and have them turn me down and leave the world in much worse shape. Every negotiation this country's ever had has been a preliminary understanding at a time that there was some hope of something coming out of it. So the third thing is a lamay view point. I can take my bombs and I can take my nuclear weapons as Barry says and I can defoliate and I can clear out that brush where I can see anybody coming down that line and I can wipe out Illinois and I can wipe out Faping and I can wipe out a good deal of that 33 divisions that would be coming down there. But I think that would start World War III and I think I'd have some 800 million and I'd have a land war in Asia and I think I'd have sent 300,000 men there. So what I have done is come across the line with their bomb and drop them in the American compound. One or two didn't explode. I picked them up and put one or two hours with them and take them back where they left that morning to their own compound and dropped them in there. They killed a good deal of more people and we did. I have bombed in the cities. I haven't killed any women and children. I have said I would be appropriate and fitting and measured and I'm being just as measured as I know how. I don't get in the vicinity of the aircraft. I don't get in the vicinity of their cities.  The people in South Vietnam forces do have some tear gas and nausea bombs. They got them from the French back before they got out of there. They got some from us. Every police chief in the United States has them. Every riot unit we have in the Army has them. When you start riding and tagging over the embassy and coming in rather than shooting people at them it'll upset the stomach or make them their eyes blink and they'll use them in the summer a week ago. I didn't send them out there. They were out there long before I came. I never knew it. I never heard of it. But all this big propaganda they're making about gas. It's not poison gas. It's not war gas. It's the same kind of gas chief Murray's got right here. If the Negroes started moving in the White House they told them to stop. And it's the same kind. It's used by all the riot units and used by Saigon police and used by military police every place. As a matter of fact we got them down there right now in case the state troopers and the rest of them take in on us in Alabama. There's nothing new about that. But they play it up.  He said I understand you got mustard gas out here. And I said no we haven't. Well tell us the truth. The only thing we know anything about it is it's non-leftful gas. It's tear gas. Then he writes to the story that there's a they say it's non-leftful but it could make a man's eyes water and it could make him sick. Well of course it does. That's a lot preferable when the Viet Cong come in and about to blow up the embassy. We have used it. But when Kennedy didn't have it in Jackson, Mississippi they just raised uncharted hell and he had to move in and fly them in day and night so they could protect our people if we needed to. And that's the best way anybody knows any police squad to when the mob gets in action hundreds of thousands of people coming at you turn it loose. They have used it once or twice in South Vietnam. I don't know how many times I never heard of it last night. But they are doing everything. This week it's dropping bombs the next week it's poor equipment. The week before it's the inadequate planes. The next week it's gas and maybe these boys the propagandists and the communists are working pretty full string and they keep us defending all the time fighting with their own people trying to explain that we're not warmongers trying to explain to the gold waters and to the nexons and even to the lodges and to Rockfella why we're not dropping bombs up there and why we're not getting closer into the industrial targets. And I have to explain that to them and show them that that doesn't do any good you just kill a bunch of women and children and let's try to deter them let's try to prevail on them let's do like I do with my daughter Lucy let's try to reason with them, let's be patient let's follow what old ag Heimershall said just before we died the qualities peace requires are just those which I feel we all must have today to perseverance and patience a firm grip on realities careful but imaginative planning a clear awareness of the dangers but also the fact that fate is what we're making now that's what I'm trying to do so I can't run out I've got nobody to negotiate with I don't want to bomb this city's new town and I'm trying to convince them by putting off a pop gun or a firecracker or anything I can to please quit coming in sure that's that simple and I have said time and time and time again I repeat to you now I'll do anything that's honorable I'll go anywhere I'll say anybody I'll make any sacrifice to keep people being killed just like I didn't want to go into someone's I did everything a human could to avoid it I got his he came up here and I spent 3 hours now but when all is said and done he said it he said it he said it he said it


Well, hey there and welcome to the non-profit show.  I'm gonna say welcome back to Margaret Brasda-Pourriere, a founder and CEO of Grants for Good. You have been on with us before and I think if I just checked the calendar properly, twice in 22, so it's been a while. That's right. Yeah. Yeah, thanks for having me back. Absolutely. We're an all new AI age. Exactly. You said we didn't talk about AI in 2022, but you are gonna share with us how we can use AI to get more grants and to increase our funding by using AI. So really excited to have your conversation with us today. Before we dive in, I want to remind our viewers and listeners around the globe who we are. So hello to you Julia. Julia C. Patrick is the CEO of the American Non-profit Academy and I'm Jarrett Ransom, your non-profit nerd and CEO of the Raven Group. We are so honored to have the continued support from these amazing partners. You joined us in the Graham Room, you already heard we're marching towards our 1,000th episode which will be in March. So we're just around the corner. So shout out of gratitude to our friends at Bloomerang American Non-profit Academy, non-profit thought leader, staffing boutique, your part-time controller, 180 management group, fundraising academy at National University. Also thank you to JMT Consulting, non-profit nerd and non-profit tech talk. These companies, many of them have been with us on this journey, this four year journey. So grateful for their ongoing support. They've helped us to produce these episodes and you can find them, you can download the app by scanning that QR code and you can find us on broadcast and podcast. So wherever you like to stream your entertainment, go ahead and queue up the non-profit show. So Margaret, I have been following you as you know, on LinkedIn, we're connected there and it's just been so fun to watch your journey not only like in the grants world but how you have fully embraced, welcome and integrated AI. So again, for those watching and listening, Margaret Bras de Poirier is here, founder and CEO of Grants for Good. Welcome back. Thank you, thank you for having me back. It's an exciting time. I'm really looking forward to spending this, these next few minutes, half hour, 20 minutes with you, with you both. Thank you. Yeah, you know, it's a fascinating thing and Jared and I have talked about this a lot about how our sector and our world obviously has changed during these nearly 1,000 episodes. And the things that we talked about in the beginning, you know, it's just, it's been an evolution of conversation. And you mentioned in the green room, you know, the times that you've been with us, we never talked about AI. I mean, this was like, what? And so now all of a sudden, we're drilling down on this topic from everything from a fan, from finance to HR to, it's just a part of our world and why shouldn't it be a part of our grant process? So let's get it, kick it off with, is it easy to learn generative AI? AI, AI? I mean, yeah, right? Yeah, yeah, it's really easy. And just to piggyback on something you just mentioned, Julia, you know, we haven't talked about AI. It's been around for a very long time. And you know that the minute we write an email and it's finishing the sentence for us and you just click that tab, you know, that's AI. It's already working. But what's really shifted was in November, 2022 when the company, San Francisco-based company, OpenAI said, hey, we're gonna make ChatGPT open for all of you to use for free. And I knew eventually it would monetize and they have, but there's still a free version. And that changed everything. It's generative AI. It predicts what words, what comes next, but it does it in a way that I still find completely, I'm just baffled by it. It's amazing what it can do. And is it easy to use? Yeah, it's as easy as setting up a free account. I use two free ones the most frequently. I use ChatGPT. They do have a GPT-4 version for $20 a month, which is worth doing. It's 20 bucks. If you don't like it, you could stop. And the other one is Google's generative AI. Google Bard, B-A-R-D. Yeah, it's super easy to start with. I love that you say this, and I just as a reference, right? I have a 13 year old son who's using ChatGPT and I have parents in their 70s that when last time I was their market, they had so much fun playing with it, right? They wrote poems to one another. They wrote songs. And just like having a playful outlet, I also heard someone say that generative AI is the second version of Mad Libs, right? Where it's like fill in the blank. We need a verb here. We need a noun. We need something fun. Those were fun as a kid. I remember those and they're still around. It's easy.  