Goal 4 of the Sustainable Development Goals, Quality Education, would are three life skills that are learned in school. School and the real world are often depicted as opposites. Where school is shown as a place of acceptance and rewards, the real world is a place many would describe as sometimes tough to navigate. After years of school, some students find it hard to transition once formal education has ended. Being a job, applying for college, and living on your own are foreign concepts to most recent grads and they find themselves ill-equipped to handle this new stage of life. Although there are some key differences to being a student and life after school, they have more in common than most would think. While in school, there are certain skills learned that transfer over into the real world. Critical thinking is taught in school through puzzles and problem-solving questions. When you are faced with challenges in the workplace, critical thinking will come in handy to help identify an issue and formulate a solution. Communication skills are taught in classes like public speaking and English, along with extracurricular activities like clubs and sports. These skills can transfer into crafting business emails and delivering presentations for corporate success. Conducting research is a skill taught in school that sticks with you. In school, you do research for science experiments, papers, and how to find answers to problems. Research skills are carried into the real world in professions like journalism, marketing, and law. The purpose of school is to get young minds ready for the real world. Aside from the curriculum, the life skills that are taught enable these students to flourish as adults.


Antioxidants, considered by many the superheroes of the dietary world, are reported to do everything from improving heart health to helping fight cancer. They're also a common anti-aging ingredient in skincare lines. University of Maryland researchers have narrowed down one antioxidant that seems to significantly outperform others in the anti-aging arena. Methylene blue, a chemical used in research laboratories across the world, in a recent study published in scientific reports, the team showed that applying the molecule to a reconstructed skin model can slow or even reverse several well-known signs of aging, opening the door to new, more effective cosmetic treatments. The team compared the performance of Methylene blue against three other popular antioxidants on skin cells, collected from healthy young donors, elderly people, and individuals with progeria, a genetic condition that causes accelerated aging. They also created an artificial, three-dimensional model of skin tissue to evaluate the compound's performance in a more natural environment. Methylene blue outperformed the competition in every test. Cells treated with the compound for four weeks showed lower levels of damaging molecules known as reactive oxygen species than cells treated with the other antioxidants. They also showed a reduced rate of cell death. These changes seemed to result from alterations in gene expression following Methylene blue treatment. Treated cells showed lower levels of proteins associated with cellular deterioration and increased expression of NERF2, an essential regulator of cellular antioxidant defenses. In the three-dimensional skin model, the results were even more striking. The compound increased both skin thickness and skin hydration, two essential characteristics of young skin. At the molecular level, these changes were accompanied by increased levels of extracellular matrix proteins, like elastin and collagen, the fibers that make up the skin's underlying support network. The researchers also used the model to test the safety of Methylene blue and found that the chemical causes little to no irritation of skin cells, even at high concentrations. All together, these results show that Methylene blue possesses a wide range of beneficial effects for skin cells and suggests that the molecule holds great potential as an anti-aging treatment.


Yes, Bill? Give her our regards, won't you? Tell her if I thought she'd come and treat me like she did, Ladybird, I might come to Pennsylvania myself. And I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciated it, and thank you, I thought it was characteristically courteous of you. I'm grateful, and I thought I'd call you and thank you, and then tell you at the same time, it looks like we're going to have some trouble on our Appalachia thing. They're about 25 votes short. Now the whole question is, do I want to bring it up and get it? I thought I could pass it in the Senate first, and that might help us. I believe I can get it passed by maybe a two to one vote in the Senate. I've got some pretty decent Senators that will vote for it over there, like Javits and Keating and Scott and Kees, and they're about six or eight of them, and that'll give us, well, probably we'll lose a few from the South, but that'll give us probably 60 votes in the Senate. But I can't get it up now on account of the apportionment battle they got going, but I might try it there right afterwards and then take another look at it, look at her whole card. It's in trouble in the House, I think, for the reason that it benefits a relatively limited number of states, and the fellow that who states not in it, he said, well, this is where I can get an economy vote, you know how that problem is. Well, you've done a good job. Anything you can do is roll out as else as you can, and then give me a ring back three or four days or tell me what to be thinking about it. Now, my judgment now is we could get Mansfield and Dirksen to let us bring it up. We could get guess around 58 or 60. You might ask you Scott about it. He's pretty good, and he's helpful, and that he's helped us on everything.  Well, Harrison can't do much with it. Sanford will be with us, but he his people, he's out down there, and they've got a very strong segregationist elected to succeed him his side one under by a couple hundred thousand votes. Harrison kind of goes along with the bird thing and we don't get any votes out of Virginia. Those two, we are in 20 votes of a passionate. We figured we could get 185 every day. We counted them right down to the wire, but 20 more and we counted a good many from your state that done a good job. Both Democrats and Republicans were helping. It's no no problem of yours. The only thing is I just want to act impetuously and bring up something.  Then we'll we'll have a long way to go. My present judgment would be you could talk to Rhodes and say I was talking to the president on another matter, and he told me that we had a little trouble, and I'm gonna survey my boys and wonder if you'd survey yours. You'd have to get it killed and see if there's any neighbors we got that can give us a helping hand, particularly any progressive people want to help unemployment, or maybe if they got to have some little amendment, maybe we could give them that. And then I would try to, you might ask Scott, and I'll ask some of myself like Kase, or I'm not too good a shape of Keating now because they have murdered that poor fellow and he'd been voting with us almost the time. But maybe Javits and I believe we can pass it to the one in the Senate. If we can, that will help us in the house. And then we ought to take a look at their whole card and maybe have a little meeting or something and try to get folks together and bring it up where we can at least have a chance to pass it. We haven't got one now and give me a ring is anyway. I don't want to all of us in on tremendous admire of yours. And I'm just sorry that you made a terrible mistake when you baby picking the wrong party.


