Conversation 048-001

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

Let me say before you speak to him, Steve, I realize that there's scientists out there

The first approach to zero in on a specific problem is to say, well, how is the world we're trying to accomplish?

The third approach is to recognize that we have a whole general realm of subjects that we deserve, and that's how we manage.

Thank you very much.

I think, however, as far as the country is concerned, the country needs the symbolism of the gold.

I mean, so it was with the gold that they had.

perhaps was useful in this field.

I think we have to look at it in two ways.

One, the object, which is of course to find a cure or some better treatments for cancer.

And second, the broader purpose of attracting public attention and developing public support for major

efforts in medical research and support those efforts in a very, very substantial way.

So we were thinking of all those things when I finally decided in the State of the Union to include the $100 million initial annual in the cancer area, with of course additional funds as they became necessary.

I think you'll find that this new initiative towards the conquest of cancer, or I suppose more accurately the group of disorders which we collectively call cancer,

It seems to many of us that the logic behind such a move at this time is compelling.

I think you know these points, and I might review them very briefly.

First of all, that one out of every six Americans is destined to die of cancer.

Although we accept death as inevitable, this is often made to be an unpleasant form of death, which is destructive to human dignity.

Also, that it is often untimely, it may be, I think it is the second leading cause of death among our young people after accidents alone.

In the second point, in economic terms, although we don't make decisions on something such as human lives like this on strict economic grounds, that it costs, when we calculate billions of dollars annually, not only in direct medical costs, but in cost productivity, because we can't put a dollar value on the cost of tragedy to individuals in this country.

Thirdly, I think the scientific community as well, and the public at large,

feels that this perhaps isn't at the time in terms of the background of the tests which have been made in these studies concerning cancer in these last two decades particularly.

Consider when these advances have come, they've often come in disciplines which one would not clearly relate to cancer in a sharp sense, in immunology, in biochemistry, molecular biology, all the structures, for example, electron microscopy.

and the advances in this broad-based science which has allowed us to feel confident that with further input that we can accelerate this response.

I think the fourth point of which is

in some ways may sound trivial, is that we have certainly not matched the paths of our input in this area with the gravity of the problem.

This point has been made in your message.

I want you to put it in a dramatic sense by saying that you can tell an American citizen that he has a chance to be killed or subjugated by a foreign aggression who spent $410 in his defense annually.

You can accept that.

Then if you point out to him that he has statistical certainties, that either he or a member of his family has the one chance of sex being killed by cancer, then we're putting 89 cents annually into detection, prevention and treatment of that disease.

I think this, in a nutshell, will point out to him the gravity of this.

We are particularly pleased, I think, as a group, and certainly in medical circles, with the decision which you have made to retain this activity in the broad basis of biomechanical research.

In other words, retain it structurally related to the National Institutes of Health, rather than setting up a...

Yes, sir?

Loss of...

Correct.

Loss of the energy to enhance visibility...

concentrated area of responsibility in the NIH as spelled out in your message, but at least within the structure of the broad phase of biomedical research.

I say that this position must

spelled out extraordinarily well in an address he gave about ten days ago in front of the Association of American Medical Colleges and the meeting of the Council of Academic Societies, a group which represents very broadly the research societies of this country who would be involved in all studies relating to cancer.

This address given in Chicago was widely publicized and greatly applauded in the scientific community for this kind of approach.

I think we could summarize, and I can tell you that, as pointed out, that we heard Ed Lee yesterday, and discussed with Mr. Benno, he met with the chairman of this group, who set up the Senate, the background for their decisions.

We found their scientific value, their report, very persuasive, and that next month the doctorate division of chances of cancer.

I think it's fair to say that we found fair defense to this suggestion for a difficult position, and perhaps even dangerous to the development of biomedical research.

There are three or four points that I want to bring out, and I'm sure others will come up perhaps further during the discussion concerning this.

First of all, they gave a recitation of the tremendous successes which we've had in the background of cancer research in the last ten years, which has been accelerating the last few years, which has led to the excitement of the possibility for a new initiative.

It seems rather paradoxical.

They would turn around and say that the mechanisms which led to this success are no longer adequate to pursue it further.

Secondly, they enumerated in some detail the sciences which now are related directly to cancer research.

Immunology, virus studies, science, so-called molecular biology, genetics, all of these things are woven into cancer research.

