Latest recipes

Brennan’s Future Is in Question

Brennan’s Future Is in Question

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

The New Orleans landmark shuttered at the end of June, but what’s in store for its future?

While the legendary Brennan’s closing upset many New Orleans locals, the future of the restaurant is up in the air. After the past two months of chaos – in May, the restaurant’s building was purchased via auction and on June 28, the restaurant’s operators were evicted and Brennan’s was officially shuttered – the new owners are seriously considering what the future will hold for 417 Royal Street.

The building dates back to 1795, when it was used as a residence, a bank and an event hall before the Brennan family opened their restaurant in 1954. According to the restaurant's website, the layout could hold 550 guests in total, with 12 dining rooms and a large patio.

Local restaurateur Ralph Brennan, a distant relative of the original Brennan family, bought the restaurant at the auction and became the new owner. His spokesman Greg Beueurman couldn’t say whether or not the property would be a restaurant, but he noted that “the new owners want to make sure [that] what goes in there is a world-class destination worthy of the history of that building.”

While the future of the restaurant is under deliberation, the past employees left in a riot. Many of the cooks, servers and busmen, upon suddenly becoming unemployed, worried whether or not they would receive their last paycheck. Former employee Steven Swanson told NOLA Times that he hasn’t received any compensation for his work during the last week of June, including tips on credit card statements, and another former employee, Katherine Coon said, “they said they have no money to pay us, and they directed us to file for unemployment.”

Computer Programs

The GENOVA Suite of computer programs for generalizability theory consists of GENOVA, urGENOVA, and mGENOVA. The three programs are coordinated with Brennan (2001), which provides an extensive treatment of generalizability theory. Brennan (2001) can be purchased from the publisher, Springer-Verlag ( It is strongly recommended that users of these programs consult Brennan (2001) in order to interpret the output accurately.

There are complied versions of GENOVA, urGENOVA, and mGENOVA for both Macintosh PowerPCs and DOS/Windows-based PCs. Each of the programs in the GENOVA Suite may be distributed to others without obtaining the permission of the author(s). The folders for each program contain a "readme" file, a manual in pdf format, the application, and at least one sample input file.

Questions concerning these programs should be directed to:
Robert L. Brennnan
University of Iowa
CASMA, College of Education
210 Lindquist Center
Iowa City, IA 52242
(Tel: 319-335-5405)
(Email: [email protected])

    (16.9 MB)
    GENOVA is a ANSI FORTRAN computer program for univariate generalizability analyses with complete, balanced designs. It has both G study and D study capabilities. GENOVA was designed by R. L. Brennan and coded by J. E. Crick in the early 1980s. The file is large because the manual is a pdf version of a scanned file. , (356 KB)
    urGENOVA is an ANSI C computer program for the estimation of variance components for unbalanced random effects G study designs. The program does not have D study capabilities. urGENOVA was designed and coded by R. L. Brennan. , (660 KB)
    mGENOVA is an ANSI C computer program for multivariate generalizability analyses for a restricted class of designs. For these designs, the program has both G study and D study capabilities. mGENOVA was designed and coded by R. L. Brennan.
  1. Answers to Additional Exercises Errata
    Brennan's (2001) book on "Generalizability Theory" provides a set of exercises for each chapter, and Appendix I provides answers to about half of the exercises. Answers to the remaining exercises are provided here, as well as the errata for "Generalizability Theory".

Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Trudeau’s chief of staff knew of 2018 Vance allegation: ex-senior staffer

1:04 Trudeau’s chief of staff knew of 2018 Vance allegation, ex-senior staffer testifies
  • comments Leave a comment
  • facebook Share this item on Facebook
  • whatsapp Share this item via WhatsApp
  • twitter Share this item on Twitter
  • email Send this page to someone via email
  • more Share this item
  • more Share this item

The chief of staff to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau knew there was an allegation made against Gen. Jonathan Vance in 2018 and that it had been referred to bureaucrats to probe, says an ex-senior staffer.

Elder Marques, a former senior advisor to Trudeau in the Prime Minister’s Office, testified before the House of Commons defence committee on Friday that he had been asked by either Katie Telford, Trudeau’s chief of staff, or her assistant to contact Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan‘s chief of staff about the matter.

“Either late on March 1 or early on March 2 of 2018, the chief of staff to the prime minister or her assistant asked me to get back to the chief of staff to the minister of national defence on an issue relating to the CDS,” he testified, using the common acronym for the chief of the defence staff.

Marques said that after doing so, he brought the matter to bureaucrats and kept Telford informed.

“I immediately brought this issue directly to the Clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to the cabinet, who was then Michael Wernick. I advised the chief of staff to the prime minister that I was taking this step and I then kept her apprised as matters developed.”

Marques was asked several times as to how many times he spoke to Telford about the matter.

“I would’ve given her an update as things proceeded. That’s really all I can say. I don’t think the number of interactions ultimately makes a difference,” he said.

Conservative MP Leona Alleslev asked if it was fair to say he had updated Telford on “a number of” occasions, to which Marques said, “Yes, it’s plural.”

Marques also testified that he was not aware bureaucrats had abandoned the probe and closed it down, saying that everyone was taking it “very seriously” even though he says they did not know the details.

“I certainly agree that the outcome of the issue not being looked at is not what anybody would have wanted at the time, either then or in hindsight,” he told the committee.

“I think it’s important to consider what options were actually available at the time … so that in future, things can be different.”

A spokesperson for Trudeau’s office issued a statement shortly after Marques named Telford.

Press secretary Alex Wellstead said that the government takes all allegations seriously and that Trudeau has previously said his office was aware of the allegation against Vance in 2018.

1:35 Trudeau faces questions on why Harjit Sajjan hasn’t been asked to step aside following testimony against Gen. Vance

The testimony comes after Trudeau dodged repeated questions on why he is keeping Sajjan in the role and about who is ultimately accountable for failing to fully investigate a 2018 allegation against Gen. Jonathan Vance.

In a press conference on Friday, Trudeau faced questions after Maj. Kellie Brennan, one of the women at the heart of allegations against Vance, testified that Vance had told her he was “untouchable,” that he “owned” the military police and that he had Sajjan “under control.”

“First of all, that was extraordinarily moving testimony last night from a woman who demonstrated both her strength and her commitment to bringing about change,” said Trudeau.

“We know that the Canadian Armed Forces need to change, we know that the culture of tolerance around unacceptable actions or harassment needs to end – not just for those who chose to serve but anywhere, any workplace across this country.”

Vance denies the allegations of inappropriate behaviour first reported by Global News on Feb. 2.

But Trudeau offered no clear answers to multiple specific questions on both why he is keeping Sajjan as defence minister, saying only that Sajjan followed the process in place, and on whether the military is ultimately accountable to civilians.

“We take this extraordinarily seriously,” he said, adding more details will be shared in the coming weeks.”

1:18 Maj. Brennan says Vance told her he was ‘untouchable’

Trudeau and Sajjan have faced heavy criticism over the last two-and-a-half months over the government’s handling of the allegations and, specifically, an allegation against Vance that was shared with both Sajjan and the Prime Minister’s Office in 2018.