There's a war being waged on America's teachers. And we must stand up for them before it's too late. Teachers watch over America's most precious asset, our children. They dedicate their lives to caring for our youth, serving as role models, and making sure that future generations are set up for success. So why on earth are we treating them so badly? Our nation's teachers are not only working long-demanding hours inside and outside of the classroom, but they're blamed these days for almost everything imaginable. They're yelled at by parents over masks, reprimanded by school boards about books they assigned or let their students read. Parents want education for their kids. They're not interested in indoctrination. Filifed by politicians for teaching honest lessons about America's history of racism and genocide. We will stop the radical indoctrination of our students. Students told to arm themselves against the possibility that their classrooms might be invaded by murderous young men with semi-automatics. School district in North Carolina says they plan to arm schools with AR-15s. Teachers are also making less money than they were 10 years ago. Their average salary today is around $66,000. But when adjusted for inflation, that's a $2,000 pay cut compared to 2012. As recently as 2018, nearly 600,000 public school teachers had to work a second job. We're also saddling our nation's educators with huge debt. Nearly half of teachers, 45%, have taken out student loans to pay for their advanced degrees, often required of them, with an average debt load of $55,800. On top of all of this, 94% of teachers have had to dip into their own pockets to buy school supplies. This, in the richest country in the history of the world, and at a time when the average Wall Street employee bonus for 2021 hit a record high of $257,500. It would take the typical teacher almost four years to make that much. And that's just a bonus for Wall Street. A massive golden cherry on top of their ever-sweeter salaries. I'm guessing Wall Street firms don't make traders pay for their own pencils. Are Wall Street bankers really worth that much more than the people we ask to care for and teach our children? Please. Yet none of this has stopped Republicans from accelerating their war on teachers and turning educators into political pawns in their battle to advance a radical agenda. Since January 2021, 35 states have introduced 137 bills, limiting what educators are allowed to talk with their students about with regard to race, American history, politics, sexual orientation and gender identity. Governors Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis in Florida are poster boys for this campaign, even supporting legislation that intrudes on a teacher's ability to craft lesson plans. Republicans are quick to lob the terms critical race theory or wokeism against any curriculum that allows our youth to express their identities, advances critical thinking skills, and is honest about our nation's tragic racial history, calling it indoctrination or brainwashing. Why? Because the biggest threat facing the Republican Party is a new, multi-racial generation of young people unafraid to speak truth to power. Ultimately, if we don't learn from our own history, which often means learning from our past mistakes, there's no way we can tackle our nation's most pressing problems while building a better, more inclusive future. The foundation for this future begins in the classroom. So how can we fight back against this war on America's teachers? First, pay them twice as much as they're earning. Bare minimum. Second, fight for their freedom to teach. Many of the decisions that affect teachers' day-to-day work, as well as the lives of students, are made at local school board meetings. So go to one. Better yet, run for a position on your local school board. Third, listen to our teachers. Do you know what's been lost in the cultural and political war against education in this country? The voices of actual teachers. If we're going to truly support them and repair the harm done to our education system, they need to be heard. So defend our teachers, pay our teachers, value our teachers. The work they do determines our future.


Just tune the casserole with a twist because it's got Tony Zachary's seasoning in it. Casserole while we boil our egg noodles but I put a lid on this, got the water to bring to a boil. We're going to put a little salt in it and then we're going to drop our egg noodles. I'm just going to do it three times. Two cuts of egg noodles and we're going to let those boil for about eight minutes while we mix up our casserole over here. We're going to put a little bit of everything in here because I think it'll be good. We're going to use some dehydrated onion, a few tablespoons and I'm doing it easy so that I don't have to worry about chopping up an onion and sauteing it and all that stuff. So here's our tuna and I'm going to put it in juice and all to give it a good tuna flavor. We're going to use a can of mixed vegetables because me and Chris are eating it and that way it's a one pot meal. I'm going to drain these. All right we're going to put in our drained mixed vegetables. One can of cream of celery. You can of course use a different cream of mushroom, cream of chicken if that's what you want to do. Now we're going to put something in there that most people don't use and that's some creole seasoning just because it is tuna. Put a tablespoon in there to give it some flavor. We are really enjoying this house. We're enjoying the hammock and so are the squirrels. I hope you try this recipe because it is a little different with the creole seasoning in there. And these noodles are about done. I'm going to turn them off and I'm going to show you what else we're going to do with our casserole. We're going to put a little cheese on the top in a minute. We're also going to use some ritz crackers, a whole pack to go on the top. If you don't have ritz because they're buttery, use some regular saltines. Our oven is preheated and ready at 375 degrees. But anyway you can use some regular saltines, melt some butter in the microwave, toss them in the butter and top them, top it with those if you don't have the ritz.  So let's get these noodles strained and into our casserole. Alright I do want to put in a little bit of milk. We're going to put in about a cup of milk. Let's do three quarters of a cup. Now we're going to throw in our noodles, mix it up good. I could have got by with two cups of noodles I think. But we love them. It'll be good. Let's put in about a cup of cheese. Alright we're going to put it in our dish. Last quarter of milk in there. Just pour it on the top. Because I think it needs to have a little liquid at least to get to the very top of the noodles. Because you don't want the noodles to dry out. So just make sure that your liquid is reaching the very top. There you go. So it really needed the whole cup of milk. Looks good. It's going to get hot and bubbly in the oven. That cheese is going to melt in there. It's going to be really delicious. Now let's put on our crackers and we're going to bake this for about 30 minutes at 375. Just enough for it to heat all the way through and get nice and bubbly. I'm going to put the whole container on the top of the Ritz crackers. And if you want to you can save a few out to eat a cheese cracker later. Alright we're going to get this in the oven and I just got it on a regular bake setting at 375. I'll set the timer for 30 minutes and we're going to have supper. Easy and delicious. Alright I'll make some croutons in my air fryer with some Olive Garden dressing. It'll be really good. So we're going to put a couple of croutons on our salad and Chris are going to share it. Croutons are really easy. I'm going to cut up some bread with a bread knife. I used Italian bread. I tossed it in the dressing and then I put them in the air fryer at 350 until they're brown and it only takes about five to eight minutes. Not even really about five minutes. Mmm so good. Okay we're going to get out our casserole. It is nice and bubbly. Set it right here. The 375 degrees really makes the crackers get nice and brown. We knocked that out about two minutes early if you're wondering. Of course I'm going to taste it and then Chris will eat. I'm also going to let him taste it because he is my man and this is something new I've created. Okay we're going to let Chris taste it. See what he thinks. It's got a good bit of heat to it. You put a whole tablespoon in there. I know. Surprised. What do you think? Pretty good.  I definitely would. That's way better than I thought it would be. And tell them how you feel about casseroles. Because it's really good. I do not like casseroles. I don't want stuff with cream mushroom soup dumped in it. And crackers and all that stuff. But this one is different because it's tuna. It's not just, and it's got flavor to it. It's got a lot of flavor. It's not hot at all. I think it's just right. It's good. All right the man approved. Be good with some Spanish Mackerel. Yeah it would. This looks really good y'all. We're going to give it a taste. That Tony Zachary's adds a kick to it and a lot of flavor. I hope y'all enjoyed this recipe. Thanks for watching. Color Valley Cooks. Where we cook like mama did.