So I think there's a big fear when I've given a lot of talks about AI, how to apply to fundraising grant writing. And one thing I heard that really struck me was from somebody who felt very overwhelmed at their job and they said, oh, I don't have time to learn one more thing. Yeah. And it's important to understand that this, there is some learning involved, but it's not nearly the learning you curve you have of any other software or platform out there now. And like you said, Jarrett, put something fun in there. I've developed high coup homes just for kicks, for fun. You can find recipes. You can have someone plan your trip to Norway and take a lot of boat trips to the fjords. But for R, you can see what I'm thinking about today. I'm on book for R purposes. It can be an incredible time-saver and assistant to any kind of grant writing and researching funding type of work. So I find it's really helpful for our sector and the sooner nonprofit staff, volunteers, board members, jump on, the better it will be. It'll be easy. Do you don't want to wait for this? Remember when the internet popped up in the early 90s? And I worked, I was right out of grad school and there was a one hour training session available, not a webinar, but a one hour training session on how to use the worldwide web. And I said to my supervisor, I said, I really want to go to this. I think it's going to be big, you know? And here we are. It's the internet. So yeah, we got to jump on this. It's here to stay and it's easy and fun. Well, and it's here to, sorry, Julia, go ahead. I think for me, this introduction and the things that you're talking about, it brings to me to bear in my mind the word mindset, right? Like it's a mindset of how you start to work and approach and manage your workload. And so as opposed to making it task specific, understanding kind of the mindset and moving into it and leaning into it and then figuring out what tasks it's going to assist you with. And so let's get into that because you're talking about some pieces of this grant writing ecosystem that sometimes are extremely arduous, they get frustrating and you're here to tell us how we can introduce AI into that. What does that look like to you? Yeah, yeah, since we're looking at this slide here, I've got to ask our listeners, do you ever sit in front of your computer and you have the simplest thing to do? You just have to write a letter and you don't even know how to start it. You just can't start it. You've written thousands of letters before, but this is one of the ways that AI is helpful is to get right past that writer's block. And I always think of it as my virtual assistant. I'm a small office here at Grants for Good. We've been in business 15 years, but we've stayed focused and small on this topic on purpose. So I don't have an assistant sitting right next to me today, but with AI I do. So sometimes I'll make a list of what do I not want to spend too much time on and see if I can assign that to my AI assistant. And some of these examples are here. If you're involved in grant writing now, you know that one of the very first things you might have to do is write a letter of inquiry, especially to a brand new funder who doesn't know you. You're not familiar with your organization or your work and you want to make a really good impression in about one page or less, right? So ask AI, ask chat GPT or whatever platform you use to write a letter of inquiry to fill in the name of the funder. And then all you want to do in the prompt area, and the prompt is just that it looks like it's one line on your chat GPT, but believe me, you can put a lot of information in there. Then just put in some basic information about your organization's mission, what kind of support you're looking for from the funder and how they can help. You would be amazed within seconds you'll have a letter generated for you. Step two though is reading that so carefully because I have seen some of these letters and they mostly they're great, sometimes they use words like unlocked and unleashed and I don't use those words when I speak or write. So what I do next with any writing generated by AI is I proof very carefully. It's gotta sound like my voice and has to reflect exactly the message I want, but it does save you a lot of time getting started. I mean, three seconds to get that first draft. It is remarkable. Talk to us about grant narratives and what that might look like when you're using AI. So grant narratives, there are so many pieces involved in grant writing. So I have, Jared knows this, I have an online course called All About Grant Writing and it walks you through every single step of a typical grant application.  So if those words all sound familiar and you're saying, oh yeah, I know about those. We have to put those together every time we write a grant application or develop a new program, that's where AI can help too. So I like to sort of push the envelope. I keep asking it harder and harder things. I'm like, okay, what can this do and when does the potential completely stop, right? So I asked the other day, I wanted to test this out. I said, develop smart SNARTs and acronyms, specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time sensitive. Develop a smart objective for this program. And then I put in something fictional. We are a tutoring program for after school, children, ages, so and so with a focus on STEAM. And let's see what it does. And it generated some pretty spectacular things. And from there, you can go in and put in some metrics like 100% of youth staying in the program for three months or more or whatever the case may be. So AI is great for saving you that time. It just generates that stuff quickly.  What do you hope to achieve? Who are you serving? But you know all that. People who are doing this work daily, they already have that information in their minds. I love these examples. And I want to add into these examples as you do an LOI letter of inquiry, you do the narratives, you know, Margit, how many grants, and this is fictitious, right? Say X amount of words, X amount of characters and it constrains you into, you know, such a tight box. I've used AI for that. You know, I'll say take this very verbose paragraph, narrow it down to 750 characters, 250 words, whatever those parameters are. I find that that for me is a great first pass at editing. And then as you said, is it our tone and our voice as we've branded our organization and making sure that that's in there. So these are just, I love how you're giving these examples real time because as we all know, non-profit professionals are busy. There's a lot on our plate. So how to get into AI and your task, I love this. Why don't we not want to spend so much time on? What can I ask AI with? And put, make a list, because you'll forget, you'll get back to, I do, I get back to the old habit of, oh, I've got to do this right from the beginning. And then I look at my list, I'm like, maybe not. Maybe this can help. I even have, I had this little post-it note on my computer. It says how can, I don't know if you can see it in the camera, how can AI help? So I keep it stuck to my computer. Not that it's, AI doesn't fix everything.  