On Monday evening, November 3rd, the day before the 1952 election, Burt sits alone in front of his TV watching the first ever presidential debate. NBC's news commentator, John Cameron Swayze, asks the first question, "What is your vision for the future of the country?" General Eisenhower responds first.
"Our aims are clear. to sweep from office an administration which has fastened on every one of us the wastefulness, the arrogance and corruption in high places, the heavy burdens and anxieties which are the bitter fruit of a party too long in power.
Much more than this, it is our aim to give our country a program of progressive policies drawn from our finest Republican traditions; to unite us wherever we have been divided; to strengthen freedom wherever among any group that has been weakened; to build a sure foundation for sound prosperity for all here at home and for a just and sure peace throughout the world.
We now are at a moment in history when, under God, this nation of ours has become the mightiest temporal power and the mightiest spiritual force on earth. The destiny of mankind hangs in the balance on what we say and what we accomplish.
We must use our power wisely for the good of all our people. If we do this, we will open a road into the future on which today's Americans and the generations that come after them can go forward to a life in which there will be far greater abundance of material, cultural and spiritual rewards than our forefathers or we ever dreamed of.
We will so undergird our freedom that today's aggressors and those who tomorrow may rise up to threaten us will not merely be deterred but stopped in their tracks. Then we will at last be on the road to real peace.
We call to go forward with us the youth of America. This cause needs their enthusiasm, their devotion, and the lift their vision of the future will provide. We call forward with us the women of America; our workers, farmers, businessmen. Americans in every walk of life can have confidence that our single-minded purpose is to serve their interest, guard and extend their rights and strengthen the America that we so love."
Burt is not impressed.
Sunday, July 28, 2019
Sunday, July 21, 2019
Scopes
My first brush with the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial was the 1960 film Inherit the Wind which starred Spencer Tracy (nominated for Academy Award for Best Actor, but lost to Burt Lancaster in Elmer Gantry), Frederick March, Dick York and Harry Morgan. It tells the true story of John Scopes, a high school science teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, who on this date in 1925 was accused of violating a state law which prohibited the teaching of human evolution in public schools.
The state brought in William Jennings Bryan (March), three times a candidate for president of the United States, to assist the prosecution. Scopes (York) hired Clarence Darrow (Tracy), a noted civil libertarian lawyer from Chicago.
The trial judge, John Raulston (Morgan), "warned the jury not to judge the merit of the law, but on the violation of the Act." However, both sides seemed to focus on law's merits or lack thereof. The prosecution emphasized that "the word of God as revealed in the Bible took priority over all human knowledge." The defense argued that teachers should be free to teach science to their students.
The law in question was introduced into the Tennessee House of Representatives also in 1925 by Representative John Butler. The bill stated that "it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any... schools...which are supported...by the State (of Tennessee) to teach any theory that denies the Story of Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals (monkeys?)." The punishment for a violation of the law carried a fine of between $100 and $500.
In an unorthodox move, Darrow called Bryan as a witness for the defense as an expert on the Bible. Bryan accepted the challenge. Darrow asked him questions from Genesis suggesting that stories therein could not be scientific and should not be used in the teaching of science.
Darrow was quoted as telling Bryan that "You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion." Bryan retorted that Darrow's purpose was "to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible." Darrow claimed that his purpose was "preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States."
After the trial, it took the jury only nine minutes to return a guilty verdict. Judge Raulston fined Scopes $100. Darrow appealed the verdict all the way to the State Supreme Court.
Scopes himself said, "I feel I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom-that is, to teach the truth."
The Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional, but reversed the conviction of Scopes on the grounds that it was the responsibility of the jury, not the judge, to fix the fine. The case was not retried. The law remained on the books until 1967 when the state legislature voted to repeal it. Governor Buford Ellington signed the legislation into law.
The state brought in William Jennings Bryan (March), three times a candidate for president of the United States, to assist the prosecution. Scopes (York) hired Clarence Darrow (Tracy), a noted civil libertarian lawyer from Chicago.