Sajjan has testified at committee that he refused to look at the details of the complaint, which was in regards to an email that appeared to have been sent from Vance’s military account to a much younger female corporal in 2012. The email suggested the two “throw caution to the wind and escape to a clothing optional island in the Caribbean.”

Vance denies any inappropriate behaviour and has told Global News that if he did make that suggestion, he would have meant it as a joke and would be willing to apologize. Operation Honour includes under its definition of sexual misconduct “jokes of a sexual nature.”

Sajjan has repeatedly said he referred the complaint to his chief of staff at the time, who shared it with both bureaucrats at the Privy Council Office as well as Marques.

Trudeau has said he was not personally aware of the complaint at the time.

Conservative defence critic James Bezan said he doesn’t believe that.

“Justin Trudeau’s claim that he was not aware of allegations of sexual misconduct by General Vance is clearly false,” he said in a statement on Friday.

“It is outrageous to believe that everyone around Justin Trudeau was aware of these allegations but the Prime Minister didn’t know. It’s clear that the Trudeau Liberals have been engaging in a cover-up and have been misleading Canadians.”

1:17 Trudeau says he did not personally know of 2018 Vance allegation

Sajjan has also said repeatedly that he could not have looked at the details of the complaint or pushed for any kind of investigation into the matter even after bureaucrats abandoned a probe because doing so would amount to “political interference.”

The commander of military police has rejected that claim, saying clearly that it would not have been political interference for Sajjan to request any kind of a probe.

The woman who brought that complaint forward told Global News she did so through the military ombudsman specifically because she wanted to remain anonymous and because she knew the complaint would be shared with Sajjan, who she said she hoped would act.

“My intent was never to make this public or widely known. It was for the minister to deal with at an appropriate time and perhaps reconsider how Operation Honour was commanded,” she said, describing the initiative as valuable and important.

“And when the time for decisions about, you know, extension of mandate for the chief of defence staff or future roles, that this could be factored into that decision making.”

2:13 Vance said Maj. Brennan would face ‘consequences’ if she didn’t follow his orders

The Canadian military is now facing what experts call an institutional crisis amid twin military police probes into allegations against both its current and former chiefs of the defence staff.

Adm. Art McDonald stepped aside in late February after military police opened a probe into an allegation against him.

But the question of whether military police have the authority and the will to investigate the most senior generals in the Canadian Armed Forces has dogged the investigations so far.

Brennan recounted Thursday night comments she said took place when she asked military police investigating her allegations whether they had the authority to do so when the individual facing the allegations was the former chief of the defence staff — the “CDS,” as the role is colloquially known.

“I asked bluntly the (Canadian Forces National Investigation Service) if they had the mandate to investigate and did they have the powers to lay charges, and they would not answer me,” she said.

“The answer was no because as the CDS told me, he was untouchable. He owned the CFNIS.”

She was asked whether she feels the military police investigation into Vance is being taken seriously.

“I definitely feel that there will not be justice for me,” she said.

“In all honesty, that’s OK. Because if my speaking out can change everything for other women to come forward and change our policies, that’s OK with me. I was first in, in the infantry when we were allowed to join, and I knew I was taking on a hard road.”

Brennan also testified that Vance “fathered two children with me.”

Global News reached out to Vance in February about the allegations. When asked if he was the father of one specific child by name, Vance said: “I am not.” When asked whether he was the father of another specific child by name, he said, “I don’t even know who these people are.”

Global News did not previously report on the allegations for legal reasons. Witnesses testifying before parliamentary committees are protected from being sued for defamation.

Maj. Kellie Brennan tells MPs Vance said he was ‘untouchable,’ fathered 2 of her kids

2:15 Maj. Kellie Brennan says Gen. Jonathan Vance fathered two of her children
  • comments Leave a comment
  • facebook Share this item on Facebook
  • whatsapp Share this item via WhatsApp
  • twitter Share this item on Twitter
  • email Send this page to someone via email
  • more Share this item
  • more Share this item

Maj. Kellie Brennan says former chief of the defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance told her he was “untouchable” and that he “owned” the military police. She also said “he fathered two children with me.”

Global News reached out to Vance in February about the allegations. When asked if he was the father of one specific child by name, Vance said: “I am not.” When asked whether he was the father of another specific child by name, he said, “I don’t even know who these people are.”

Global News did not previously report on the allegations for legal reasons. Witnesses testifying before parliamentary committees are protected from being sued for defamation.

“On a personal note, he fathered two children with me. He’s not responsible to pay or to have those children under his responsibility. It’s all up to me,” Brennan said in testimony before the House of Commons status of women committee on Thursday night.

1:18 Maj. Brennan says Vance told her he was ‘untouchable’

She also recounted comments she said took place when she asked military police investigating her allegations whether they had the authority to do so when the individual facing the allegations was the former chief of the defence staff — the “CDS,” as the role is colloquially known.

“The answer was no because as the CDS told me, he was untouchable. He owned the CFNIS.”

Brennan is appearing as part of a parliamentary probe into what needs to be done to change the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces to prevent sexual misconduct.

Brennan is one of the women at the heart of allegations first reported by Global News in February about Vance. Vance denies the allegations.

Military police have since opened an investigation into the allegations, and are also investigating a separate allegation against Vance’s successor, Adm. Art McDonald.

Brennan was the first woman to come forward publicly to share her story but since she did so, multiple other women, including both current and former serving members in the military, have broken their silence to sound the alarm over the extent to which sexual misconduct permeates its ranks.

She was asked by one member of the committee whether Vance ever threatened her about speaking out.

“A threat? Meaning bodily harm, no,” she said, before being asked whether he ever said anything she perceived as a threat, such as reprisals or consequences.

“Definitely, he gave me very many consequences if I was not following his orders.”

Brennan said that he told her she would be questioned “over and over again” by his spouse — a lawyer — “if I didn’t say the right thing — that somehow she was going to come and see me, and question me.”

“I was not to mention certain things about our relationship, our personal lives. The consequences were always the same – that I had to stay silent,” she said.

She was asked whether she feels the military police investigation into Vance is being taken seriously.

“I definitely feel that there will not be justice for me,” she said.

“In all honesty, that’s okay. Because if my speaking out can change everything for other women to come forward and change our policies, that’s okay with me. I was first in, in the infantry when we were allowed to join, and I knew I was taking on a hard road.”

2:13 Vance said Maj. Brennan would face ‘consequences’ if she didn’t follow his orders

Brennan’s testimony before the House of Commons status of women committee comes as part of its probe on what measures are needed to change the military culture.

Former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps described that culture as “sexualized,” “hostile” and “endemic” throughout the ranks of the Canadian Forces in her landmark 2015 report into military misconduct.

That report focused as well on the crucial question of what it means to consent within the rigid power imbalances of the military’s hierarchical chain of command structure.

23:26 The West Block: Feb. 21

Brennan told Global News in February that challenge is one she has personally experienced throughout what she has described as a longstanding sexual relationship with Vance that she says continued while he was her superior and while he was chief of the defence staff.