You need to have the information in your mind. You need to have a level of experience to do this well. But AI is there as probably your quickest assistant ever. And you never heard its feelings. I'm always polite to AI though. I'm still saying, please develop. You don't have to say please. No, you do and you set the tone. Before we move off of this concept of looking at tasks, talk to us a little bit more about that research of funders because I think this is an interesting thing. Using it as not just in the narrative as an editor, but actually as a research assistant. What does that look like to you? Yeah, this is an area where you have to be a little more cautious. I teach several webinars on AI just for this reason. And the researching funders is one where you want to use a generative AI platform that is very up to date. And that would be Google Bard because chat GPT works very differently from Google Bard. Google Bard also generates content and is predictive in its technology, but it searches Google. And so that's the one I would recommend. Write that one down for funding search. And you might say, well, Margaret, how is it different from just getting into your favorite search engine and searching for a funder? Or saying, who will fund youth programs in San Diego, California? Well, it is different and it will give you some really great resources. I say, just try it. Put in a prompt in Google Bard and say which foundations are likely to fund youth after-school programs in San Diego, California or name any region. And see what it comes up with. I always test things out first. I try them out in Rochester, New York, where I'm based and I know the philanthropy climate here. So I ask that question and I see, did it give me accurate answers? Right. Most of them are, I would say it's about 80% accurate at this point. There were two that came up, one foundation I know isn't doing grants anymore and the other one not in this region. So there are two that weren't, that are not accurate, but it's a starting point. If you get a list of 10, well, now you've got a way to search those 10 funders and go to their websites and find out more. You just save time. Exactly, you fast-tracked the activity. Julia, remember someone referred to this as being a prompt engineer that we have become engineers of prompting, right?  Like how can we get truly creative and so almost narrowed into our prompts to get even greater results? You know, I'm glad you asked that. This is something we were talking about in our green room just before we went live and we all agree. Sometimes you have to enter the prompts in a couple of different ways. And just like if there was an assistant sitting next to me and I said, can you please find me 10 foundations that fund after-school youth programs in Rochester? And I got a list. I might want to narrow it to say, please select only foundations that accept unsolicited applications or ones that have funded in the last two years. So you can keep asking more and more specific questions. And here's a fun one. This even goes for writing. Let's say you're writing a letter or a social media post or something. I've used it for social media posts and I have to do heavy editing. I almost never use it for that because I still have to train it better. But usually I get something with 20 different emojis. I don't use a lot of emojis in my social media posts, maybe two or three. So you can say, write me a social media post on this topic and use no more than three emojis and do not use the word unleashed or supercharged, turbocharged, you know, they're favorite words. You can actually filter out those words. So you can order it to do really whatever you want. You can say, write it in the voice of, I don't know, name any famous celebrity if you want or author that you like. So you can have a lot of fun with this. Yeah, I think it's fascinating. You can set tone. You can say, write this as a scholarly paper. Write this as a fun, you know, post. Make this for a business professional tone, right? To me, I think that's very interesting because, you know, tone is different from intent. And that's one of those things that's more sentient too. We know, oh, well, that was the tone with which that was delivered is something a little bit more emotional and something that we don't think we can quantify. But this process is definitely, you know, navigating to that. And I think that's where a lot of people become fearful because it does seem like there's somebody on the other end of that keyboard working with you. I think that is where a lot of the fear stems from is how you have to understand how the technology works, not on a programming side, but you have to understand it is simply predictive based on billions of parameters of learning over time. But the second thing, and I think is a really legitimate concern is about data privacy. And especially when you're searching for funders and any kind of writing you do, I recommend not putting anything into a prompt that has any kind of confidential financial information, you know, any kind of codes or numbers that you would not share with your next door neighbor or your coworker. So putting in things like your nonprofit's mission, great. Talking about your programs, absolutely, because you want that information out there. But just to be on the safe side, I still wouldn't trust the technology with anything really confidential. So, and same with just looking at the code of ethics for our fundraising and grant writing profession, you don't want to put confidential information about funders into those prompts. There isn't a set of eyes watching you, but you really don't quite know yet where that data's going. So that's the caution I wish. 100% market.  For me, just for our viewers and listeners, sometimes I'll use X or Y if I'm using names so that I don't put the actual name. I don't put Julia Patrick has donated a million dollars. I'll say X donor, right? Like just keep it anonymous because I know once it generates it, I can fill in Mad Libs style. Yeah. And those... Exactly, exactly. Yep, that's a good idea. I think it's really... And it's funny you mentioned prompt engineering.  There's the glasses. Obviously. I took an online prompt engineering course. Yeah, I need to get a little tape on my glasses here. I took an online prompt engineering course. It was great. It gave me some real ideas of how to work with the prompts. And I think it's gonna be changing all the time. It's just going to get easier to use. There's a thousand platforms out there now, by the way. There are, and growing. So many businesses are jumping on using, you know, chat AI, generative AI platforms to make it easier for different sectors. Yeah. Margaret, I had someone say, but I came back to them. They're like, I have so much to do. I have to write this, whatever it was. And I said, ask AI to write it. And they said, can I do that? I feel like it's cheating. Yeah, I hear that. What do you say to that, right?  I want to hear what you said, but I'll address it too.  And so it's moving your words around, you know, or it's giving you ideas. So I don't feel, unless it is plagiarizing and taking word for word, somebody else's material. And there are issues of plagiarism in fields such as, I think, screenwriting and novels. I'm not in that field, I can't speak to it. But I know in ours, if you enter some of your own information in there, I think it's okay to do. Yeah. Yeah, and I simply said, you're not in school, you're a non-profit professional, you're using this for efficiency matters, right? Like it's okay, this is your first draft. Yeah, so I love that. Let's talk about- It would be like cheating by using the internet to search sources or citations. Like that's not, you know, you need to use technology at its highest ability. That's right. In an ethical fashion, absolutely. And I would add to that, having been in publishing for 30 years and managing editors and writers. The thing of this is, is that in that realm, there are other people looking at this and monitoring it, and you wouldn't just take something and cut and paste. I mean, you said this right within the first five minutes of our conversation today, is that you still have that responsible mindset of editing, of fact-checking, of making sure that it aligns with your tone. So if you're thinking that this is just a cut and paste thing, it really is not necessarily going to always be that for you. And then I think, to your point, is it cheating or not making it your own? And I think that can get a little dicey. Because as this platform begins to take on more and more data points, the intersection of information is changing. I mean, every 60 seconds, this platform is changing because of the volume of what's going into it, right? It really is all the time. Yeah, so I mean, what it was doing and providing you yesterday is not the same. Like if you took the same prompt and you put it in on a Monday and then you use that same prompt on a Friday, you're going to see some variance, right? I've done exactly that. I've tried the same prompt a month later and gotten very different results. Yeah, it really does change a lot. It does change a lot and it is changing a lot. And I think that that's kind of one of those things. You said something really magical and that is when you understand what the process is and how this is working, you can become a better user, right? Yeah. And I think that's all predictive technology. It's great. It's amazing. Well, in our last couple of minutes, Margaret, walk us through the reality, right? Realistic and fundamental time savings. What does that look like? Yeah, I mean, for me, I urge people to do this. I just had a phone call. I do some coaching and consulting with nonprofits. I had a phone call with someone I've known a long time and she has been a grant writer for decades. So she knows how to write grants. No problem there.  