And as we sat and listened, this sounded like a very long list of the activities of the National Institutes of Health.

And that if they really, as a separate agency, pursued the opportunities in cancer research, they would have to duplicate what is now being done in the National Institutes of Health.

Perhaps in competition, certainly in parallel.

The third thing, which stresses us concerning the concept of separate agencies, is that it represents a precedent.

All the cancer is extraordinarily important.

It's not being called to death, contrary to cardiovascular diseases, for example.

And all of these other...

I told the heart specialist that it was supposed to be...

I might say you'll hear it more from me.

Oh my, yes.

They're all in Turkish.

The cancer is singled out of this particular arrangement that special studies.

These other diseases have their own peculiar procedures and I don't share the facts.

Could I ask you a question?

This was a good idea.

I can see that one ingredient there may not be present in others.

But...

Does it make sense to sort out other diseases?

Or does cancer have a, not simply because of the size, but because of the progress it's been making?

Does it have a special, for example, you know, there are foundations for kidneys, there are foundations for arthritis, there are organs for heart disease, you know, there should be, you take arthritis and it's a

Terrible poor, and of course not to mention the muscular history of schizophrenia, which is over the whole roughly 2% of our population.

You know, I must have done testimonials for every one of these, you know, television.

Where do we lead?

And that's very important for this group to consider.

Is there going to be cancer?

Why should cancer be treated differently, other than the fact that it kills one out of six?

Well, I think at the present time, I think you've given part of the answer in your introduction to Marx, of all diseases, it has that peculiar centralism to America.

A kind of constellation of dread around it.

And also because of the people who have been involved in it.

the type of debt that is associated with it, the sense of degradation and pain.

So I think one can defend this, that the American public would consider it its number one problem, even though on a statistical basis this might not be true.

And I think if we need to single out a single thing, perhaps for the dramatizing, the possibility of research, that this is a good choice.

Now, it's true too, though, that it confirms cancer, that the

The art has developed, or the process has developed in a way where the chance for a breakthrough here may be somewhat greater than in some other areas.

Well, I think this is true, although obviously we cannot be sure.

We cannot be sure.

We think this is true, and that is the reason that we would support very strongly this initiative, as long as it is not hermetically sealed off for the rest of science.

So putting it in a special, in a special, say, insert for cancer, sealing it off would be a mistake.

There might be a relationship either, so, I mean, not knowing anything about it, I would assume.

research in this field with some of the other... We're not sure where you might have come from.

You're not from Leeds, and now no one would define it as being cancer-oriented in person.

In fact, if you look back at the history of where we stand now... Those advises that have come down to this, that a lot of people just feel that the National Institute has developed some of these, they're all parts of the establishment.

They're all gone, they're in a rut.

It's bureaucracy, and we're pouring money into it.

That's the argument we hear.

That's the answer to that.

How do we answer that?

Well, the answer part is that the excitement, the sense of excitement that we currently feel about the positives of cancer were generated in that bureaucracy.

I know, they recommended it.

They did the basic work.

They did that work.

They have an excellent track record, as we said.

We think that it would be dangerous to set up a separate section, artificially separated from each other, a very strong base of science.

We just don't know where the cancer will come from.

We strongly suspect that it may come from areas that we would not now sharply define as cancer.

That doesn't mean you wouldn't consecrate an institute as long as you were a part of an institute.

Correct, yeah.

But how they can the prosecution for the cancer average be improved in the NIH are the things that can be done.

How is the leadership there?

That's pretty much where you can get down to the man.

Is there a good, strong leader side that can be put in charge of this particular place?

You may not be a doctor, actually.

Of course not.

I don't think you're about the science.

The science is somebody who's...

I think that's the feeling, the fear that many people have about a million dollars for this great big institute.

It'll go down there, you know, hire people who are scientists and so forth, or grow the mice, you know, smoke cigarettes and so forth.

I support what we've done, but I just want to argue.

I think once you take a different position, it means a more of the same and a separate institute.

Could I suggest that what is needed, what is really needed here, in order to get to that, is to, rather than just putting it open and say, well, here's a hundred million dollars more to be scattered around the state, is that people think in terms of a man.

Simply, there has to be a man who is the leader of this state.

He's in charge.

I think that would have a very great effect.

And also I think in the term standpoint of organization, it might have some effect too.

He's in charge, and he's also in charge.

He looks at the budget line.