“On a personal level, ‘consensual’ meaning was I participating in it? Yes. Could I say no to him? No,” Brennan said in February. “The reason why I say that is because if he rang me on the phone or if he texted me, I was obliged to get back to him.”

Vance has said there was no sexual relationship with Brennan after 2001, when the pair briefly dated.

He says he has served as a “supporter” for Brennan, and that the two are “colleagues and friends.”

Brennan has emphasized that she does not believe the military can solve the problem of sexual misconduct on its own, and that women must be able to speak openly about their experiences.

She is accompanied before the committee by retired lieutenant-general Christine Whitecross, who was Canada’s top female military officer until her retirement in December 2020. Whitecross served as the first female head of the NATO Defense College in Rome and has played a central role in the military’s efforts to roll out Operation Honour and initiatives to tackle sexual misconduct.

Their testimony comes as the government remains under heavy criticism for its handling of military misconduct and its lack of details on any plans for how to address the problem.

It has now been nearly three months since officials promised an independent review of the matter following Global News reporting on Feb. 2, and despite repeated promises from cabinet ministers that details are coming shortly on plans for change, none have emerged.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau provided no further clarity when pressed on his government’s response by Global News on Wednesday night, saying the government has handled all allegations appropriately.

“We need to make sure we’re changing the culture of the military but we also need to make sure we’re providing resources,” he said, adding that those coming forward must receive support.

“This is something we’ve seen the military just not do well enough in the past.”

2:31 Former top bureaucrat recounts PMO request to probe 2018 Vance allegation

MPs from his party voted last week to shut down the defence committee probe into the allegations, which has heard damning testimony about the government’s failure to fully probe an allegation shared by the then-military ombudsman with the defence minister in 2018.

Harjit Sajjan has said he referred the allegation to the Privy Council Office, which promptly abandoned the probe when the ombudsman refused to share information requested by bureaucrats and which the complainant had asked be kept confidential.

In an interview with Global News, the woman behind the 2018 complaint said she went to the ombudsman specifically because she wanted to remain anonymous — and because she knew the complaint would be shared with Sajjan directly.

“My intent was never to make this public or widely known. It was for the minister to deal with at an appropriate time and perhaps reconsider how Operation Honour was commanded,” she said, describing the initiative as valuable and important.

“And when the time for decisions about, you know, extension of mandate for the chief of defence staff or future roles, that this could be factored into that decision making.

“I wanted it to be brought forward to an individual who reported direct to the minister, so the minister’s accountability could be reflected in that.”

2:32 Military member explains motivation for filing complaint against Vance after email with sexual insinuation

History [ edit | edit source ]

Season 4 [ edit | edit source ]

Wendell misunderstands Temperance Brennan's attempts to discover why younger men are attracted to older women, thinking that Brennan is hitting on him and worrying that the only way to keep his job would be to sleep with her. Angela Montenegro sets him straight, explaining that Brennan's interest in the subject is purely anthropological. Wendell is relieved, saying that he needs the job, as he owes a significant sum of money. Angela worries that Wendell is in debt to the mob and that this might compromise him on certain cases. When Angela voices her concerns, he explains that his local community collectively paid for his education and he needs to pay them back and that his sense of urgency in repaying them is due to his gratitude.

In another episode, he reveals that his mother calls the scholarship that allows him to intern at the Jeffersonian "the miracle", and jokingly remarks that she spends more time in church thanking God than the priest does.

In Fire in the Ice it is revealed that Wendell is a member of Booth's ice hockey team, "Fed Cases". Wendell is hurt during the game against the "Firedawgs", inciting Booth to get into a fight with the opposing team's enforcer, Pete Carlson, who later becomes the episode's murder victim. Later, during another game against team "The Fuzz", Wendell and Booth try to make suspect Lou Herrin bleed in order to gain a sample for DNA testing. Wendell collects samples while playing, passing them off to Dr. Brennan in the stands.

While investigating Pete Carlson's fish tank, he inadvertently confesses that "the last time [he] did something like this, [he] ended up in juvie hall for the weekend." Then, in The Cinderella in the Cardboard, he tells Hodgins that he grew up on the streets, stating that it doesn't take long for him to get a "feel" for people.

In the season finale, The End in the Beginning, Wendell played the doorman in The Lab (the nightclub in Booth's dream). He had also claimed to be loyal to Booth and got taken by Jared when he pulled a gun on C-Sync's brother. He was the monotone one of the group.

Season 5 [ edit | edit source ]

In The Bond in the Boot, Cam finds out that Wendell's scholarship has been pulled due to lack of funding. She tells Brennan and Hodgins that his scholarship could be saved if someone would donate the money. At the end of the episode, as Bray is saying goodbye to the team, Cam walks in and tells him that money for his scholarship has been donated anonymously. After he leaves the room, she smiles and tells the rest of the team that the donations were three times what was needed.

In Tough Man in the Tender Chicken, Angela asks him for money to help save a piglet. Even though he is a professed meat eater and is deep in debt with student loans, he still contributes $45 to the cause and Angela kisses him in return, sparking a relationship and ending Angela's almost six-month celibacy kick. Their relationship continued throughout the middle portion of Season 5. Angela had a pregnancy scare during The Proof in the Pudding, though a second pregnancy test run by Dr. Saroyan reveals the first to have been a false positive. When Wendell eventually finds out, he tells her that had she actually been pregnant, he would have supported her no matter what she chose regarding the baby because it would be his duty and that he would "do the right thing." Seeing that Wendell views the prospect of raising a family with her as a duty to be carried out on moral and ethical grounds rather than something he actually wants, Angela realizes that while Wendell is a great guy, he is not "[her] guy" and she subsequently ends their relationship. The break-up is amicable.

Season 6 [ edit | edit source ]

After the dissolution of the Jeffersonian's Washington, D.C. forensics unit between seasons 5 and 6 due to Dr. Brennan's departure, Wendell gets a job at a vehicle repair shop in order to make ends meet. Upon her return in the Season 6 premiere, Dr. Brennan hires him out of her own pocket to help her on a case. Since she opts not to return to Maluku after the case is solved, Wendell is able to regain his former position as an intern at the Jeffersonian. However, this still does not provide enough income for him to repay his debts, so he continues to seek additional work. In The Blackout in the Blizzard, Wendell is forced to work a time-sensitive case with no power during a blizzard. In order to charge the victim's cell phone in hopes of finding out who she last called, Wendell creates a potato battery. His idea works and they are able to charge the phone long enough to locate the killer. In The Pinocchio in the Planter, he fails to obtain a job as a bartender but manages to convince Dr. Saroyan to give him more hours at the Jeffersonian. In the same episode, due to Wendell's insistence on being totally honest, Hodgins tells Wendell that while Wendell was dating Angela, he (Hodgins) once planned Wendell's murder in great detail. Wendell is unaffected by this disturbing news and simply enjoys Hodgins' honesty to Hodgins disgust. In the season finale, Wendell is present when Hodgins reveals his newborn son Michael Staccato Vincent Hodgins. He, Hodgins and Angela become closer through this season showing there is no awkwardness or angst between them.