And Jared, just like you said earlier today is put in that segment of the grant narrative and ask chat GBT to reduce it to 250 words or less. And you can go further and say, do not eliminate any quantifiable data that I have entered. Or if there's something you really want to keep, you tell it, you want to keep that. So you can save time by doing that. You can save time by starting a document, whether it's a letter, a case statement. Maybe it's a thank you letter to a donor. Maybe it's annual appeal letters in the fundraising realm. So just starting new documents, it's time saving. And also the example I gave with funding search in the very olden days, I used to take me so many hours to comb through a database. And I would receive two or 300 funders that would fit with what I was asking for. And all 300 of those were not a good fit. So one by one I would go through. And this is where I love using AI to at least start to narrow the field and save time doing that. So important, I'm sure you're of the age and remember this too, going to the library, logging into the systems, multiple systems, opening up this thick book, right? Like, oh my gosh, the hoops that we've jumped through. As we pull up your contact information, Margett, I have to ask the elephant in the room question. Do we need professional grant writers now that we have AI? I love that question. Let's talk for another half hour. Yeah, I mean, cause like, do we just scratch that from our budget? We don't need this person anymore. I would say no, but what I do love about this is that this is a tool to help build some equity among people who are not trained in grant writing, who may not have all the time, or even let's say if English is not your first language, this can be a really helpful tool to write very strong content. It does help level the playing field when used properly. I think you still need grant professionals because you have to know what the process is. It's a very nuanced process. It's not a matter of filling out a form and sending in and say, here, show us the money. You know, it never works that way. And you do need to know really how to find funders, make those relationships stick. There's a lot more to know, but I would say that I think more and more people can do this grant writing on their own. And frankly, I think that's fantastic. I love it. If I'm in a position where I eventually work myself out of a job and other people are empowered, I'm gonna be pretty happy because I'll go skiing more when there's snow and I'll find other things to do. There's so much else we can do with nonprofits today. But I think it's a helpful tool. It won't replace people, but it is very helpful. Yeah, I agree. Well, we're not ready to let you go yet. All right, I'll stick around. I love it. You gotta stick around, Margie Brasda-Poyer, founder and CEO of Grants For Good. Check out her website, Grants Number Four Good, G-O-O-D.com. And you'll learn more about what things are going on, what she's talking about. You do a lot of training and it's been just marvelous to have you come on and put this whole discussion in context and so that we can have a look at this. Again, I'm Julia Patrick, CEO of the American Nonprofit Academy, been joined today by the nonprofit nurse herself, Jared R. Ransom, CEO of the Raven Group. Again, we have amazing supporters and as Jared mentioned at the top of the show, most of these folks have been with us since day one and we're now finishing up year three. So these folks have been along for an amazing ride and they include Bloomerang, American Nonprofit Academy, Nonprofit Thought Leader, Staffing Boutique, Your Part-Time Controller, 180 Management Group, Fundraising Academy at National University, JMT Consulting, Nonprofit Nerd and Nonprofit Tech Talk. Again, they've been with us. They continue to support us and as we like to really think about this, they support the nonprofit sector in our mission. So it's really magical to have them with us. Jared, I'm gonna let you sign us off today, my friend. Yeah, thank you, Margaret. It's always great to have you. Let's definitely get you back to talk about more. There's so much more to this but as we end every episode, including the two you were on in 2022, we like to remind everyone to stay well so you can do well. Thanks everybody, see you back tomorrow.


Good morning. Thanks for joining us. Our last pre-election think-tech session, we have the honor of having with us today three leading legal lights. We have Van Davis from the University of Toledo Law School, a preeminent constitutional scholar and professor for many years, Jim Alfini, former dean at Northern Illinois School of Law and South Texas School of Law and professor at both. Also an extremely highly reputed and respected constitutional and judicial ethics scholar, and Jeff Portnoy, another constitutional expert, First Amendment in particular, here in Hawaii, and the newest elected member of Hawaii's Judicial Selection Commission. Welcome, gentlemen. So, do we need a question or is there something on your mind that you'd like to jump right into? Break out the champagne. Get it ready. For blue? For Tuesday night, hopefully not in two weeks from Tuesday. Well, you know, one of the questions I have is, my God, how can you keep up with all the different state rules? I mean, some states don't allow them to start counting the ballots until Election Day, which is crazy. That's going to delay things. Some states, you know, will allow mail-in ballots to be counted, well, the North Carolina, up to nine days after Election Day, but they have to be postponed, I think, by Election Day. Right. But still, I mean, all of these things are subject to challenge and they are being challenged. Are we going to—my question is, are we going to know by 8 p— well, by midnight on Tuesday who the winner is? Yes. I really believe that. I've been following, you know, the polls, and I know the polls were not all that accurate in 2016, but the margins between 2016 and now, not only in the popular vote, but in the so-called battleground states, make it fairly clear that this could be a landslide, not only at the top, but hopefully down ballot. Now, obviously, I'm sitting out in the middle of the Pacific with Chuck and Hawaii is a non-issue, but I even see where there's been some very prominent Republican. I read it even on a Fox. I went on Fox just every so often just to see what the crazies are doing. And they quoted a very prominent Republican without attributing to someone that if Trump doesn't get 48 percent of the popular vote, he can't win. It's impossible. And he's at 40, what, 42? 42 to 44, depending on which state, yeah. Yeah. So, and then you look at the, you know, the double-digit leads in Michigan and some of the Midwest states, double-digits. Minnesotans. Newport is at eight. You know, I don't want to count my chickens before they perverbally hatch, but I hear them chirping.  