In Tokyo, US President Joe Biden welcomes new Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to a four-nation security meeting that also includes Japan and India. In Hong Kong, six defendants, including retired Cardinal Joseph Tseng and singer Denise Ho, face financial charges linked to democracy protests in 2019 and 2020. The World Health Organization says an outbreak in several countries of monkey pox remains containable and limited, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, appearing in Pretoria with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, says it is unacceptable to side with Russia over Ukraine.


Last part is the closing remarks. So I would like to call on first Dr. Shridhurt Chot Pantarat who is a Deputy Director of Environmental Research Institute Chulalongkarn University. Hello, okay. Ms. Julia Finney, Mr. Nile, lady and gentlemen. Firstly, I would like to convey our sincere thanks to SEI for extending the invitation to our instil to join and to be part of the remarkable meeting here. And I would like to grateful for support of the FAT of Government of Australia on behalf of Environmental Research Institute Chulalongkarn University. I deeply honoured to stand here. I would express my heartfelt thanks to each one of you for your sharing in building climate resilience in the Mekong region, reaching SEI policy and practice conference. I strongly believe that our time together here has been truly remarkable. Free with shared insight and a united commitment to addressing environmental challenges. The knowledge and experience exchange here will definitely have a lasting impact. However, let us remember that our journey does not end here. It's now our collective responsibility to take what we have learned for positive change in our community. I encourage all of us to stay connected, to keep conversation going, and most importantly, to continue working together for our more resilient Mekong regions. And once again, I would express my heartfelt thanks to all of you for your presence here and for your invaluable contributions. I wish you all a safe journey home. Thank you very much, thank you. Thank you so much, Dr. Schillert. And now I would like to call on Mr. Nile O'Connor, SEI Asia Center Director for the final closing remarks. Okay. Promise I won't keep you very long, but it's very fortunate that it's raining outside so you can't get home too easily anyhow. So, wow, absolute pleasure to be here. And what a day. We've had so many experts from the scientists, from policy makers, from the media, from civil society. You know, there's been so much going on, not just in this room, but on the sidelines of this as well. It's been just so much information. But I wanted to start with a quote, which was from a colleague of ours in SEI, Dr. Richard Klein. And he mentioned, either we transform society in a way that avoids the worst of climate change, or climate change will transform society for us in ways that are difficult to foresee, but likely not to be very pleasant. And I think that's gonna be the call that we should have for the rest of, you know, taking all the messages from here forward. If we don't do something about it, we'll be forced to do something about it, and we'd like to avoid that. But I think the good news from today is that we see a lot of potential. There's a lot of clarity in what we have to do. We have, we talked, I think, in a meeting yesterday about the unknown unknowns and the known knowns. I think we know where we have to go. We've got a lot of good direction, a lot of clarity from the IPCC reports. We know the targets. We've got a lot of solutions. We know what they are in many ways, so we can solve an awful lot of the problems already if we have the will and the desire to do so. So I think we should try and focus on that and look at how we can drive the finance to support a lot of these initiatives, how we can get it down to the community level, how we can unite governments with civil society, with research institutions, and try and make this a more inclusive and a more structured process to bring about lasting change. And this for us is all about this bridging science, policy, and best practice. And if we looked at what we started off today with bringing the scientists in to make sure that we have an evidence-based grounding in what we're doing, bringing the policymakers in to understand why science is important, but also what are the gaps that policymakers want? We don't always speak the same language, making sure that we have civil society embedded in our thinking and support so that inclusion is certainly a founding factor in it, but then also looking at media. How do we get the message across? As you said, we don't all speak the same language, but sometimes, even if we do speak the same language, we don't make it clear to one another. So a lot of work to do on that. But I think that being Irish, I'm kind of optimistic, any of you. So I always see the glass half full. Soon you'll see it full outside, but for now it's half full in here. We have these solutions, so we should look towards really enacting them and taking them forward. And it's a collective approach for all of us to do so. One of the earlier sessions, they talked about the cost of inaction. And I just kind of feel that it's a massive cost and it's a cost that we can't afford because it's not about money. It's about people's lives. It's about biodiversity. It's about the founding blocks for us on life and on earth. So we can't afford not to act on this. And we know that there's an urgency to it. We talk about 2030. That is around the corner. We talk about 2050. It's not that far away. And I was thinking about it, maybe to some of the fellows here who are not yet that old. But I was looking back at 2000 when we had the Y2K when we thought the world was gonna fall apart when computers went to zero, zero. It isn't that far away. Like it's 24 years ago. And that was a huge kind of time in life. And yet it's very close to where 2050 is going to be in 26 years from now. What has changed in those 24 years when we also knew about climate change back then? We haven't done a lot to really change. And yet we've got a massive change to go to maintain 1.5 to reduce our emissions. So I think there's a huge challenge for us to pull all this together. I'm not gonna try and summarize all of the different events we had today, but I think there's a lot of key messages coming out that we will take and we'll share back to everybody. And I wanna thank the team there for doing all the wonderful artistic summaries of these events. I think they do capture a lot of the words that were said. But I think if we're gonna close up now, I think we should take a positive home with us. We do possess the knowledge, a lot of it. There's always new and innovative ways to improve things, but we do possess the knowledge. We have the tools. We can see from here there's a lot of determination to do this and we want to make the change. So I think if we pull all that together, I think we have a good potential to drive for change. And there is urgency. So please let's kind of use that as a call for us to push forward and make sure that we design the future we want and it doesn't design the future we make. So to finish up, I just wanna say a big thanks to a number of people. First of all, to all the scientists, particularly from the IPCC that joined us today, it's great to have four scientists and others in the room, to all the policy makers from governments. I know it's a lot to take the time out to join us, but I appreciate that. Civil Society, we're always welcome at SEI. So it's great to have you on board and work with us and indeed the media who we now want to task you with taking all of this information and putting it out there somehow and connecting to all of the people in this room to gather more and more information about climate change, about environment and to help us kind of drive the agenda. Thank you for my colleagues from Chula Longcorn University as well. It's a pleasure to be working with you on this event and you've been a great support to SEI over the years. We look forward to that continuing into the future. To our colleagues at DFAT, Shane is here beside us. Gemma has, I think, left unfortunately, very busy schedule and Dwight, you've been a great support in this and other work that we're doing. So we're very happy to have you as partners in this process. So long may it continue. To the hotel, I think everybody's enjoyed their food, everybody's enjoyed the safe and security of the hotel. So thank the hotel staff for us as well. Last but not least, SEI team. There's a big team behind all of this. They've been working very hard to make sure everything runs smoothly. So a big thanks to everybody from SEI and everybody else. Now, it's something you don't get to say often but the first round's on me. So if you wanna join us outside for a few refreshments, thanks everybody for joining us today here. Thank you.