Season 7 [ edit | edit source ]

He is the intern in The Memories in the Shallow Grave, The Crack in the Code and The Past in the Present. He is a little afraid of a pregnant Brennan but they still have a good working relationship, but he does begin to question whether Brennan did kill Ethan Sawyer.

Season 8 [ edit | edit source ]

Wendell is among the five interns Brennan selects to identify lost remains in The Patriot in Purgatory. Initially the five engage in a contest to see who can identify the most. However when Arastoo stumbles across the remains of a possible 9/11 victim, Wendell begins to freak out and after the interns have a heart to heart about their personal experiences on that day, Wendell (the last to speak) reveals that his uncle, a firefighter, died at the World Trade Center in New York. Wendell spent 9/11 and the next few days with his aunt, and it's a very sensitive topic with him.

In The Doll in the Derby, Wendell is about to celebrate his 29th birthday but he seems to be a little sad about it, as he thinks he hasn't achieved anything. However, it was his brother winding Wendell up due to a bet. Wendell won. In the episode he reveals that Angela had painted him naked while they were dating, much to the disgust of Hodgins. Later, Wendell gives the painting to Hodgins and Wendell had painted (badly) over his private areas.

Season 9 [ edit | edit source ]

In Big in the Philippines, he had been diagnosed by Dr. Brennan with Ewing's Sarcoma, a rare type of bone cancer. Wendell did not want to seek treatment immediately, having seen his father suffer through chemotherapy that ultimately failed and the fact that his cancer has an 80% mortality rate and less that 10% chance of long-term survival. However, Booth tells him to get the treatment because Wendell has a whole life to live. By the end, Wendell decides to fight the cancer, even if he dies.

He returns to the Jeffersonian in The High in the Low to aid the team in an investigation but is fired by Dr. Saroyan after it is revealed that he is using medicinal cannabis to help with the nausea and the weight loss due to his chemotherapy and to fight the growth of the cancer cells in his body. Booth and Brennan get an appeal from the justice department for Wendell to keep working at the Jeffersonian as a freelance case consultant, but without physical contact with any evidence. He is provided with his own office and paid by an independent contractor.

Season 10 [ edit | edit source ]

He returns to his normal capacity as intern in the episode The Corpse at the Convention after he had no contact with medical cannabis for a month. It was revealed that he is in remission because he got into a clinical trial that Dr. Brennan recommended. During the episode, Wendell gets depressed when one of his friends in the trial dies and calls Booth. The two meet at the Founding Fathers bar where Wendell shows his fears that the same will happen to him as the man had been fine shortly before and his cancer then spread. In response, Booth tells Wendell a story of how he and his men were ambushed by the Taliban in 2002 and he watched twelve men he considered brothers die in front of him. Booth tells Wendell to stop feeling sorry for himself and keep fighting as "I don't need to see another brother die." Wendell is left shocked at this admission but follows Booth's advice. The last day of the clinical trial was in the episode The Mutilation of the Master Manipulator when he discovers that he is in full remission and cancer free. He also starts a relationship with his nurse from the clinical trial named Andie Roberts.

Season 11 [ edit | edit source ]

In The Nightmare in the Nightmare, Brennan begins to have a series of nightmares about the Puppeteer, all featuring Wendell with burned hands bringing her coffee. While trying to figure out the meaning of the dreams, Booth and the lab team realize that the dream Wendell is meant to act as a stand-in for who really did it, someone who used to work at the lab. Booth finally realizes that the Wendell of Brennan's dream symbolizes Zack Addy, former squintern and assistant turned Gormogon apprentice.

Season 12 [ edit | edit source ]

In The Radioactive Panthers in the Party, Wendell struggles to write his dissertation but finds an important clue that Brennan missed, allowing them to solve the case. At the end of the episode, Brennan confronts Wendell whose heart she's realized is not truly in anthropology. Brennan encourages Wendell to leave anthropology and find something else he loves while he still can. Wendell is surprised but accepts Brennan's words and receives reassurance that he still has a family amongst the Jeffersonian. He attends Camille and Arastoo's wedding in The Day in the Life.

In the aftermath of the explosion in The End in the End, Wendell is called in alongside Clark Edison, Daisy Wick, Arastoo Vaziri and Jessica Warren to examine the remains of Fred Walden in hopes of finding the clue that Brennan spotted but can no longer remember due to her head injury. After an inspiring speech by Hodgins, the intern team is able to put together what Brennan figured out from their previous experiences in solving cases with her. In particular, Wendell remembers a fact that proves vital to locating and stopping Mark Kovac.


William J. Brennan Jr. was born on April 25, 1906, in Newark, New Jersey, the second of eight children. Both his parents, William and Agnes (McDermott) Brennan, were Irish immigrants. They met in the United States, although both were originally from County Roscommon in Ireland. Brennan senior had little education and worked as a metal polisher, but rose to a position of leadership, serving as the Commissioner of Public Safety for the city of Newark from 1927 to 1930.

Brennan attended public schools in Newark, and graduated from Barringer High School in 1924. He then attended the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where he graduated cum laude with a degree in economics in 1928. [5] While there, he joined Delta Tau Delta fraternity. [6] Brennan graduated from Harvard Law School near the top of his class in 1931 and was a member of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau. [7]

When he was 21, Brennan married Marjorie Leonard, whom he had met in high school. They eventually had three children: William III, Nancy, and Hugh. [8]

After graduating from Harvard Law School, Brennan entered private practice in his home state of New Jersey, where he practiced labor law at the firm of Pitney Hardin (which would later become Day Pitney). [9] [10] During World War II, Brennan commissioned in the Army as a major in March 1942, and left as a colonel in 1945. He did legal work for the ordnance division. In 1949, Brennan was appointed to the Superior Court (a trial court) by Governor of New Jersey Alfred E. Driscoll. In 1951, Driscoll appointed him to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Supreme Court appointment Edit

Brennan was named to the U.S. Supreme Court through a recess appointment by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, shortly before the 1956 presidential election. Presidential advisers thought the appointment of a Roman Catholic Democrat from the Northeast would woo critical voters in the upcoming re-election campaign for Eisenhower, a Republican. [11] Brennan was also strongly supported by Cardinal Francis Spellman.