You know, I was just at the Walmart today and I came in the door with my, I voted bad John and, you know, you just talking to everybody and say, did you vote? Did you vote? You know, just making sure people, and then there are phone banking and all that. So there's a full court press going on right now to get the vote out, to hopefully lead to a result that is going to be more positive. But I want to ask the two professors a question, though, on all the cases that have been in the news dealing with voting rights and the Supreme Court, some people argue inconsistent decisions or including not taking cases, whatever, James, in particular, you mentioned before we got on the air whether voting rights should be state decided rather than federal decided. And I think the conservatives on the Supreme Court have made it pretty clear that it should be hands off at the federal level and at the United States Supreme Court that each state should decide what their voting rights and rules should be. What do you two academics think about that? Well, I think you start with the notion, and I think even the liberals would sign on to this, that because it says in the Constitution that state legislatures pretty much decide state time, place and manner of elections, at least in congressional elections, they read into that all elections pretty much. And so it should be up to the state legislature. So in the Pennsylvania case, though, that went four to four initially, you have had a situation where the legislature had decided one thing and the state Supreme Court had overruled the legislature and decided another thing, essentially, as I recall, saying that ballots could be counted up to three days after the election day. And the justices, I think, divided four to four on that because the conservatives essentially were saying that the legislature, the Supreme Court of the state doesn't have the power to overrule the legislature constitutionally. And the liberals, I think, were saying, yeah, but this has to do with voting rights and voting suppression. And that's has to do with this bundle of rights that we have in the Constitution. And so, yeah, state Supreme Court can overrule a state legislature. So I mean, but that's just one sort of aspect to these things. I think you're absolutely right. Nothing is set in stone here and where they're all going to come out. And then you have the other problem of this ninth justice, who sat it out, has sat it out so far. She sat it out most recently saying that I'm just, I just got to the court. I haven't had time to read over the briefs and things. So I'm going to sit this one out. I don't think she recused herself. But now there's been motions for her to recuse herself on these cases because she's ostensibly partial. You dance with the one that brung you. And the one that brung her is the Republican party. So she's going to dance with the Republicans. I don't know. I would hope, and we've talked about this for the last several months, about the independence of the judiciary. Maybe I'm living in another era, but I have to hope that she, like all the other justices on the Supreme Court, and on all courts that aren't elected, by the way, don't allow that kind of influence to overtake their judicial reasoning. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it or not, but it would be a sad indictment of Justice Bartlett. If she was found to have voted one way or another because of who nominated her, not that she doesn't have the same views on issues.  I don't get it. I really don't. I mean, there should be a requirement that ballots be mailed in so that they're received by election day. And I don't understand, you know, like North Carolina, where it was at nine days after election day. I don't get it, but that's just me. Well, Jeff, as a guy who lived overseas for 17 years, and there are some estimated 10 million Americans who live overseas independent of the military types, I think that's part of the idea there. As long as it was postmarked, you really can't control how the foreign mail systems will operate at the same time. And so I think that's part of the flexibility that's been in there. And maybe for, I think North Carolina has a lot of military bases, so they probably have a lot of overseas military types. You know, that might be a reason that they would have maybe a more flexible standard than otherwise. But, you know, so it doesn't bother me that it take, you know, a number of days afterward, it has to help to make sure that everybody's votes counted. What bothers me is, okay, if we have the states doing this, all right, states, can you all kind of agree on like a standard thing for federal elections so we don't have the hodge pod? I mean, you've got your sovereignty, we respect your sovereignty, but can we like all be on the same page? I mean, is really Wyoming so fundamentally different from Hawaii or Texas in terms of time limits to get things? I don't know, I just, that's one of the things that bothers me. I wanted to ask about Jim's wonderful article that he did on judicial ethics, because we're kind of getting there and talking about Barrett.  And so, some of us are bothered, I guess, by those decisions that are made by the Supreme Court justices that refuse themselves or not. She dodged it for these ones, but what about in two weeks time? Yeah, I think she's going to be weighing in on some of these cases. Some of these cases may not be decided until after election day, but they may have an effect on how ballots are counted. One of the things I brought up in that article was that because I'm co-author on a judicial ethics book, I tend to get calls from the press periodically when judges are ostensibly misbehaving. And about, God, it's close to 15 years ago now. I got a call on New Year's Eve from ABC News in Washington, D.C., the national desk, wanting to interview me about Supreme Court justices taking gifts. Justice Thomas in particular was allegedly taking all sorts of interesting, a Bible owned by Frederick Douglass, a bust of Abraham Lincoln, but gifts that were worth considerable amounts of money. And the, some of the other justices as well, and they wanted to know about that. And so they sent a cameraman out to my house and I sat there for about close to an hour being grilled by one of the, the reporter in D.C. And afterwards I thought to myself, did I say anything that's newsworthy? And I guessed right. The one thing that they had me on there saying was when I leaned forward and said, every judge in the United States is subject to some ethics rules except the nine justices of the Supreme Court. They don't have any ethics rules there. And that's why I wrote that article to some extent, saying, you know, why not? Hey, guys, you know, we've had enough experience with judicial ethics rules.  But Chief Justice Roberts has explicitly said they use the ethics rules for guidance, the ethics rules for U.S. judges for guidance, but they don't really need to impose them on themselves. It would create all sorts of problems, all sorts of issues. So on something like recusal, whether Justice Barrett should recuse herself, because she's too close to the Republican Party at this point in time, is something that is entirely on her. No, no, the other eight justices don't get to weigh in on that. She has to decide, she has the discretion to sit or not to sit. And I have to say that I'm, more of a mind with Jeff on this, that I think that we sort of have to trust her to make a good decision on this and sit or not sit, depending upon how she comes out on that. Hey, if they didn't come up with ethics when Abe Fortis was on the court, they're not about to do it now. Well, yeah, but let me ask you something. During her confirmation hearings, Sheldon Whitehouse did this presentation that really struck me, where he said there were 85 to four decisions that went in favor of somebody's interests who were Republican donors, and it was an zero by the court in terms of five, four decisions. I didn't do all the detailed work underneath, but that was really stunning as a presentation. Now, some people don't think it's a big deal. Maybe all the Republican donors had great lawyers to get to five, four, but 80 zero seems like a pretty amazing number. Well, you know, this is not an original quote from me, but elections matter. I'm sorry, I have no sympathy, none at all for all of my colleagues on the left whining and crying about what happened. I mean, it's because you guys and everyone else elected Trump, either by not voting, not getting people out to vote. The president has the right to nominate. I know the hypocrisy. I'm not talking about that. That's just brutal. But what's wrong? He had the right, you know, I mean, maybe Ginsburg should have stepped down when Obama was president. How about that? There are a lot of people talking about that. She knew she was sick. She knew she was very elderly and she hung on. Why? Why do that? You know, why? Because she, like everybody else, was convinced Trump wouldn't win, right? But, you know, that's the way it is. I'm not in her mind. You know, the one I really liked was David Souter, who I think when he turned 65 said, I'm going fishing. But it must be great to be, you know, the gift to the law, so to speak, as a Supreme Court justice, and how many of them have we seen that have hung on? I guess Byron White knew what it was. I said, okay, it's time for me to go on. The one that was the Sonderdale Conner, because I think part of her thing was to take care of her husband who had Alzheimer's.  I mean, she clearly was competent. I'm talking about the politics, because that's all anybody wants to talk about. You know, you're right, Jeff. I mean, what about Thurgood Marshall? He hung on. And what happened? Justice Thomas. We got Justice Thomas. Right. Thurgood Marshall. But you're right.  