Welcome to the William G. McGowan Theater in the National Archives flagship building in Washington, D.C., which sits on the ancestral lands of the Nacotchtank peoples. And a special welcome to those of you watching on our National Archives YouTube channel. I'm Tom Nastic, a public programs producer, and it's my pleasure to welcome you today, to today's program with Dr. Thomas Doherty, author of Showtrial, Hollywood, HUAC, and the Birth of the Black List. Before we begin, I'd like to tell you about two upcoming programs. On Wednesday, October 26th, here in the McGowan Theater, and also online on our YouTube channel, National Archives exhibit curator, Hallis Camps, will present an illustrated lecture on the conception, research, and execution of the exhibit, All American, The Power of Sports, currently on display upstairs in the Lawrence F. O'Brien Gallery. And on Thursday, October 27th, at 1 p.m., we will present a virtual book lecture on our YouTube channel, In the Houses of Their Dead, The Lincolns, the Booze, and the Spirits, with author Terry Halford. In his book, Halford tells the story of Abraham Lincoln through the strange points of contact between his family and that of the man who killed him, John Wilkes Booth. To learn more about these programs and all of our programs and exhibits, please visit our website, archives.gov. And now it's my pleasure to introduce today's speaker, a cultural historian with a special interest in Hollywood cinema, Thomas Doherty is a professor of American studies at Brandeis University. He is also the film review editor for the Journal of American History. In addition to the book he will discuss today, he is the author of Little Lindy is Kidnapped, How the Media Covered the Crime of the Century, published in 2020. He is currently working on a, excuse me, he is currently working on a book about the rise of the archival documentary in 1930s America. Unfortunately, we do not have copies of the book he will discuss today available, but my colleague Susan, who's up at the top of the theater, can hand you a signed book plate as you exit the theater and you can bring it up to the archives store, which is one level up, and they will order the book for you. So now would you please welcome Dr. Thomas Doherty to the National Archives. Hopefully this is working. Ah, there we go. Hi, I'd like to thank Tom for the kind introduction and for the invitation to be here in the National Archives, a place that I've spent many happy hours doing archival research. And I want to say a couple words about that maybe at the outset, but first, I like to always begin by giving a little quiz to my audience to get a sense of exactly how old they are. And to see how many of these people you recognize, this is a shot of the committee for the First Amendment who came to Washington 75 years ago this week to protest or the House on American Activity Committee investigation into alleged communist subversion in Hollywood. They resented the fact that the committee was configuring Hollywood as a hotbed of communist subversion. They were very careful, however, and we'll talk more about this in a second, not to align themselves with the toxic Hollywood 10 who were communists. The committee had their communist cards and these were a group of authentic liberals who kind of wanted to walk a tightrope between the right wing of the committee and the far left wing of the Hollywood 10 and the group of communists in Hollywood. You recognize some of these people? My students will not recognize anyone. So you're dating yourself at least, I'd say over 45, 50 here. If you recognize some of these people, here is a cheat sheet. Richard Conte, John Houston, the great director, Bogart, and Paul Henri behind him and Lauren Bacall right next to Humphrey Bogart, his wife. They were the, I don't know, they were the Olivia Wilde, Jason Sudakis of their time. They were like a huge star-studded couple and they attracted most of the attention at the time. Dylan Keyes here. This is the picture I wanted on the cover of the book but then my publisher said nobody would recognize this guy either, which I think is a better picture. Anybody recognize this guy? This is Robert Taylor who was the singular heartthrob of his age in the late 30s throughout the Second World War and afterwards. My friend Arnie Reisman, I did the documentary Hollywood on Trial which I'd recommend highly if anybody's interested in this topic directed by Mark Helper and written by Arnie Reisman, made in 1976 when many of the survivors of this era were still alive, willing to talk and it is the most comprehensive collection of archival footage from the 1947 hearings. When Arnie told me, I did not recognize this, to the left back row of the cop there, you'll see a picture of a woman and that is Patricia Neal, the actress who was in town. How shall I put this?  She was in town to hook up with Gary Cooper who was a witness before the committee. I think her agenda there was not political and I wouldn't have recognized her unless Arnie had pointed that out for me. Before beginning, I'd like to just again acknowledge this place, the National Archives, the Library of Congress, the Jefferson Building, the Motion Picture Division. Because this is the National Archives it might be appropriate, just say a couple words about the archival background you have to master or the kind of places you need to go to put together a book like this. One of the things I wanted to do with this book is not to just reiterate secondary material but to go back to 1947 and see how people responded to the House on American Activities Committee at the time. That meant looking at the contemporary documents, looking at contemporary newsreels, broadcasting, the trade periodicals, all the FBI files, all the materials that would get you the texture of what's going on in 1947. When we look at the House on American Activities Committee hearings today, I think naturally tend to filter them through our own perspective in 2022. We're looking back at 1947 through all the accumulated filters of the last 75 years. What I wanted to do was sort of see it as an original moment in 1947 and try to perceive it through the eyes of the people in 1947. I think it required a little bit of this archival work and to supplement things like, you know, this is a great collection that we can now have publicly available, just the transcripts of the hearings, the congressional record, this is sort of where most people would start. What I don't get from the congressional record is any sense of the, you know, the vibes, the atmosphere, the yelling, the shouting, the laughter of, you know, a live hearing. It can be like a dry stenographic account. And so I went to these trade press. The trade press are the motion picture industry weeklies and periodicals that covered Hollywood like a blanket. And the wonderful thing about the age of digital communication and research now is you sort of don't need to travel the way you used to. There are databases that you can research this material, scan the pages yourself, you know, sit there in your pajamas and with a cup of coffee and go through these wonderful primary materials. I know there are some scholars in the audience who sort of remember actually have to, moving your body through physical space to go to a library and then like have the librarian bring the periodical down and then go through it and have it Xeroxed. And the Felicity now, a facility rather with which you can do this research is really, we