Rather than just saying, well, the head of the National Institute of Health, he's the guy that, he's got all these other balls in the air, and so then he comes in at $100 million per year, this and that.

Would that be a, is that possible?

Could you find a, would it be a great cancer specialist?

Maybe he is the best person to lead?

I have a feeling if you could symbolize it with a man, that would answer it.

I think there is such a middle position within the structure of the national student colleges, such as one could appoint an individual who would enhance authority, visibility, perhaps have an annual report on the progress of cancer to you and to the country, and that this would give that sense of something being done, and not merely a diffusion of all sides.

We all know, of course, that the 100 million was the opener, and we all know, too, that...

Well, we believe that there is a mechanism, you know, for putting such a man into the Institutes of Health.

There's the authority for coordinating and supervising and directing the whole cancer program, developing and supporting the biochemistry, the immunology, the genetics and so on, as well as the stuff directly in the Institute of Cancer.

And he could be a deputy, or I think it has to be done, he'd need to be a deputy or a specialist, but there is a man, and he's in charge.

And then people have a feeling as a sense of direction.

Advocates, lobbyists, and so forth.

That will answer the thing.

But you must do that, or otherwise the arguments will be very compelling to throw it out.

I mean, all these other people have been fighting cancer for years, and we haven't flipped it.

You know, it hits you.

But this is...

I think this is more or less the same approach as a number of problems which the country has.

I don't think that the issue primarily is having a lot more money in it.

The issue is getting focused in the way that you've got a picture of this.

And one of the areas that we've been very interested in is that.

It's the energy area.

The whole issue of clean energy for the 1980s out of the technologies.

There's a lot of good work going on.

I would like to get the advice and get the recommendation of this group on that point.

You know, we used to get that around a lot, the clean energy problem.

It's a large block of water that came out of those proposals.

It's either to find it or go back to the pristine beauty of society without energy.

Of course, it's never beautiful.

Well, there are perhaps several of these.

We will be looking at some of them, perhaps bringing your attention for the first time.

The second item, which speaks to the very great major interest in this whole future shock, but he's talked to us about this the last time.

He's done some cool work on it.

And Dr. Herbert Simon, one of our social scientists, is here to say something about what's happened since the last meeting.

Well, when you asked us to look into the doctor's thesis on future shock, I replied with an exact thought.

The problem was not so much a problem as a rate of technology change, and it was a problem of whether people felt that they were doing the change, or the change was being done on them, or to them.

And that these reading things include methods of getting

Public participation in the decision to introduce new technologies.

Now public participation is a very new idea.

That's what our revenue share is.

Our particular focus here was, can we do a better job when complex technology is involved?

And are there ways of doing it better, of getting public participation decisions, public understanding of it better, before controversies heat up, when people are still in the mood to look at things more or less objectively?

At the first step toward verifying our own thinking about this and trying to see what could be done, in connection with a federal project that we're reviewing, we thought we might be able to conduct a case study or a demonstration of how something could be done.

The project is Project Star, which we're a composer to, cut down on the damage of hurricanes by seeding them.

In our judgment, there's probably going to have to be a decision within a couple of years as to whether Starbuck Fury ought to move from purely research seeding of hurricanes to actual operational seeding.

We don't think such a decision needs to be made.

Somebody's going to, seeing a hurricane approaching, is going to say, why don't you try to do something.

about it.

And so we are trying now to see what questions ought to be asked before one may say

A decision that invests is going to be a very risky decision based on evidence that's going to be less than perfect.

About something which may, on balance, have good results, but also has associated with the intrinsic risk of very large risks.

First of all, what is the right decision?

But maybe at least as important in such a situation, what's the right procedure for making that decision?

How...

Can you or should you involve the public, particularly the part of the public that's going to be directly affected by the actions you take?

Are there ways in which you can bring about that kind of understanding, perhaps part of the nation's decision, of the people who are going to be directly affected by it?

And people here is going to turn out to mean not only American citizens, but also people of other nations.

but it starts your project, who is specific as is contemplated.

Requests for seating or opposition to seating may arise not merely from our own people, but from governments of other nations.

So what we are mounting now is a little effort to examine these issues and to see whether we can propose what we think are a reasonable series of procedures for governments to follow

in making such a decision when the time comes, and which will take into account, as a major part of it, the issue of public response to technological change, or to proposed technological change.