Brennan gained the attention of Herbert Brownell, United States Attorney General and Eisenhower's chief legal affairs adviser, when Brennan had to give a speech at a conference (as a substitute for New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Arthur Vanderbilt). [12] To Brownell, Brennan's speech seemed to suggest a marked conservatism, especially on criminal matters. [12]

His nomination faced a small amount of controversy from two angles. The National Liberal League opposed the nomination of a Catholic, thinking he would rely on his religious beliefs rather than the Constitution when ruling, [11] and Senator Joseph McCarthy had read transcripts of Brennan's speech where he decried overzealous anti-Communist investigations as "witch-hunts." After a confirmation hearing in 1957 in which Brennan defended himself against McCarthy's attacks and proclaimed that he would rule solely on the basis of the Constitution and not on Church law, [13] he was confirmed by a near-unanimous vote, with only Senator McCarthy voting against him. [14]

Other factors playing into Brennan's appointment were his status as a state court judge – no state judge had been appointed to the High Court since Benjamin N. Cardozo in 1932 – and Eisenhower's desire to appear bipartisan after his appointments of two Republicans: Earl Warren (former Governor of California) and John Marshall Harlan II. [15]

Brennan filled the seat vacated by Justice Sherman Minton. He held the post until his retirement on July 20, 1990, for health reasons he was succeeded on the Court by Justice David Souter. He was the last federal judge in active service to have been appointed by President Eisenhower. Brennan then taught at Georgetown University Law Center until 1994. With 1,360 opinions, [16] he is second only to William O. Douglas in number of opinions written while a Supreme Court justice. [17]

Warren Court Edit

An outspoken liberal throughout his career, he played a leading role in the Warren Court's expansion of individual rights. Brennan played a behind-the-scenes role during the Warren Court, coaxing more conservative colleagues to join the Court's decisions. Brennan's opinions with respect to voting (Baker v. Carr), criminal proceedings (Malloy v. Hogan), the free speech and establishment clauses of the First Amendment (Roth v. United States), and civil rights (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County) were some of the most important opinions of the Warren Era. Brennan's role in expanding free speech rights under the First Amendment is particularly notable, as he wrote the Court's opinion in 1964's New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which created constitutional restrictions on the law of libel. It was Brennan who coined the phrase "chilling effect", in 1965's Dombrowski v. Pfister. His close friendship with Chief Justice Warren, who frequently assigned Brennan the task of writing the majority opinion, led to the other justices nicknaming him the "deputy Chief".

In the 1962-1963 term, one of Brennan's law clerks was Richard A. Posner, who later became a founder of the field Law and Economics and one of the most influential legal scholars in the United States. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Burger and Rehnquist Courts Edit

On the more conservative Burger Court, Brennan was a staunch opponent of the death penalty and a supporter of abortion rights and joined the majority in landmark rulings on both issues (Furman v. Georgia (1972) on the death penalty and Roe v. Wade (1973) on abortion). With the ascension of the most conservative member of the court, William Rehnquist, to the position of Chief Justice, and the replacement of Warren Burger and the moderate Lewis Powell with Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, Brennan found himself more frequently isolated. At times, his opinions would be joined only by Thurgood Marshall since, by 1975, both were the last remaining surviving liberals of the Warren Court (Byron White was the third survivor of the Warren Court during Rehnquist's tenure but often sided with the conservatives, especially on cases involving criminals or abortion). That like-mindedness led to both Brennan and Marshall's clerks referring to them as 'Justice Brennan-Marshall' in the face of the court's heavy conservative opposition to the two. Brennan declared in Furman that he believed the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual" punishment, and for his remaining years on the bench, he and Marshall dissented from every case upholding the imposition of the death penalty. He was able to convince no other justice of this view, but Justice Harry Blackmun would eventually agree in 1994, after Brennan's retirement.

Brennan authored three Supreme Court opinions holding that a plaintiff has a cause of action for money damages (compensatory and punitive) arising solely out of an alleged violation of the Bill of Rights. [23] [24] [25] [26] In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, Brennan so held with respect to the Unreasonable Search and Seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. [27] In Davis v. Passman, Brennan extended this rationale to the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, in a suit for gender discrimination in employment against a former Congressman (Congressional staffers were explicitly excluded from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act). [28] In Carlson v. Green, Brennan extended this rationale again to the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment, in a suit by the estate of a deceased federal prisoner (even though the plaintiff also had a cause of action under the Federal Tort Claims Act). [29]

During the same period, Brennan began to adopt and promote a coherent and expansive vision of personal jurisdiction. He authored the sole dissent in Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, defining minimum contacts very broadly for the purposes of general jurisdiction, and influential dissents and partial concurrences in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson and Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court on the subject of specific jurisdiction, holding to a simple "stream-of-commerce" analysis for product liability cases and emphasizing the role of fairness in the Court's analysis of the holding in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The upshot of Brennan's analysis is an expansion of the jurisdiction of state courts, particularly over corporations state courts are typically more sympathetic to small, weak plaintiffs than to large, powerful corporate defendants. In this process, he frequently clashed with Justice Scalia over this issue, and uncharacteristically dissented from Justice Marshall's majority opinion on the subject in Shaffer v. Heitner.

In his penultimate and final terms on the Court, he wrote the controversial rulings for Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman, respectively. In both cases, the Court held that the First Amendment protects desecration of the United States flag.

Brennan's wife Marjorie died in 1982. A few months later, in 1983 when he was 77 years old, he married Mary Fowler, [30] who had served as his secretary for 26 years. Brennan's colleagues learned of his second marriage via a short office memo stating, "Mary Fowler and I were married yesterday and we have gone to Bermuda."

Judicial philosophy Edit

Brennan strongly believed in the Bill of Rights, arguing early on in his career that it should be applied to the states in addition to the federal government. [31] He often took positions in favor of individual rights against the state, often favoring criminal defendants, minorities, the poor, and other underrepresented groups. Furthermore, he generally shied away from the absolutist positions of Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, being very amenable to compromise. He was willing to compromise to win a majority of Justices. [32] Brennan's conservative detractors charged that he was a purveyor of judicial activism, accusing him of deciding outcomes before coming up with a legal rationale for them. [33] At his retirement, Brennan said the case he thought was most important was Goldberg v. Kelly, which ruled that a local, state or federal government could not terminate welfare payments to a person without a prior individual evidentiary hearing. [34]

In the 1980s, as the Reagan administration and the Rehnquist Court threatened to "roll back" the decisions of the Warren Court, Brennan became more vocal about his jurisprudential views. In a 1985 speech at Georgetown University, Brennan criticized Attorney General Edwin Meese's call for a "jurisprudence of original intention" as "arrogance cloaked as humility" [35] and advocated reading the U.S. Constitution to protect rights of "human dignity".

Brennan was also less interested in stare decisis or the avoidance of "absolutist" positions where the death penalty was concerned. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, Brennan's closest ally in the court, concluded in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was, in all circumstances, unconstitutional, and never accepted the legitimacy of Gregg v. Georgia, which ruled that the death penalty was constitutional four years later. Thereafter, Brennan or Marshall took turns, joined by the other, in issuing a dissent in every denial of certiorari in a capital case, and from every decision in a case which the court did take which failed to vacate a sentence of death. [36]

Brennan also authored a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Glass v. Louisiana. In Glass, the Court chose not to hear a case that challenged the constitutionality of the use of the electric chair as a form of execution. Brennan wrote: [37]

Th[e] evidence suggests that death by electrical current is extremely violent and inflicts pain and indignities far beyond the "mere extinguishment of life". Witnesses routinely report that, when the switch is thrown, the condemned prisoner "cringes," "leaps," and "fights the straps with amazing strength." "The hands turn red, then white, and the cords of the neck stand out like steel bands." The prisoner's limbs, fingers, toes, and face are severely contorted. The force of the electrical current is so powerful that the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and "rest on [his] cheeks." The prisoner often defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool.