Well, see, I think it's great that they just decide when they when it's time to go, as I am deciding with regards to here, you know, she wants to hang on till the last, you know, last minute. Okay, somebody wants to leave early or early compared to what I think that's their own personal. Let me ask you two academics again and Chuck, I'm taking over your role. But I got these questions that I would love to have these guys answers to. I don't think there's any chance in hell. Sorry, can I say that we're on cable or whatever, that the Democrats are going to pack the court. But what about term limits? Is that constitutional? Can Congress now impose term limits on the Supreme Court? That I think if it's legal and constitutional is is much more likely. Well, the Constitution says during good behavior, right? I like to I like to remind federal judges that that's what it says when they behave themselves. They're there. I think that would be unconstitutional. I don't think there's any question about that. But but what would be constitutional, I think, is packing the court. Congress could. Oh, yeah, that's been done. Yeah, Congress could decide to go to 11 or 13 justices. The court, the court has been other than nine at various times in our history. You know, we get it big enough so we three could be on it. Okay, it has to be 100,000. 100,000 obviously revert. Here we go. Well, I just think the whole thing about Barrett to me is, you know, you know, there is a good news to the Barrett saying if you look at the polls, I think it's like 58 to 42 in the poll yesterday on CNN about who would do a better job of appointing Supreme Court justices. So politically, the Barrett thing, although as the, you know, as the McConnell said, who cares? I've done what I need to do, you know, no matter what happens on November 3rd. Indirectly, you know, it probably put a few more votes in in Biden's camp. But look, we're stuck six three for, for a very long time. And you know, elections matter. Again, I'm the wild eyed optimist on this. You never know, she could she could change over time. She could become a have a different judicial philosophy. I think Renquist towards the end of his life was was was chilling out a bit. Look at Roberts. Roberts has made some decisions with the liberals recently. Look at Souter. You brought up Souter. Yeah. Well, look at look at John Paul Stevens. He was a Republican appointee. Yeah. I hope does bring eternal. I am I am more pessimistic. I actually saw a comment on the common lists that was saying that Roe v. Wade is a red herring. That really what the whole thing is about is about destroying the administrative state, you know, the sort of delegation doctrines and things like that, that you've got six three for like wiping out a lot of the administrative state, which is sort of a long term interest of some of the business interests. And that that that I think is going to be an interesting part of what they do. So remember, you always have Congress can figure out a way if it works at it to overcome a Supreme Court decision. Yeah. Yeah. No. Yeah. Yeah.  I just I mean, Congress struck down the vote you the Voting Rights Act and we didn't have the appropriate Congress to reinstate it. They strike down this whole thing. Obamacare to me is a wonderful political thing. But talk about red herrings. So they strike down Obamacare on January 28th.  You know, it's a Biden care a month later. I don't get this whole big deal about about what's going to happen at the Supreme Court. Right. Right. That was an interesting thing I thought about. We're doing a debate is when Biden said I'm going to do Biden care. I was like whoa, you know, he's like, I'm taking that seat, you know, so I thought that was very well, don't don't forget. Initially, we were surprised. Remember what happened when the when Obamacare first came up before the court, you had all the Republicans from the Congressional Republicans sitting in the front row waiting to hear the good news, you know, that it was that the Commerce Clause didn't allow this. And in fact, that's what Roberts started to say. The Commerce Clause doesn't let Hey, but wait, there's this taxing clause. And so Roberts crossed over, and we got a five to four decision upholding in Zabelius upholding Obamacare initially. And I remember him actually making one of his, you know, they, the Chief Justice isn't likely to talk to the press after a decision, but we had our school, our law school had Chief Justice Roberts teaching in our summer broad program in Malta. And he said, I'm glad I'm escaping to the island fortress of Malta. Yeah, well, there's an example, you know, we can be surprised once in a while. I think there's a reliance interest to that's in the background of all those people who have gotten that Obamacare so far, those preexisting conditions. I've seen Supreme Court justices who don't agree with this, but they said a lot of people have been relying on it. And really, do I want to do that kind of overturning? But what is distressing about the whole Supreme Court nomination process is how politicized it's become. It really is distressing. No matter what side you're on, it's distressing. I mean, what happened, what happened with Kavanaugh, what happened with her, what happened earlier with, with, with Thomas. And again, I don't agree with any of them. Politically or otherwise, the whole process, you know, we used to we used to confirm Supreme Court justices 96 to nothing.  And it's become such a politicized process. I don't think that's good for our democracy is all I'm saying. Well, I think I read that back in FDRs time, you know, when Frank Ferdinand was going on the court or trying to think of who else that, you know, there were hearings about them because this was, you know, a Jew on the court kind of thing. So, you know, this has got a history of sort of, and certainly when Thurgood Marshall came on, that was part of sort of getting the comfortable the country comfortable with him during those hearings. So the politicization, if I could say it like that, I think it has a, you know, it always has this history. Yeah, I'm sure, you know, but now it's theater. Now it's theater because it's televised. I mean, the same questions are asked of every nominee of how are you going to vote on X, Y and Z and every nominee has the same answer. Right. Not going to tell you. So unless you, unless you have, you know, a history of decisions by that judge, and you can question he or she about your decision in X versus Y, it's just theater. I mean, you know, and you think the judge has got a skimpy history, right? So, you know, you got like, now she had law review articles, but of course, you know, that's me just being myself in the law review doing my academic freedom thing. So that's, you know, whatever's there. I was disturbed that the late information about her being on a board of a school that didn't allow the children of gay LGBT folks to be students at that school, you know, I when I was a kid, we, you know, we went to schools to get me in as a kid. And you know, it was the classic one was the principle saying, well, if it was me, it'd be okay.  You know, I remember that as a kid. So, you know, I think about that. I mean, these are kids, right? That's who cares about the parents. These are kids that she could have been in the vice president's wife. She qualified for that. That's how she feels. Fair enough. I mean, that bothered me. Those are legitimate. Those are legitimate. I think those are legitimate. You belong to an all male club. We're going back now. Right.   It was by the way, I'm wearing blackface today. Thank you. Yeah, you can't even say that anymore. You can't say that anymore. No, you can't.  Biden's talked about judicial system reform. Is there any constitutionally permissible reform that might enhance the merit selection of Supreme Court justices? Well, you could go to the Hawaii system. I think Hawaii's got the best system. These are for all your Hawaiian listeners here, but I think it's true. Hawaii has a merit plan. So go to a system where you have a nominating commission. Jeff, people like Jeff are on there. They take applications and recommendations and then give to an appointing official the top three and let that person choose from it. That happened here, right? The Federalist Society gave Trump a list and ranked them. And that's the difference between the state and the federal government. Gentlemen, thank you so much for your time. May we all be in a place next week where we can breathe more freely, whatever that may be for you. Stay on. We'll debrief a little bit.