Specifically, what do you see as the future of the United Nations?

Yes, that's it.

I think God, if he had changed the direction of the hurricanes traveled by a degree, this would affect this now.

Nobody would know whether what you did did that or not, but there would be suspicions.

We don't have a very good chance of converting, of course, but I think that's not really as beautiful as changing what we've lost ourselves.

But it's also not known whether seeding, if it does affect the purity of the storm, doesn't also, as a secondary, unintended effect, perhaps deflect it a little bit.

So that would raise questions as to whether you didn't affect one town instead of another, even though the net purity is less.

It really gets awesome.

For example, the storm is very erratic anyways.

Well, we have a lot of variety of things, I think it's just the beginning stages, but...

One of the obvious directions would be toward using television, using other public media, as a way of beginning to educate people on what our understanding of curriculum is all about, and our understanding of ways in which it might affect them.

Educating them also about the likes of knowledge we have, and of the fact that if such a decision is made, it's not going to be a decision based on certainty.

giving some feel for what kind of a decision it is that we're going to have to make.

There's been a little bit of conversation about whether this is the sort of issue in which you would want to actually conduct referenda at some stage among people in potentially affected areas, perhaps not the day before the hurricane, but I think that's a whole range of alternatives.

That leads to the explorers.

And then, of course, there are more modest things, trying to get out through the usual media channels, media reports, trying to educate those middlemen between science and the general public.

I would, I think the educational sides of my house, I'm sure, I would tend to work for the reason, not because I want to hopefully come out to the reason.

If we were to go back in the times in between those various breaks, it would probably come out negative.

The average person is afraid of the unknown.

He basically needs to stay distraught.

That's what makes this sign also true.

But it doesn't decide us as an explorer.

And society can never make these decisions based on the least common denominator of the average person.

I mean, he makes this statement.

We actually made our decision regarding the leaders of the average person.

There is a subpanel, a design panel, which is also contained for the Procedure Commission.

I think perhaps there are one or two specific items which are worth commenting on.

I have felt that perhaps one of the major forces present, which hasn't been fully appreciated, is the shift in the services sector.

We now have 55% of our working population in that sector.

And no matter what we do, for example in the manufacturing sector or the agricultural sector, we are now working on a minority working population.

And hence a great deal more effort needs to go into understanding how we can improve productivity and education specifically, and local government specifically.

There are also private sectors such as construction, which can pose a bit of problems, which also are in this low productivity gain area now.

We think that perhaps this is one of the large forces which it is.

We can at least do something about it in the same sense that the movement from the rural areas to the cities had generated many of today's urban problems, and had they been envisioned early enough, some things at least could have been done to alleviate today's problems.

They shift to the services sector, where we in essence are moving from where we have a mechanism which automatically at least enforces certain actions with respect to productivity into areas where we don't have

means that we have a large force operating today which is quite different from that which existed previously.

Now, one specific R&D program which we have recommended to the Productivity Commission, which I understand they are seriously sponsoring, is this.

Why is it in the United States that inflation does onset apparently at 4% on the planet?

Why should it be so high here, when in reality it's roughly half that in the most industrialized world, and in some cases even less than that?

If, for example, the same kind of pressures were engendered at 2%, instead of 4%, the society would have a great deal more it could do.

They've already ran into the kind of inflationary pressures which have caused this administration and so on to get into so many problems.

And it may be, of course, that this is a good thing.

Instead of bad, maybe it's mobility.

But we don't really know.

Literally, we don't really know why the correlation, the so-called Phillips curve, 4% correlation with these inflationary pressures exists.

And we think that since this is such a vital subject, and since so much of the climate is done around the 4% climate, a really major effort ought to go into understanding

Why does it happen?

And what would you have to do to make it happen a percent, or two and a half, instead of four?

And when one considers what freedom this would engender in the sense of everything the administration is now trying to do,

turn on the economy again, without simultaneously increasing the inflation, it seems to me one could hardly find a more important subject matter for research development in this field.

That's one.

The second, which we are not prepared to recommend, but which we suggest is a very serious investigation, is this.

We do have at the present time...

A larger source, obviously, is the unemployed scientists and engineers.

Exactly what to do about this is a very complex subject.

The most important thing about it is what you are already doing, and that is turning the economy back on again.

But there is one specific idea which might be worth looking at very seriously.