all complain about the digital world sometimes, but this has just been magnificent for myself and for upcoming students to do this kind of work. This database here which has just come online in the last few years was like a treasure trove of material. There's a public access database put together by a guy named Eric Hoyt at the University of Wisconsin which is utterly public access and you can scan whatever you want through this. YouTube which I understand we're on today is, stuff is always coming up on YouTube. You have to be careful about the provenance of this material because they put up anything you don't know where it's from, you don't know how it's edited, but there is just a lot out there now on YouTube. And sometimes the other great source is eBay. There's a record of the Bertolt Brex testimony. Eric Bentley, his biographer was in Brex House in Vienna I think at the time and somebody had made a recording of Brex testimony on 33 and a third LP and this was put out in the 60s. So I believe it's the only easily available record of the testimony of one of the witnesses. And also, and this is where it gets sexy or at least for a scholar, the FBI files. So you can, through the Freedom of Information Act, you can request files of various individuals because the Hollywood 10 are so celebrated their files have been pre-cleared and pre-approved other people have requested them so it doesn't take three or four years. And you can actually get some of the secret FBI files of the various testimonies. One of the things that's great about the older files as opposed to the newer files of redactions, they actually redacted it by hand with a magic marker. And so if you're lucky enough to have an editor wife who can count up the number of characters, she can give you with a fair degree of certainty that the redacted person is like, the name is eight letters. And through a process of elimination sometimes you can probably figure out who the redacted informant is. This is what the files look like and I just want to say one quick word. When I did the research on the House on American Activities Committee here in the National Archives, archivists tend to get a bad rap in popular culture. Some of you might know the scene in Citizen Kane where the reporter goes to the Thatcher Library and there's this old biddy archivist who is reluctantly letting him look at the pages of Old Man Thatcher's diary about his first meeting with Charles Foster Kane. And you can't imagine a more unpleasant, drier human being. I have never met anybody like that at the National Archives. They've all been extraordinarily gracious, generous. Not only do they help you with material, but they know the material so well they can point you in places you never would have thought of. So when you request the committee records from 1947 they'll bring up something like this on a carousel. The previous slide quoted the famous saying by Robert Cairo, the great biographer of Lyndon Baines Johnson, and he's got a saying that I think every scholar now is taken to heart, turn every page. So when the archivist comes and brings you a lot of material, just don't look at the sexy stuff you're interested in, but you've got to turn every page. And this is a kind of research that might no longer be done now in the future, but when I did this a couple of years ago, the top rank of files were the committee witnesses who had testified, the sexy people, Dalton Trumbo, Gary Cooper, Ronald Reagan, and in those days, and I don't know if this is still true with the National Archives, because we all now do our research with our iPhones and you take scans, right, you take little pictures, but in the past what you would have to do is you would mark the file with a long strip of white paper. Okay, I see some people nodding, and then the archivist would take out the piece of paper and Xerox it for you. Now the top rank here all had little pieces of paper because it was the sexy stuff that scholars had been through for years, but down in the bottom is the boring stuff that nobody had bothered to look at, like sort of the committee allocation for paper funds or whatever, like really accounting stuff, and it said like miscellaneous on it, but our government being our government, things tend to get mis-filed, so that bottom row of stuff, I'm pretty sure I was the first person to look at in close to 70 years that hadn't been opened and our government being our government, there are things mis-filed, especially telegrams, because every time somebody was named at the hearings and he felt unjustly, he was sent a telegram to Washington demanding that his name be cleared and demanding that he'd be called. So turn every page and appreciate your archivist here. Oh, the last thing, the last source you have as a scholar is real-life people who can sometimes tell you things that are really interesting. Unfortunately, there was only one survivor from the original hearings of the committee for the First Amendment, she's just passed away this year at the age of 103, 104 I believe, the wonderful actress, Marcia Hunt, who is a great screen actress and a very generous lady, still had all her marbles together when I spoke to her when she was a mere 101, and a very generous woman who told me what it was like to be on the plane, and that's sort of the grim, but I think it's well-heated saying that historians have better to be five years too soon than one day too late, and she is, I believe, the last of that group that could, we were there, and just, she's such a wonderful woman even in 1947 when she came to Washington, one of the anecdotes that she told me in which I saw her in the trade press as well is a local group of high school kids convinced their teacher to let them out of their civics class if they came to the committee hearings and watched the committee for an afternoon, and she invited them back to the hotel where all the stars were saying, and she sort of huddled with them in a room and talked to them and said, you're doing in your civics class in high school what we're doing here, and everybody in the democracy lives in a constant civics class, so she got to meet her, and she's a very gracious lady, and of course there are a lot of secondary sources on this material. I wanted to say I was chatting with somebody earlier about Lauren Bacall who I guess was invited to a blacklist panel back in the day. I read a lot of Hollywood memoirs for this book, or at least I scanned a lot, like maybe 30 or 40 of them. They were almost all useless. They told you very little. They were obviously ghost written, very seldom did they have any fresh information, and if you're interested however in a good Hollywood memoir Lauren Bacall's by myself was the only one that I found just fascinating and valuable. She spoke with great intelligence of this moment in American life besides being very frank and honest about her own terrific career. I wish they had all been like that, but very few of them were. Most of the Hollywood 10 did their own memoirs, which I think were pretty self-serving, and then some of the stars also wrote memoirs but their memories have either faded or were never there. But Lauren Bacall is really sort of a special one. As I said, Hollywood on Trial by Arnie Reisman and Mark Helpin. Now saying all that is preliminary. What I wanted to do in the book as I said is to give you the impression of 47 as it happened. We look upon 47 as to us the past. In 47 of course they're looking at a different kind of past