The trial judge, John Raulston (Morgan), "warned the jury not to judge the merit of the law, but on the violation of the Act." However, both sides seemed to focus on law's merits or lack thereof. The prosecution emphasized that "the word of God as revealed in the Bible took priority over all human knowledge." The defense argued that teachers should be free to teach science to their students.
The law in question was introduced into the Tennessee House of Representatives also in 1925 by Representative John Butler. The bill stated that "it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any... schools...which are supported...by the State (of Tennessee) to teach any theory that denies the Story of Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals (monkeys?)." The punishment for a violation of the law carried a fine of between $100 and $500.
In an unorthodox move, Darrow called Bryan as a witness for the defense as an expert on the Bible. Bryan accepted the challenge. Darrow asked him questions from Genesis suggesting that stories therein could not be scientific and should not be used in the teaching of science.
Darrow was quoted as telling Bryan that "You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion." Bryan retorted that Darrow's purpose was "to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible." Darrow claimed that his purpose was "preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States."
After the trial, it took the jury only nine minutes to return a guilty verdict. Judge Raulston fined Scopes $100. Darrow appealed the verdict all the way to the State Supreme Court.
Scopes himself said, "I feel I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom-that is, to teach the truth."
The Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional, but reversed the conviction of Scopes on the grounds that it was the responsibility of the jury, not the judge, to fix the fine. The case was not retried. The law remained on the books until 1967 when the state legislature voted to repeal it. Governor Buford Ellington signed the legislation into law.
Sunday, July 14, 2019
Flight from San Francisco
Thanks to my friend Kevin Maynor, I began my five year tenure with the Office of Sponsored Research at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in April of 2008.
Early in that period, Kevin and I (plus his wife Connie and Cristina) made a business trip (Maximus convention) to Lake Tahoe, California. We flew to San Francisco and then drove the rest of the way. I still have the black Maximus windbreaker we received as a gift.
After the convention, the four of us returned to San Francisco for a day of site seeing. We stayed at the York Hotel which was the Hotel Empire in the Alfred Hitchcock movie Vertigo (1958). It has since been renamed the Hotel Vertigo. We visited Marina Green Park with its incredible view of the majestic Golden Gate Bridge and ate dinner at the Crab House at Pier 39.
On our way home, we four took a United Airlines flight from San Francisco to the Charlotte Douglas International Airport in North Carolina. We had prearranged seat assignments that put me sitting next to Cristina on the almost 5 hour flight.
However, when we arrived at the gate, we were given boarding passes with seat assignments that were not next to each other. I was furious. I fought with the airline personnel, but to no avail.
Cristina was given a middle seat three rows behind me (I had an aisle seat) on the right side of the plane (looking forward). I asked the man sitting by the window next to Cristina to change seats with me, but he refused. He liked window seats, as did I.
In my assigned row, to my right, were two young women who were travelling together. I asked if they were willing to move so I would have the window seat. They agreed.
Again I asked the man sitting next to Cristina if he would exchange his window seat for mine. He laughed and agreed. So Cristina and I were together for the entire flight from San Francisco.
Early in that period, Kevin and I (plus his wife Connie and Cristina) made a business trip (Maximus convention) to Lake Tahoe, California. We flew to San Francisco and then drove the rest of the way. I still have the black Maximus windbreaker we received as a gift.
After the convention, the four of us returned to San Francisco for a day of site seeing. We stayed at the York Hotel which was the Hotel Empire in the Alfred Hitchcock movie Vertigo (1958). It has since been renamed the Hotel Vertigo. We visited Marina Green Park with its incredible view of the majestic Golden Gate Bridge and ate dinner at the Crab House at Pier 39.
On our way home, we four took a United Airlines flight from San Francisco to the Charlotte Douglas International Airport in North Carolina. We had prearranged seat assignments that put me sitting next to Cristina on the almost 5 hour flight.
However, when we arrived at the gate, we were given boarding passes with seat assignments that were not next to each other. I was furious. I fought with the airline personnel, but to no avail.
Cristina was given a middle seat three rows behind me (I had an aisle seat) on the right side of the plane (looking forward). I asked the man sitting by the window next to Cristina to change seats with me, but he refused. He liked window seats, as did I.