While the problem of tax credits is always a complicated one, there is one...

one aspect of the tax credit, which might not be nearly as complicated, and which might have even more important byproducts than just simply starting to tap this resource, which is not now presently used.

And that might be a tax credit for precision development done outside industrial organizations, okay, at universities.

Now, here you can clearly identify the work which is being done.

Whereas the work inside, you run into all the accounting problems of, in essence, paying for things you're already getting.

Whereas at present, the sponsored work by industrial organizations and universities is so small, it's a very small number, a total amount, that any increase,

If we could give a tax credit, which perhaps had the cost of doing work outside of the institution,

That tax credit could be limited to a percentage of profits in exactly the same way as the present limit of contributions.

The secondary effect of coupling the universities to industry much more tightly, which I think if the credit were adequate enough, would clearly happen over a span of time.

It would simultaneously subject the choices, however, to all the usual choices.

In other words,

The individual companies would deal with individual universities and individual similar institutions, so all of these choices that make this system of ours so flexible and so effective would come into play.

I would think it would be best if there were not too many limitations.

As certain universities are willing to give proprietary rights, let proprietary rights be given.

Other institutions are not willing, well, fine.

Let all these usual mechanisms come into play.

And I think that not only would one see there an increase in the total response of research, but over time one might also see some shift from that portion which is paid for by the government to private sector with all of the individual choices and helping them.

That this would make it feasible.

So I think this particular aspect of the tax credit might be a very significant one, particularly in that I think most economists agree that this particular kind of stimulation would be even more significant than capital stimulation.

Utilization of this particular kind of skill would probably multiply itself in the economy even more effectively than multiplying the capital, such as the tax credit for capital investment.

I think that it is also true, and this is a very complicated subject, and it may bear on this 4% unemployment rate.

It may very well be

that many seemingly good programs, such as financial and business programs, may need to be working on the wrong end of the stick.

What we really ought to do is see that those whose efforts multiply jobs are used most effectively.

In essence, a successful effort by scientists or engineers or marketing people or any others, as far as that's concerned,

generate anywhere from 10 to 25 jobs.

Whereas when you work at the bottom end, you really are only working on a job at a time, and when you put your major effort in, putting the unsealed efforts in the right places, you really only cure whatever you cure there.

Whereas if you really turn the effort of the professionals to work,

And if all of the other data, for example related to international trade, showed pretty clearly that the only place we have favorable balance is in high technology products, if the emphasis could always be turned in that direction, it would be clear that we generate more jobs that way than we do with the pressures at the bottom.

It's a very, very complicated subject, but nothing's been done in the area to really examine carefully what these relationships are, and I think it's something that would be very, very subject to research and development, investigative action, and probably wouldn't give clear black and white answers, but I think it would add a great deal of information to what we presently have.

So I would feel that's an intensive effort looking at some of the such things as this relationship of the 4% and the 5%, perhaps this tax credit in something so specific as lack of work at many universities might produce great results for the tax credit idea.

We had a box this year because of the fact that the Ways and Means Committee does not want to open up the whole Pandora's box in another textured form at all.

And if you open up a text grid for this area, then actually people will have to open it up for a lot of centers.

On the other hand, in the...

is the next session of the Congress we are going to have some ideas about the texts which are quite revolutionary that are presently under consideration but this I think has great possibilities and I'd like to be with

If you could, if you read the thing out, or if you get something on that, I'd like to, but I have a question for the secretary.

In case you know it's of my interest to see that he gets it, and we'll get it in the potter, because actually it takes several months to get it in the potter.

I think this would improve, this olive water effect would improve.

I came back to, and I'm glad you raised the point, I was trying to raise it myself, and it's the, I've discussed with Dr. David the problem of the unemployed engineers and scientists and so forth.

Harvey and Abe goes by, Senator Grant is in my office and says, now look, you've got all these people that are unemployed because of the cutbacks to the fence and aerospace, and they're asking why don't you go to the environment meeting.

And it's a good idea, but actually all the buildings and districts know that first they're not probably that many jobs, so the whole show you can have an air pollution control office right here and there, and perhaps you can have, there are a number of devices, one that we have, just to digress, is that

The whole problem, as we move toward, in terms of revenue sharing, in terms of greater responsibility to states and cities and the rest, the problem of management of cities and states and the cities, the local government is an enormous problem.

It requires a kind of ability to nevertheless come back.