Brennan concluded by stating that electrocution is "nothing less than the contemporary technological equivalent of burning people at the stake."

  • "We current Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as twentieth century Americans. We look to the history of the time of framing and to the intervening history of interpretation. But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time. For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." [38]
  • "The nations of the world, faced with sudden threats to their own security, will look to Israel's experience in handling its continuing security crisis, and may well find in that experience the expertise to reject the security claims that Israel has exposed as baseless and the courage to preserve the civil liberties that Israel has preserved without detriment to its security." [39]
  • "Successive generations of Americans have continued to respect these fundamental choices and adopt them as their own guide to evaluating quite different historical practices. Each generation has the choice to overrule or add to the fundamental principles enunciated by the Framers the Constitution can be amended or it can be ignored." [38]
  • "The constitutional vision of human dignity rejects the possibility of political orthodoxy imposed from above it respects the right of each individual to form and to express political judgments, however far they may deviate from the mainstream and however unsettling they might be to the powerful or the elite." [38]
  • "The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965) (concurring).
  • "Sex, a great and mysterious motive force in human life, has indisputably been a subject of absorbing interest to mankind through the ages." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
  • "[W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
  • "I cannot accept the notion that lawyers are one of the punishments a person receives merely for being accused of a crime." Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 764 (1983) (dissenting).
  • "Those whom we would banish from society or from the human community itself often speak in too faint a voice to be heard above society's demand for punishment. It is the particular role of courts to hear these voices, for the Constitution declares that the majoritarian chorus may not alone dictate the conditions of social life." McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (dissenting).
  • "The Court next states that its unwillingness to regard petitioner's evidence as sufficient is based in part on the fear that recognition of McCleskey's claim would open the door to widespread challenges to all aspects of criminal sentencing. Taken on its face, such a statement seems to suggest a fear of too much justice." McCleskey v. Kemp", 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (dissenting).
  • "If the Court had struck down legislative prayer today, it would likely have stimulated a furious reaction. But it would also, I am convinced, have invigorated both the 'spirit of religion' and the 'spirit of freedom.'" Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (dissenting).
  • "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).
  • "We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by – as one witness here did – according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

In 1969, he was awarded the Laetare Medal by the university of Notre Dame, considered the most prestigious award for American Catholics. [40]

In 1987, Brennan received the U.S. Senator John Heinz Award for Greatest Public Service by an Elected or Appointed Official, an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards. [41]

In 1989, the historic Hudson County Courthouse in Jersey City, New Jersey, which had opened in 1910, was named the William J. Brennan Court House in his honor. [42]

In that same year he received the Freedom medal. [43]

On November 30, 1993, President Bill Clinton presented Brennan with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. [44]

Upon his death, Brennan lay in repose in the Great Hall of the United States Supreme Court Building. [45]

In 2010, Brennan was inducted into the New Jersey Hall of Fame. [46] [ full citation needed ]

In 2010, William J. Brennan High School was founded in San Antonio, Texas, honoring Justice Brennan. [47]

Brennan Park across from the historic Essex County Courthouse in Newark, New Jersey, was named in Brennan's honor and a statue of him was erected in front of the Essex County Hall of Records by historian Guy Sterling. [48] [49]

Brennan Elliott on Crossword Mysteries and Hallmark: "I'm Having the Best Time of My Life!"

Fans of Hallmark Movies & Mysteries Crossword Mysteries series are in for a treat with the next installment, "Riddle Me Dead."

When Tess offers her factoid expertise to a well-known game show in the vein of Jeopardy, murder follows her once again, and Logan springs into action to solve the crime.

We had the opportunity to chat with Brennan Elliott, who plays Logan on the series, and he thinks this is the installment fans have been waiting for.

Unfortunately, we didn't get to chat too long because, unbeknownst to Brennan, they were in for another lockdown for the weekend, something he only discovered when he ventured out to eat.

His spin, though, was positive. "It's happy. Good Friday happening somewhere, and I will just be in happiness, Good Friday-ness energy wherever I'm at is how I see it."

When Brennan and co-star Lacey Chabert filmed their first movie together, they had no idea that their onscreen relationship would take off like it did, spanning the All of My Heart trilogy and Crossword Mysteries.

Doing so many movies together, they've grown close, "We got along so well, and we've become extremely close and good friends," Brennan said.

"Obviously, no one perceived that happening, but it's just a testament to the fans and the network and just realizing that when we're together, we create something magical, and people enjoy it. I'm just pretty blessed and thankful for that opportunity."

Brennan thinks they've hit the sweet spot with audiences for very simple reasons. "I think both of us come to the work and try to make every scene as real as possible and as honest," he said, happy that the fans are entertained.

"I just feel like it's a testament to the scripts and what Hallmark does. They write well for us, and we create something that's honest and real.

"One of the things that Lace and I, as people, and as artists, we trust each other so well that I think the audiences can see that these are two people that really trust each, and they buy into the characters, and they buy into the story and the relationship.

"That's how I feel it works. But that's a question for the audience. I don't know why it works. It just does, and I'm very grateful for that happening. She's a very good friend and a lovely artist and actress and person, and I like to think she thinks the same about me.

We just have a great time together, and the audience is responsive. It's been wonderful. It's one of those things where when you have a career you can look back and go, 'Wow, that was special.' So very thankful for it."

Although Brennan is a producer of the Crossword Mysteries, he's not overly involved in what comes next, trusting the writers for the series and the network, too.

"Look, if they ask, I'll give them my impressions or how I feel, but I trust the network and the writers, and obviously Brad Krevoy and Amy Krell and the producers we have.

"Whenever they ask Lacey and me for input, we do give it. We try to stay involved as much as we can. You know, inevitably, Lacey and I want to make the best product we can. Obviously, under the time restraints and the budget and Covid and everything else we're going through as a world when they ask us, we try to give what we can."

From his viewpoint, the process works. "What we're doing is working, and the fans love it, so we just try to take our foot off the gas and trust the fans are loving what we're doing and try to keep bringing good content to the fans and trust the network and the people we're working with, really."

But what about this particular movie and any potential action between Tess and Logan?

"I can't give too much, but I will say this, the fans -- what they've been asking for and what they've been yearning for -- will be pleasantly surprised. I always tell people this is the most personal episode we've had."

When asked what Brennan hopes for the franchise's future, he likens it to a Hallmark Movies & Mysteries staple, Hart to Hart.

"As a team, we're just solving crimes. I mean, she's a brilliant mind. She's almost like a forensic decoder, whether it's crosswords or it's the case or whatever. I think bringing her in and helping us as cops, as detectives, solving the case, she's an amazing asset. And having me as the street kind of guy and coming together, I think it's like Castle, Hart to Hart -- that kind of energy.

"I think that's where it could go. I think that's what the fans are looking for. We both have assets and things we can bring to solving something. She has her benefits, and I have mine, and together we're a perfect team."

For now, Brennan is pretty happy being a Hallmark leading man. Who could blame him? He's one of a select few leading men capturing women's romantic hearts.