and as I probe the hearings I found that so much was about backstory. And that means that what's happening in 47 is a sort of the obvious post-backfire of two events in their historical memory, which are the 1930s and the political squabbles, especially in Hollywood that erupt over what's called the popular front, which I'll talk about in a second, and then of course the Second World War. I mean it sounds obvious, but like I think we always forget that 47 is a product of those two moments in American history. And so it really is about the backstory first of the 1930s and second of the Second World War. The 1930s backstory that is most significant involves a political alliance called the popular front. Now the popular front is this rubric that we use to describe a group of people on the left as they called themselves. And it wasn't an organization that had stationery or a meeting place. The popular front was just the name we gave to a group of people, basically liberals but a big umbrella of liberals from FDR, New Deal Democrat, Blue Collar, Irish Catholic maybe, conservative bench, but still a good solid Democrat to people all the way on the far left who represented members of the Communist Party. And everybody in between from so-called fellow travelers, which was the name people used, usually pejoratively, to describe people who weren't authentic members of the Communist Party, but almost always adopted the Communist Party line on any given issue. Maybe they didn't want to be bothered to go to the meetings or pay the dues, but they were kind of reliable allies of the Communist Party. And then you got your socialist and anarchist and, you know, far leftist. And what united this group and it really was a popular front were two principles. One was anti-Naziism in our foreign policy overseas. So they were deeply anti-fascist and also they were pro-civil rights at home for African Americans, for labor, for women. And those two broad principles united an incredibly diverse group of people. So you have somebody like John Ford, the Hollywood director who we don't think of as a raving liberal, marching on a picket line with John Howard Lawson, who is probably the most notorious Stalinist in Hollywood. And these guys would be like marching in the same picket line in front of a newspaper office that had tried to fire its members or something. And so when they call it the popular front, it really was popular. And in Hollywood, they coalesced around a group called the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League, which had about 5,000 members at its height of Hollywood personalities who were devoted to alerting America to the rising threat of Nazism overseas. And they tried as best they could to get anti-Nazi sentiment in Hollywood movies, usually allegorically. We don't see a Nazi uniform on the Hollywood screen until April 1939 with confessions of a Nazi spy. That's the first explicitly anti-Nazi film by a major Hollywood studio. But in 37 and 38, the League is trying to get anti-Nazi pro-tolerance sentiment into Hollywood movies. So a good example is Boys Town. Does anybody know that film, the great Spencer Tracy film? And there's an opening scene in that where all the boys are sitting down in the Catholic orphanage to have grace. And every one of the boys says grace in his own way. So there's a Catholic grace, a Protestant grace, and there's a picture of a Jewish kid with a yarmulke reciting grace in Hebrew. Now if that is on the screen in 1938, it is a pretty implicit anti-Nazi pro-tolerance statement. So the group wanted those kind of messages in Hollywood film. However in August 1939, the Hitler-Stalin pact is announced. And what this means is that the communists of the popular front are now no longer as anti-fascist as they used to be because Hitler and Stalin have this alliance. And so virtually overnight, the communists in the Hollywood anti-Nazi League reverse their positions. They are no longer for intervention overseas. They are no longer for strong American defense. Overnight. This needless to say creates a breach between that wing of the popular front and the rest of the wings of the popular front. And what happens is the liberals bolt from the Hollywood anti-Nazi League. And even the newspaper goes out of publication. So that's in August 1939. War erupts. The Hollywood communists are against Hollywood having military preparedness films. They're against intervention until June of 1941 when the Nazis invade the Soviet Union. And everybody in the Communist Party switches 180, is now for intervention, is now for a strong defense. Now if I am a Hollywood liberal like say Melvin Douglas or Frederick March or Edward G. Robinson and I haven't changed my position in either moment. I'm still pro-FDR, pro-defense, pro-intervention, pro-Lenlis. I'm looking at these guys and I kind of suspect that their loyalty is not to Washington but to Moscow. Now during the Second World War all is forgiven because we're all on the same side. So all of these disputes of the 30s are put on hiatus during the Second World War. However at the end of the war it all comes back here. Now one of the things the war does that's absolutely crucial to understand the hearings in 1947 is it changes our notion of Hollywood cinema. It changes the government's notion, Hollywood's notion, the average moviegoer's notion that prior to World War II the Hollywood industry thought of itself as, and I think most moviegoers did too, as an entertainment machine. We will give you diversion.  Come to Hollywood movies and see Gone with the Wind or The Wizard of Oz and forget your terrible depression-wracked existence for a while. It's escapism. Now we all knew Hollywood movies was a really influential transmission belt for values. We always knew that. But during the Second World War we all know it in our bones because the military has been doing instruction films, Hollywood has made propaganda films, Hollywood has made a whole bunch of films that expertly put together Hollywood entertainment and wartime messaging. And they do it in that way Hollywood can only do. So maybe the best example that you all know is the film Casablanca. And that's such a wonderful Hollywood propaganda film because it takes the conventions of a typical romance and uses them to persuade us that the problem of three little people ain't worth the hill of beans in this crazy world, right? And that I, Humphrey Bogart, have to make the supreme sacrifice and relinquish my passion for Ingrid Bergman and go off and fight the Nazis with Claude Reigns, right? And the film does that so persuasively. And there are a lot of Hollywood films that do that during the Second World War. A film like Air Force 1943, some of you might know, in which it teaches you the value of teamwork and tolerance. So Hollywood had always told us that the most important person in the air is the pilot. He's the romantic guy. He's the top gun, right? He gets the girl. But during World War II they tell you that a B-17 has nine members and you need all nine members for the B-17 to complete its mission and the rear gunner and the navigator and the bombardier and the mechanic and the co-pilot are just as important as the pilot, okay? And it does it in a way that is just so persuasive and emotionally moving, right? And so if previously the Hollywood message and the Hollywood ethos would be summed up by this phrase by Sam Goldwyn, famous phrase, if you want to send a message use Western Union you don't come to Hollywood