The Eyes of Tammy fame will be quietly snuck into theaters about a week back and I quietly snuck in to watch it. Here are my thoughts. Before I begin the review, I just want to let you know I preyed on it, and I was told that you need to subscribe to the channel. It's paramount that you subscribe and watch further reviews. Alright, we keep going. Televangelists. Wow, an amazing bunch, aren't they? Essentially the traveling salesmen or the snake peddler of the cable TV networks. I can't believe they still exist and thrive and are more successful than I am. Actually, I can. When you lack a moral compass or real empathy and have an audience full of suckers, sky's the limit. Let's talk about the film. Jessica Chastain and Andrew Garfield play the bakers, a fun-loving couple that spends most of their waking hour talking to God on TV for people to send them money and then they take a lot of that money and enrich themselves with it. It's an amazing story and it just so happens to be one that's true. And it all started right where I stand, here in Minnesota, where dreams become realities or something. Our slogan is we're the land of 10,000 lakes. Guess we're also the land of 10,000 snakes, because these two are a couple of the worst of the bunch. Actually, that's not fair. To say Tammy Faye is a corrupt, horrible individual would be a bridge too far. She's actually very naive according to the film. She truly believes in God and believes in what she's doing and you know what, end of the day she's a lot more moral than the book that she preaches from. She's very inclusive to all walks of life. She doesn't judge those that are below her because no one's below Tammy. She's on equal playing field. We learn this when the film starts and she's not even allowed to go into her own congregation. Her parents are simple folk, but even her mom needs to have something stuck in her once in a while and Tammy was the result of that. She's the shame. She's the sin that her mother wants to keep hidden, so she can't go into the church until one day Tammy decides, you know what, God forgives, God loves, I'm going in. And she's accepted by the town's folk when she collapses to the ground and starts convulsing because the Lord is all up inside of her. So the church is like, okay, yep, she's cool, we're good with this. We're good with this. That really sets Tammy on a journey of self-discovery and making that coin. Once she meets up with her soon-to-be husband, Jim, in college, the sky is the limit and right up there next to the pearly gates is going to be their golden gate that they could afford from those donations that people were sending in on the daily. These two will grow in fame and popularity to the point where they will have 20 million people watching their network show every single day. I knew nothing about these two going into the movie and they're from my stomping ground, but it all started in the late 70s, early 80s, and it spilled over to the early 90s.  I know a lot of people did, I know a lot of people got burned by these two. And some still are ride-or-die Tammy fans. And the movie kind of is too. It really does paint a portrait of a woman who is trying to do the right thing and she was just kind of an innocent bystander.  She really just wanted to open people's hearts and minds to the God that she worships. I enjoy a good based on a true story film, even if the based on part is inaccurate. I don't know, I couldn't tell you in this case. All I can say is Jessica Chastain was fantastic. She usually is. I don't think I've seen her miss. Here she really puts in the work. And Andrew Garfield's great too. A cinematography is great, music's fantastic. I think she was singing those songs. I did hear some of Tammy Faye's original music and I will say Tammy's a little better. But Jessica Chastain puts that work in. She really does put in the effort and I appreciate it. I'd say the only real hang-up, I have two hang-ups actually. One, the movie is two hours long. It does feel longer than that. I feel like we need to get back to this hour and a half, hour 45 for some of these movies. They just don't need that much space. The other negative is very small. It's some of the makeup, especially in the college scenes, which by the way, Jessica Chastain pretty damn convincing as a college kid. I was impressed. Very well done.  It's a bit much. It looks pretty fake, unnatural. I don't know if there's a whole lot of lesson to be learned from this film or really what the story is trying to convey outside of Tammy Faye was an innocent bystander. That's really what the whole story is. Everything else is like no lessons learned at all. All the same crap is still happening today with these false prophets and these people going on TV saying that they're working in God's favor and His grace and then they take money and nobody thinks about it and there's no consequences.  Obviously, the mistakes of the past don't really represent the future. The history repeats itself yada yada yada. This was an entertaining movie, not when you need to rush to the theaters to see, which is the only way you can watch it right now. They really sent this one out to die, I think. Wait till it's on streaming services, rent it, whatever. It's worth a watch but not worth the trip to the movies. If you have or haven't seen the movie, I'd love to hear from you either way. Leave a comment below. Like the video if you had a good time, subscribe if you haven't, and make sure to hit that notification bell for baby Jesus. He'd love for you to get these videos right into your feed. See you soon. Hey, thanks again for watching the video and hopefully liking it. If you want to go further, you can join me on Patreon at Patreon.com slash AdamDoesMovies and become a member there. You can leave $1 pledge a month or five or ten. The proceeds all go to me, not to some scam that I set up. It will go to me and some goes to Patreon. They take money too. Everybody takes money.


Thanks for checking out this movie review video. So this is for the 2019 film Warning do not play and this is a shutter original film when I'm putting this review up recording it and putting it up It is before the film is actually hitting shutter So it hits shutter on June 11th, which is a Thursday. This is going up like two days ahead of time So therefore this is a no spoilers review because if anyone wants to watch a film I don't want to spoil anything But if you've already seen the film and you're finding this review you'll understand what I'm talking about So you can still watch this review even though it's not spoilers. You'll get it So this was written and directed by Kim Jin Won who did a film called the butcher which I think Directing is good with this film. It looks good cinematography is good directing is good acting is quite good in this film in my opinion I was very impressed with the acting to be honest There are a few things I don't love about this film But I would say upfront that for anyone who is into like J horror that you'd probably enjoy this film If anyone's into Korean films in in general, you may enjoy this film I don't know but when I say that if people are into J horror, they would potentially enjoy it I don't want to kind of pigeonhole this as a J horror film because it's not it's kind of like the way it felt to me is like a mix of Like the ring and The Blair Witch Project because it does have that kind of found footage to it now Part of the reason I say Blair Witch Project is because it gets referenced in the film and it's obvious that that's an inspiration for the film also referenced in the film is the Exorcist which maybe a little bit of of A little bit from the Exorcist pulled into this film, but not a ton so just saying The beginning of this is actually a little bit annoying because the way it starts. It's extremely dark It is extremely dark not content wise, but actually like lighting wise. It's unbelievably dark I basically had to put my face on the screen to see what was going on Now those types of things are very very annoying It wasn't bad to the point where you know a movie like Alien vs. Predator Requiem is because it's that whole film Is just 100% dark you can't see anything going on and it's confusing because it's quick shots quick cuts This doesn't do that It's just this way in the very beginning and they kind of get away from that then until there's one part much later on Where you can't see anything, but you can hear things, but that's that works actually so just a little bit annoying in the beginning I hate when when scenes are not well enough lit You just can't see what's going on and it and you're supposed to see something But it's not coming through so that kind of bothered me, but you know as a small portion There is a really cool jump scare early on. I thought it was really well done in this film Probably my favorite moment of the film to be honest even though it's a very small part one of the things that really stood out with that is that the the sound effect used during that Jump scare was very cool and very interesting and very effective and that kind of gets to something else with this film is I do Believe the sound design of this is excellent This is one of the better sound design films that I've come across recently There are so many times where you know films are just the sound design is fine You know it goes with the films That's kind of what you expect with this one. It really stood out as being particularly good They really emphasize sound in a really cool way and a lot of the sound effects that they use are very interesting Not typical for what you'd end up hearing. So I liked it I really liked that auditory