"I've always said this a million times if Hallmark calls, I say yes. You know, I have a lot of love for the network. I always tell my wife, 'I don't know what leading man I am, but if they think I'm a leading man, I'm very happy to be so.' [laughs] No. I say that in humor.

"I'm just a guy that loves to tell stories and touch the fans' hearts. I always say that Hallmark's the heart of TV. My wife's like, 'You've got the biggest heart in the world, so you're in the right place.' I just feel like I'm just very thankful."

Brennan's not just blowing smoke with those statements. He might laugh off being considered a romantic leading man, but he loves every minute of his work with Hallmark.

"You get an opportunity to be a leading man or be a lead male, or whatever that means, to share a story with fans and to touch people's hearts. Hallmark does it so well. I'm just so honored. I think this is like 20, 21, 22 movies I've done for them, and I feel like I'm just starting.

"I'm just so grateful, and I get a chance to work with Lacey and a lot of great ladies, and the scripts are great, and the network is great, and Michelle and Randy. Everyone over there, I just feel like it's just a great place to be, and I'm just so happy to be a part of it. Just so grateful to have fun. And it is fun.

"We were talking about it on set today yesterday. You know, me and Nazneen Contractor are doing a movie [Love and Ice Wine, directed by Don McBreaty], and we're just saying, 'What's funner than doing this?' You know what I mean?

"To touch people's lives and tell stories that are heartfelt, and good family viewing and to play interesting characters. I'm lucky enough to play a real diverse variety of roles, so I'm having a lot of fun and thoroughly enjoying it."

Love and Ice Wine isn't the only upcoming project away from another Crosswords Mystery Brennan has on tap. "There's many on the plate right now that I have to read, first of all. But, yeah, there's a lot.

"There's always something going on, and I've got at least three or four more on my plate right now that the fans will be happy to see me in. That's a testament to the network, and I'm just glad. When they call, I just go to work. I love it. Having the best time of my life."

Brennan has been in the business for a long time, but it was only in the last year that I finally got to see his work in Strong Medicine now that it's airing StartTV.

For 88 episodes from 2000-2005, Brennan played Dr. Nick Biancavilla alongside Rosa Blasi, Janine Turner, Jennifer Lewis, Josh Coz, and Philip Casnoff. It was such a fun role, and I felt like I was getting to know him for the first time through the earlier work.

"That's a blast from the past," Brennan said. "When I moved to the States, and I finished theater school, that was kind of my first job. I was offered, I don't know, a few episodes or something, and it turned into four or five years.

"It was a place to cut my teeth and learn the business and learn what's necessary and what's needed and work on my craft. I always look back on that as a great place to start."

So many medical shows you watch today are still repeating storylines that Strong Medicine did 20 years ago. "You're right. You're absolutely right," Brennan said. "You know, even like Grey's Anatomy, Ellen Pompeo was a guest star on our show.

"A lot of the storylines that we did, about the medical profession or illness or dealing with insurance companies or about dealing with whatever, I mean, clinics and all those things, people are doing it now. It was Lifetime's flagship show, and I was just honored to be a part of something that was starting the trend.

"my mother was in the medical profession, so she watches a lot of that stuff. It's kind of her jam. She always says, 'You know, when you were back on that show . I see the same storylines. It's like you started it.'

"Well, I didn't start it, obviously. But you're right. It's a testament to what we could do in the beginning. I think when things are done well, people just pick up on it and kind of do it again and again and again because the audience wants to see it."

With a long resume playing memorable roles, it's so nice to know that Brennan is enjoying the lighthearted and uplifting fare just as much as anything else he's done. "I just hope the fans come out on April 11th, watch the show and enjoy it because it's a really, really, really fantastic episode."

Crossword Mysteries: Riddle Me Dead airs Sunday, April 11 at 8/7 only on Hallmark Movies & Mysteries. Don't miss it!

Carissa Pavlica is the managing editor and a staff writer and critic for TV Fanatic. She's a member of the Critic's Choice Association, enjoys mentoring writers, conversing with cats, and passionately discussing the nuances of television and film with anyone who will listen. Follow her on Twitter and email her here at TV Fanatic.

New Admin, Old Problems

Brennan stressed that the issues dividing Washington, and the nation as a whole, hardly dissipated when Trump headed for Mar-a-Lago. “Make no mistake &mdash the problems that are confronting us didn’t disappear at noon on Jan. 20” with the swearing-in of President Joe Biden, she said. “The producers and I talk about all the same things we did a few weeks ago.”

Face the Nation’s 3.598 million average viewers last year nipped Meet the Press’s 3.58 million, while NBC’s Meet the Press won in viewers 25-54, averaging 828,000 to Face’s 723,000 and ABC’s This Week average of 711,000. Hager uses another metric to measure success: “More and more people comment to me, you really learn from Face the Nation interviews.”

Podcast Facing Forward with Margaret Brennan premiered Jan. 22. Brennan is figuring out the best way to communicate in this newer medium. “We’re trying to figure out how to do an in-depth conversation and follow an arc that is interesting for an audio-only listener,” Brennan said.

Brennan and Hager look forward to the day when guests again turn up on the set for interviews, instead of the remote ones happening amidst the pandemic. “You really do get better interviews when they’re sitting across the table, looking each other in the eye,” Hager said. “It just makes for a much more compelling interview and probably better television too.”

Even with a less blustery president in the White House, the news cycle will hardly subside. After her eventful three years at Face the Nation, Brennan is planning out the next three years. She described “so many deep story lines converging at once” over the past year, stories that personally affect a vast number of Americans.

“It has been historic and we feel the weight of the moment for our country,” said Brennan. “It’s not just political junkies chewing on the week that was. We are talking about people’s lives in a very personal way right now.”

SAP S/4 HANA Cloud for Process Manufacturing

Process Manufacturing is the production of goods using a master recipe by combining or treating one or more components/ingredients. The process generally involves use of heat, pressure, and time. This kind of manufacturing is commonly used in industries such as chemical and fertilizer, pharmaceuticals, consumer goods and food, oil and gas etc. Process manufacturing is markedly different from the practices followed in a discrete industry. Output of discrete manufacturing are individual units that can be separately counted, stored, and tracked whereas the output of process manufacturing is usually identified through batches and are not countable individually.

In an operation of process manufacturing, the product passes through phase(s) before the operation can be set to be complete. The ingredients required for these operations and the resource where it is produced is stored in a master recipe. In SAP S/4HANA Cloud, master recipes are the primary source of data for the resources to be employed and the ingredients to be used to perform basic planning and execution of the process manufacturing operations. Process orders will be part of SAP S/4HANA Cloud and will use the data in master recipe.

SAP S/4HANA Cloud will focus on the logistics of process manufacturing with straight forward execution process.
Advanced and complex manufacturing execution is planned* to be covered by integration of SAP Digital Manufacturing Cloud (DMC) – first functions will be available with release 2002. This means that the On-Premise capabilities like control recipe, PI-sheets/X-Steps, and process messages & instructions are not supported in SAP S/4HANA Cloud. The successor of PI sheets will be in SAP Digital Manufacturing Cloud (DMC) with Worker UI (current terminology, may change in future).