to get political messages at Sam Goldwyn. When I first started teaching I would have to tell my students what Western Union was. Oh, it's a telegram company and now I have to explain to them what a telegram is. So it's kind of like if you texted somebody and they had to deliver the iPhone to the actual other person. And this is the ethos of Sam Goldwyn right here. Now during the Second World War we know otherwise. So we come off the second but this is from Air Force. But we come off the Second World War now and the movies have really changed. And we have changed as we watch movies. We know movies can do things besides just entertain us. That they are powerful transmission belts of values that they affect the culture. That they're ideologically message driven. And the most popular film of 1946 is both politically and commercially is this marvelous movie which is the best years of our lives. And it's the number one box office attraction of 1946. And it's the kind of film that would be unimaginable without World War II. It just assumes so much of the audience, a level of maturity about life. It's the first portrait of a handicapped man in major Hollywood cinema played by Harold Russell, a real Navy veteran who lost his hands in a terrible fire aboard a ship during the Second World War. And he's not going to get his hands back by the end of the movie. There will be no Hollywood happy ending.  And it's an amazingly smart moving motion picture. And that's what Hollywood is now. And we all know it. We know it in Washington, we know it in Hollywood, we know it at our local Biju. So the one thing I think you could say that the House on American Activities Committee gets right, they know movies matter. And that's what those hearings are about. They're about movies suddenly really matter to us and whatever you think about how subversive they find Hollywood content, the basic mentality is that movies are now going to be kind of an arena of conversation for us in America forever after. And even today when we want to talk about race, sexual harassment, American history we tend to go to the movies or to our popular culture to air some of the disputes that we have. And it really starts happening with this event in 1947 involving these fellows from the House Committee on on American Activities. I don't know how far we need to go back with the House Committee. But maybe one person we should know about is this really bizarre despicable individual, John Rankin, who is responsible for turning the House on American Activities Committee from a standing committee into a permanent committee. The committee had actually come about in the 1930s. The first iteration was in 1933-34. But as a standing committee it had to be reauthorized every year. And it wasn't reauthorized again until 1938 under the ages of a Texas Democratic congressman named Martin Dice. Now during the war again everything's on hiatus but after the war, when the Democrats still have control, this guy John Rankin, who despite being an anti-Semitic racist from Mississippi, and a really extreme individual even by the standards of the time, but a great parliamentarian gets the committee to be against Congress to vote the HUAC into a permanent committee. He however is toxic even in 1947. And the new chairman when the Republicans take over is for the 80th Congress is this guy in the center and this guy here J. Parnell Thomas, a Republican congressman from New Jersey who had been on the Dice Committee and I think as a lot of politicians in the post-war era realize that you can ride the anti-communist wave into prominence. Now this is three years still before Senator Joe McCarthy takes over kind of the face of anti-communism. And I guess if there's one thing I'd like you to take away from this talk is to correct in your mind the popular misconception that you cannot blast out of the public imagination with dynamite that conflates Joe McCarthy with HUAC. And if you just say the word Joe McCarthy, Senator Joe McCarthy House on American Activities Committee, it doesn't scan, does it? Because the House is the other branch of Congress. So HUAC which we conflate now with McCarthyism which it is, but it's three years before the term McCarthyism actually becomes public parlance in 1950. But this guy realizes early on that anti-communism can be the way to prominence and success and so he decides to have a series of hearings investigating communist subversion in Hollywood with his committee council there, a guy named Robert Striplin. I used to laugh at this portrait here where you're kind of looking at the film to see if you can find communism and then I realize that's sort of what I do which is, you know, you look at film to find ideological meaning so I probably shouldn't laugh at those guys. And this is from the kind of a test run of the big hearings in Washington where the committee went out to Los Angeles and had some closed door sessions where they invited some stars most notably Robert Taylor. Again, Taylor actually was quite angry that the committee in May in Los Angeles said immediately what he had said. You know, there's supposed to be closed secret testimony but Parnell Thomas had press conferences and everybody's basically spilling their guts and Taylor did not like that because he was assured anything he said would be held in secret. However, the big hearings are in Washington and there are a couple things that I find really interesting about the hearings right from the get go. First is the HUAC hearings are the first time we see this guy in public, Richard Nixon. He makes his bones on this committee. He's a junior congressman from California at the time and he will face off at one point one of the people he will be having a dialogue with is the head of the screen actors guild, a guy named Ronald Reagan. So these HUAC hearings in 47 is two presidents. There are kind of momentous, not to mention George Murphy who becomes the senator as well. The hearings really have this cascading significance in American life here. I mentioned this guy.  He is so toxic and we use words like that kind of cavalierly these days you know we, you know, a racist is anybody who we happen to disagree with on any issue involving race. He was the real deal, you know, a staunch segregationist who would use ethnic and racial slurs on the floor of Congress that you can read in the congressional record. Now J. Parnel Thomas is smart enough to know if he has a big public hearing in October investigating Hollywood that this guy is going to attract all the negative attention and then an act of God intervenes that in Mississippi there is another anti-Semite racist who is a U.S. senator and he has this name Theodore Bilbo and he sounds like a character out of Al Cap the comic strip and Theodore Bilbo dies in office and so there is a special election that John Rankin goes down to Mississippi for and J. Parnel Thomas sees his opportunity and holds the committee hearings as Rankin is down campaigning for the office of senate so he is not going to be on the dais when the committee unfolds in late October of 1947 which is a really smart move on Thomas's part and Rankin doesn't win for what that's worth so all the back story now we come to the day of the hearings and you know how cleverly we've arranged this talk 75 years to the day October 20th 1947 the House on American Activities Committee hearing begins the committee has all kinds of advanced publicity they've subpoenaed and summoned dozens of people to come to