The unemployment for the individual in this particular department has been brought out the other day by a CIO official.

You know, our guys, occasionally, we have some unapplied books in there.

We have unapplied insurance.

We know how to, my judges, these other folks, those guys, you know, Carnegie Tech and other ways, they don't even know how to form for a Josh.

Because what happened to him was natural.

His wife was, what was his actual job?

Very well.

Here they are, and I'm speaking of young people.

They're young people.

They came up to the market at the time.

It was a seller's market.

They were sought after by the sellers.

They were probably overpaid or anything.

And so they're earning not much, but maybe they're earning $20,000, $25,000, $30,000 a year.

They buy a $70,000 house, and so forth.

They have children and cars and all that.

Wham!

What do they do?

And I was talking to the governor of Washington.

He was pointing out there, this is of course a different breed.

They are people who have more difficulty in going out and lining up with stamps or welfare checks or something like that.

Very difficult.

It's a matter of pride.

And also,

in terms of training for other jobs, to get their trained for very specific jobs, and they're very good at that, but we can say, look, you're not going to do something else.

There has to be a training cycle, and we have it.

We've got our manpower training.

I'm sure we have a big package in there for that, I understand.

We also have some public service, at least temporary public service jobs and that as well.

But I'm only talking about the problem, I'm not talking about a solution, I'm just going to indicate that we are greatly concerned about it.

In this sense, not in the sense of the numbers, we consider the numbers of this group in terms of the total number of employment and unemployment, which is relatively small, maybe 10%.

But on the other hand, in terms of quality, these are decent people who are obviously far above the

Many of them are potential leaders.

And to have them go through a period of frustration and eventually not just being defeated, but quitting, getting out, is a very detrimental thing for society.

I think it's a major challenge.

We want to get the unemployment rate, as everybody knows, and get it down in 1972.

I'm not sure that you have this.

Certainly we know that in some countries like India and most of the Latin countries, they have far too many people.

I would think in America there would never be too many, not too many, educated people, because ours is that kind of society.

You couldn't be more right.

Except for agricultural commodities, where we do what you're doing.

It's agricultural, it's agriculture to its great great kids.

Where we have the greatest productivity means, we want to overlook that too, despite the great kids in your industry.

No matter what you do in agriculture today, more than half a percent of the working population

I was thinking about it in terms of our foreign exchanges, except for agriculture, where we do have a lot of export and export.

We find that the United States simply isn't competitive in the world, except for very high technology fields.

So, I come from a fairly rounded community of people.

We must work with the spirits, and we've got to find programs pinpointed to them.

That's why I asked Dr. David and Jen to see in this amount that we have in the National Science Foundation, and we discussed it with Dr. David.

We are aware of the narrow manpower retraining programs for scientists and engineers, and I think most of us would say that, but that is not likely to be correct.

The narrow manpower retraining has been silenced better than it goes forward.

So the answer is supposed to go back to work in jobs which may be different from those in which they started.

These are highly skilled people at work.

They'll retrain themselves.

The same amount of effort put into things that require technical people.

will retrain more people than any kind of retraining program.

That's one which is such a metal to work.

Don't send him to school.

Don't send him to school in the sense of retraining him that way.

Now this doesn't say that studying, maybe in school, while you're working on a job, which helps you relearn something that is more applicable to what you're doing on that job, that's part of the relearning process.

But sending him to school without knowing what he's going to do when he comes out of school, I think will be 95% wasted.

Well, among the many things that you have under consideration, there's nothing that is more important in personal terms than this one.

I would like to give some recommendations as to what we do about these people, as you know, and have a meeting on it.

And that's why we meet them.

They have their own choice.

Nothing happens.

Let's try to do something.

We want to find... We've got to find...

It makes far more sense.

Partikulæt er det som forskning, som det er i de andre områdena, at det bare blir en permanent... Mange sånne mennesker blir ikke permanente dronere.

Mange sånne mennesker er mennesker som kommer ut, og de vil, så snart de kan, komme inn i det som de synger er en viktig og produktiv aktivitet.

Derfor var det effektivt å forbedra denne perioden, ut av hvordan de levde.

Well, anyway, I understand they're giving you a lunch downstairs.

But I told them to get out today.

We're having to get you to the group, but you can stay today.

The chili's better.

He had a standard gag, as you know.

He just had to be careful.

I got to say, it was made by the president.

It was terrible.