aspect of the film The premise that's actually set up in this film early on is a very interesting premise It pulls you in early because it is compelling. It's a compelling storyline now Where it goes from there for me personally it gets a little bit slowed down And that's kind of one of my biggest issues with this is the pacing is not the best I do feel like you know, it's like With credits and everything I was I think it's an hour and 26 minute running time and it feels kind of long So for it to not be super long and it kind of feels long It means some things probably should have been cut down a little bit, you know, maybe throw a little bit more into it Yeah, I'm just saying There's something you see in this film that's supposed to be extremely scary Based off of things that are said in the film. It's supposed to be unbelievably scary The problem is it isn't now This is one of the issues that writers need to stay away from of saying that something is the best or something's the most Beautiful or something's the most scary thing ever things like this you cannot do this just say it's scary say it's You know be more vague you can't say it's like the most scary thing anything anything It's the most scary thing anyone's ever seen you can't do that because that sets the bar like this And let me tell you something you're never gonna reach that bar for each audience member You're setting yourself up for failure with that. It's just something you got to stay away from But like I said, you can just be like, oh, it's something scary That does enough, you know, just Less is more less is definitely more with hyping things up You know think about all the films out there where people say, oh my gosh It was so scary people went to see it and they were passing out and someone had a heart attack and you know there's something like that in this film and it's Then people see it and they're like, I don't see what everyone's talking about now It's much better for people to just experience the film and make up their opinion without all that hype around it Because when there's all that hype, it's going to play worse to the audience because their expectations are crazy high Just saying sorry, I went on a little long on that but you know, I Have a hard time believing the main character would go as far as she does in this film You'll see what I mean when you see the film or if you've already seen the film You understand what I mean There's certain choices that the main character makes that don't really make sense for where their life Situation is what they would really be doing and who they seem to be as a person Early on in the film now Maybe that's kind of a point of they kind of change as a person throughout it But it didn't feel right to me. It felt a little bit off But you know, it's a horror film. You got to get to the horror somehow There's some quite creepy or I already talked about the sound sound design, but I wrote down that it's very creepy and effective I mean sound design Excellent. There's some meta foreshadowing that happens about the film when some characters are kind of talking about it That's one of the things I did kind of like about this is they throw some very meta stuff into this film So it's not a very it's not a straightforward film It's kind of like turns into like a film talking about a film being a film Yeah, it if that sounds kind of confusing it is a little bit But you'll understand if you actually watch the film you'll get what I'm talking about It's like quasi horror inception in a way. That doesn't really Spoil anything. Don't worry There's a moment. I actually did not really see coming in this where things actually really ramp up It's probably about it around the one hour mark of the film So there's like like 20 some minutes left at that point I would like that, you know it to get things moving a lot more a lot earlier But I think a lot of that has to do with being a lower budget film You know these shutter original films don't get a ton of money to do what they're doing So for that reason I am impressed with certain things like the directing and the acting and the cinematography and the sound design so Expectations like you know, you need to understand what type of film you're really watching. This isn't a big budget film It's totally not so when you view it through that lens There are things that really stick out another thing that actually really sticks out too is the The gore and The violence when it actually happens It's more sparse than you would want it to be but you have to understand that that's because it's a lower budget film But when they do it, it's effective and I think a part of the reason for that is the way they choose to shoot it It's not unbelievably explicit or anything But between the actors actually selling it and the way they shoot it. It's effective. It is Nicely done It's definitely j-horror as I suspected but like I said, it's not straight up. It's not straight up So don't I don't want to pigeonhole like that Like I said it drags a little bit That's probably my biggest problem with it. The other thing I need to say is when I rate this you need to understand that I Am not a huge fan of j-horror films in general. I'm also not a huge fan of found footage So when I say there's kind of a Blair Witch Aspect to it. There's a little found footage to it and I'm just not a fan of either of the genres really So for the fact that I actually kind of enjoyed it is a good thing. I mean it speaks more You know, so just just know my biases is what I'm trying to get at The title one of my biggest problems is the title. I hate the title of this film. I think it's awful I understand why It's called warning. I don't understand the do not play portion of it I think that should have been left off a hundred percent. I don't even think it should have been called warning though I just think the title was very poorly chosen for this now After I say that that might not be the fault of the director slash writer of this film because It's a film coming over from South Korea You know, it may have a different name originally in Korean than it does in the United States a lot of the times when films go from one country to another They actually totally change the name of it. They don't just translate the title of it So I don't know what the situation is there. I just know that whoever picked that title It's not good. It's really not good and I understand Why like what it refers to and why it's called that? But it's not good So, you know, they needed a better title. That's a minor thing There's a component of commentary on the pressures of film making and the expectations of Filmmakers, especially if they've done something noteworthy before So I like that kind of subtext commentary Situation going on with it and it's kind of another aspect of what I was talking about being meta about things So it's very meta about filmmaking It's it has filmmaking aspects that they talk about in the film and then the overall You know meta and metaphors in the film are about filmmaking itself so it's kind of cool because it's a scriptwriter director making a film about Frustrations of being a scriptwriter director making a film in a sense. So I like those types of things when they're done There's also an exploration of writer's block and kind of the lengths that some people will go to to kind of solve that Obviously in a horror film, it's going to be taken to the nth degree It's not gonna feel very realistic, but that's because it's a horror film You got to get the horror somehow and that that's at play here Horror movies as a personal release and a sort of therapy is talked about briefly in this And that's when the exorcist is specifically cited.  So that's kind of all I have to say about the film I can't say that I would go out of my way to recommend this to people to be honest But part of that could be because of be because of some of my biases as I said But I think there's some really good things like I talked about in this You know, I'm not gonna repeat them again, but yeah, there's some good things So out of five stars with half stars in play I'm gonna give it a two and a half stars because I'm so in the middle on whether I would really recommend it to someone or Not and like I said, there could be some biases I thought about giving it a three, but it feels more like a two and a half to me Honestly, I just say you make up your mind watch it and and figure that out because it's hard to know You know, these are all just my personal opinions Everyone has their their views on film. So it's just you know, figure it out for yourself Every movie is worth watching just one time just to know what it was all about. So I'll just say that But anyway, thanks for checking this out real quick if you want to put some comments down there We could talk about this film. We can do spoilers in the comments So let's go ahead and do that if you want to talk about it or you know, bring up anything else Go ahead do me a quick favor and hit that subscribe button because that is the best way to repay me It's totally painless for you literally takes a second and it means a lot for my channel growth and I appreciate that If you've already subscribed hit that thumbs up just to let me know you're still watching and if you have subscribed Or you're going to subscribe make sure you hit the notification bell and that way You know when I'm putting up new reviews or I do unboxings here and there or I'm doing a live stream Because I'm doing live streams now too and those have been a lot of fun But regardless, thanks for spending your time checking this out and I appreciate that and until next time keep it brutal