As an alternative also 3rd party Manufacturing Execution Systems can be integrated to S/4HANA Cloud using the APIs for Process Manufacturing within S/4HANA Cloud.

Find overview information about the supported functions and the available Self Service Configuration UIs for Process Manufacturing within S/4HANA Cloud here:

You can find the latest list (2008) of available best practices for Process Manufacturing within SAP S/4HANA Cloud here:

You can use the best practices to evaluate the functionality of process manufacturing within SAP S/4HANA Cloud.

  • Companies with simple execution processes can onboard the logistics and controlling aspects of Process Manufacturing in SAP S/4HANA Cloud. They can utilize available features of master recipe data, planning, process orders, confirmations and goods movement.
  • A first best practice for integration of S/4HANA Cloud into SAP Digital Manufacturing Cloud (DMC) is available with 2002. The best practice will be augmented in the next releases to cover the latest functionality of SAP Digital Manufacturing Cloud (DMC).

Future releases* can expect to include more scope for process manufacturing with focus on integration with SAP Digital Manufacturing Cloud (DMC) and the augmentation of the functionality of SAP Digital Manufacturing Cloud (DMC) .

*This blog and SAP‘s strategy and possible future developments are subject to change and may be changed by SAP at any time for any reason without notice. This blog is provided without a warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or noninfringement

3. Alternative Perspectives on Human Relations to Other Animals

Given the long-standing view that non-humans are mere things, there are still many who reject the arguments presented here for the moral considerability of non-humans and the significance of their interests. Nonetheless, most now realize that the task of arguing that humans have a unique and exclusive moral status is rather difficult. Yet even amongst those who do view animals as within the sphere of moral concern, there is disagreement about the nature and usefulness of the arguments presented on behalf of the moral status of animals.

Increasingly, philosophers are arguing that while our behavior towards animals is indeed subject to moral scrutiny, the kinds of ethical arguments that are usually presented frame the issues in the wrong way. Some philosophers suggest that rational argumentation fails to capture those features of moral experience that allow us to really see why treating animals badly is wrong. The point, according to commentators such as Stephen R.L. Clark and Cora Diamond, for example, is that members of our communities, however we conceive of them, pull on us and it is in virtue of this pull that we recognize what is wrong with cruelty. Animals are individuals with whom we share a common life and this recognition allows us to see them as they are. Eating animals is wrong not because it is a violation of the animal&rsquos rights or because on balance such an act creates more suffering than other acts, but rather because in eating animals or using them in other harmful, violent ways, we do not display the traits of character that kind, sensitive, compassionate, mature, and thoughtful members of a moral community should display.

According to some in the virtue ethics tradition, carefully worked out arguments in which the moral considerability and moral significance of animals are laid out will have little if any grip on our thoughts and actions. Rather, by perceiving the attitudes that underlie the use and abuse of non-human animals as shallow or cruel, one interested in living a virtuous life will change their attitudes and come to reject treating animals as food or tools for research. As Rosalind Hursthouse recognized after having been exposed to alternative ways of seeing animals:

I began to see [my attitudes] that related to my conception of flesh-foods as unnecessary, greedy, self-indulgent, childish, my attitude to shopping and cooking in order to produce lavish dinner parties as parochial, gross, even dissolute. I saw my interest and delight in nature programmes about the lives of animals on television and my enjoyment of meat as side by side at odds with one another&hellipWithout thinking animals had rights, I began to see both the wild ones and the ones we usually eat as having lives of their own, which they should be left to enjoy. And so I changed. My perception of the moral landscape and where I and the other animals were situated in it shifted. (Hursthouse 2000: 165&ndash166 see also Diamond 2001 [especially chs. 11 and 13], and Clarke 1977)

Alice Crary argues that shifting perceptions of our moral landscapes occur because these landscapes, and more precisely the rich worlds of those who inhabit them, are not morally neutral. The characteristics that philosophers tend to look for in other animals to determine whether or not they are morally considerable, according to Crary, are already infused with moral importance, &ldquohuman beings and other animals have empirically discoverable moral characteristics&rdquo (my emphasis, 2016: 85) that are, as she puts it &ldquoinside ethics&rdquo. These values often sneak in under a supposedly neutral gloss. By explicitly locating these characteristics inside ethics, the texture, quality, and purposes of our ethical reflection on moral considerability changes. Arriving at an adequate empirical understanding requires non-neutral methods, identifying historical and cultural perspectives as shaping how we consider other animals morally. What ethical questions we think are important and how we frame and answer them, will be different if we see our lives and the lives of other animals as already imbued with moral values.

Other feminist philosophers have taken issue with the supposedly morally neutral methods of argumentation used to establish the moral status of animals. For many feminists the traditional methods of rational argumentation fail to take into account the feelings of sympathy or empathy that humans have towards non-humans, feelings they believe are central to a full account of what we owe non-humans and why (see Adams & Donovan 1995 Donovan & Adams 2007 Adams & Gruen 2014).

Feminist philosophers have also challenged the individualism that is central in the arguments for the moral status of animals. Rather than identifying intrinsic or innate properties that non-humans share with humans, some feminists have argued instead that we ought to understand moral status in relational terms given that moral recognition is invariably a social practice. As Elizabeth Anderson has written:

Moral considerability is not an intrinsic property of any creature, nor is it supervenient on only its intrinsic properties, such as its capacities. It depends, deeply, on the kind of relations they can have with us. (Anderson 2004: 289).

And these relationships needn&rsquot be direct. The reach of human activity has expanded across the entire globe and humans are entangled with each other and other animals in myriad ways. We participate in activities and institutions that directly or indirectly harm others by creating negative experiences, depriving them of their well-being, or denying them opportunities to be who they are and pursue what they care about. Philosophers Elisa Aaltola and Lori Gruen have argued for refining our empathetic imagination in order to improve our relationships with each other and other animals.

Even though it is challenging to understand what it is like to be another, and even though we are limited by our inevitable anthropocentric perspectives, being in respectful ethical relation involves attempting to understand and respond to another&rsquos needs, interests, desires, vulnerabilities, hopes, and perspectives. What Gruen calls, &ldquoentangled empathy&rdquo is a process that involves both affect and cognition (Gruen 2015). Individuals who are empathizing with others respond to the other&rsquos condition and reflectively imagine themselves in the distinct position of the other while staying attentive to both similarities and differences between herself and her situation and that of the fellow creature with whom she is empathizing. Entangled empathy involves paying critical attention to the broader conditions that may negatively affect the experiences and flourishing of those with whom one is empathizing, and this requires those of us empathizing to attend to things we might not have otherwise. It therefore also enhances our own experiences, develops our moral imagination, and helps us to become more sensitive perceivers.



  1. Welburn

    Bravo, fantastic))))

  2. Arasar

    I absolutely agree with you. There is something in this and I think this is a very great idea. I completely agree with you.

  3. Mamuro

    In my opinion, this is obvious. I found the answer to your question in

  4. Vudomi

    It is a pity, that now I can not express - there is no free time. But I will be released - I will necessarily write that I think.

  5. Majora

    the choice at home difficult

Write a message