In my assigned row, to my right, were two young women who were travelling together. I asked if they were willing to move so I would have the window seat. They agreed.
Again I asked the man sitting next to Cristina if he would exchange his window seat for mine. He laughed and agreed. So Cristina and I were together for the entire flight from San Francisco.
Sunday, July 7, 2019
Kramer vs. Kramer
Kramer vs. Kramer is a 1979 film drama which was nominated for nine Academy Awards, winning five: Best Picture (Producers Richard Fischoff and Stanley Jaffe), Best Director (Robert Benton), Best Actor (Dustin Hoffman), Best Supporting Actress (Meryl Streep) and Best Adapted Screenplay (Robert Benton). Justin Henry (eight years-old) was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, which was won by Melvyn Douglas (seventy-eight years old) in Being There.
In the movie, Ted Kramer (Hoffman), an advertising executive, arrives home one night to hear from his wife, Joanna Kramer (Streep), that she is leaving him and their six year-old son, Billy Kramer (Henry). She claims Ted married the wrong woman and that she is not a fit mother for her son.
On the night of her departure, Ted seems almost sorry that Joanna does not take Billy with her as it would be difficult for Ted to raise Billy alone. As a matter of fact, Ted's role as father is as he said, "to bring home the bacon." Now he would have "to cook the bacon, too."
"Ted and Billy initially resent one another as Ted no longer has time to carry his workload (at the office), and Billy misses his mother's love and attention. (However,) after months of unrest at home, Ted and Billy learn to cope with each other and gradually bond as father and son."
After an absence of fifteen months, Joanna returns after finding herself in California with the help of a "very good" therapist. She wants her son back. Now, very different than before, Ted will fight her in court for the custody of their son.
In 1979 and before, the American judicial system assumed that "a child is best raised by its mother." It is still the case in Brazil. Thus, according to the judge, Billy is best raised by Joanna ("I really believe he needs me more"), in spite of the fact that she abandoned him for fifteen months and that his father Ted stepped in and did a great job.
As a father myself in 1979 (of my four year-old daughter, Rachel), I was especially moved when Ted testifies in court.
"I'd like to know what law is it that says that a woman is a better parent simply by virtue of her sex...I don't know where it's written that says that a woman has a corner on that market that a man has any less of those emotions (love for a child) than a woman does."
I believe we have moved as a society in a new direction (more equality between men and women) since Kramer vs. Kramer became part of American culture. I think the above custody trial would have a different result today.
In the movie, Ted Kramer (Hoffman), an advertising executive, arrives home one night to hear from his wife, Joanna Kramer (Streep), that she is leaving him and their six year-old son, Billy Kramer (Henry). She claims Ted married the wrong woman and that she is not a fit mother for her son.
On the night of her departure, Ted seems almost sorry that Joanna does not take Billy with her as it would be difficult for Ted to raise Billy alone. As a matter of fact, Ted's role as father is as he said, "to bring home the bacon." Now he would have "to cook the bacon, too."
"Ted and Billy initially resent one another as Ted no longer has time to carry his workload (at the office), and Billy misses his mother's love and attention. (However,) after months of unrest at home, Ted and Billy learn to cope with each other and gradually bond as father and son."
After an absence of fifteen months, Joanna returns after finding herself in California with the help of a "very good" therapist. She wants her son back. Now, very different than before, Ted will fight her in court for the custody of their son.
In 1979 and before, the American judicial system assumed that "a child is best raised by its mother." It is still the case in Brazil. Thus, according to the judge, Billy is best raised by Joanna ("I really believe he needs me more"), in spite of the fact that she abandoned him for fifteen months and that his father Ted stepped in and did a great job.
As a father myself in 1979 (of my four year-old daughter, Rachel), I was especially moved when Ted testifies in court.
"I'd like to know what law is it that says that a woman is a better parent simply by virtue of her sex...I don't know where it's written that says that a woman has a corner on that market that a man has any less of those emotions (love for a child) than a woman does."
I believe we have moved as a society in a new direction (more equality between men and women) since Kramer vs. Kramer became part of American culture. I think the above custody trial would have a different result today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)