Washington and as you can see it's the first great political media Washington Hollywood extravaganza of the post war era and it's going to set the pattern for everyone to come if you look at the my left hand side of the slide you can see the bank of newsreel cameras set up those are the five newsreel companies that were operative at the time and also there's a newsreel camera for television there as well and television is just an emergent medium at the time almost nobody has a television set but this almost was the first telecast congressional hearing television had got permission to put cameras into the hearing room you know live video cameras not the newsreel film cameras into the committee room but the cameras I think took DC not AC current and they didn't want to pay for the converter so it wasn't telecast over the television airwaves however the next year the HUAC hearings were and they weren't into Hollywood but if you're a congressional hearing buff you probably know that the second act the next year is in some ways even more politically has a bigger political consequence and those are the famous Elger Hiss Whitaker chamber's hearings which were the first televised congressional hearings and they managed to locate any kinescopes or any records of those hearings and those are the hearings in which Richard Nixon makes his bones because he has a suspicion that Whitaker chambers even though he's a manic depressive overweight kind of odd guy is telling the truth against the patrician darling Elger Hiss and that's what eventually makes Nixon a senator and then the vice president the next year Nixon is smart enough to leave the hearings after the first week and so this is the sensation every reporter in Washington who wants to buy line is down there for this great political extravaganza the first witness is poor Jack Warner who is really perplexed by this whole thing because Warner's studio Warner Brothers did more than any other Hollywood studio for the American war effort and in fact they made a hallucinatory film called Mission to Moscow a pro-Soviet film which now the committee is berating him for making pro-Soviet films during the war when we were allies of the Soviet Union and poor Jack Warner just can't figure out why they're yelling at him now it's like everybody has amnesia you didn't realize three years ago and then throughout the first week Hollywood does pretty well in fact they invite their best people and the present screenwriters Guild head Reagan and then two former screenwriters Guild members Robert Montgomery and George Murphy Reagan makes a great appearance contrary to what you read he did not name names he is still an FDR liberal at the time he is the one of the only witnesses who doesn't bring a lawyer he says why do I need a lawyer I got nothing to hide and he has a great cross examination he makes a great articulate statement and Quentin Reynolds of PM Magazine as he covers Reagan and he praises PM is a real left wing magazine paper at the time praises Reagan and at the end of his article I love this detail he says you folks might think I'm getting a little extreme here but if this guy Reagan ever decides to leave acting and go into politics I think he could really have a career for himself and of course he does Robert Montgomery also makes a great appearance he's a authentic World War 2 hero and he has the biggest applause line of the entire hearings when the committee is sort of questioning the patriotism of Hollywood and Montgomery says like many men of my generation I gave up four years of my career to fight a totalitarian called fascism and I would gladly do it again to fight a totalitarianism called communism and of course the committee of the entire gallery rubs an applause here there's Reagan's Gary Cooper he's the biggest star he testifies for like 12 minutes and he plays dumb Cooper was not dumb he educated in prep schools in England you know everybody thinks he's like high noon or something you know he's dumb doesn't name names gets off the stand really quickly Leo McCary the great director testifies afterwards he has the biggest laugh line of the hearings when the committee says did you get any money from going my way in the bells of St. Mary's from Russia and McCary says no we haven't gotten a ruble from the Soviet Union we've got a character in those films they don't like and McCary says Bing Crosby and McCary says no God and the committee laughs everybody laughs this is the committee for the First Amendment that I mentioned previously the stars who come out to Hollywood or come out to Washington to protest the committee after the first week they land a lot of publicity Danny Kay there on the right some of you might remember him and that Lauren Bacall gives all kinds of interviews that's her famous picture with Harry Truman on the piano and I wish everybody saw Truman look like he played the piano on a bordello with Bacall but the second week of hearings features the antagonistic witnesses who will be very famous very quickly as the Hollywood 10 and these are the recalcitrant witnesses who refuse to cooperate with the committee they stand on their first not fifth amendment rights that is they say the committee has no right to impinge upon our freedom of expression or assembly you just don't have the right to answer that or to question us on this which is why they have those vociferous and vituperative exchanges because they did not want to shut up if they took their fifth if they stood on their fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination they would just refuse to answer and would have to remain silence but these guys wanted to take on the committee and that's why they stood on their first amendment rights which proves to be a good publicity strategy maybe but a bad strategy for their future freedom because they are held in contempt of congress for refusing to answer the president of the motion picture association Eric Johnson comes down and tries to smooth feathers unsuccessfully just quickly the German playwright Bertolt Brecht testifies as well and he answers the so-called sixty four dollar question which in those pre-inflationary times was are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party and that's the question the Hollywood 10 refuses to answer Brecht is part of the unfriendly 19 10 refused to answer and he is the 11th and it could have been the Hollywood 11 but Brecht is a German so he does what a sophisticated European communist would do which is lie and he's unlike the the righteous Americans who are gonna refuse to say anything he basically says now there's no way I was a member of the communist party and people argue about whether he was an authentic member or not but he basically says I'm a guest in your country so I'll answer the question okay the guy who I think is the hero of the hearings and I'll close up in just a couple of minutes here is this unheralded fellow Emmett Lavery he was head of the screen actors screenwriters guild at the time he was a devout Roman Catholic he was a lawyer as well successful screenwriter and his dilemma is very profound head of the screenwriters guild and that summer congress had passed something called the Taft Hartley act and the Taft Hartley act said if you were a communist head of a union or you could be reasonably suspected of being a communist your union could be decertified by the national labor relations board so if he aligns himself with the Hollywood 10 that means he can be suspected of being a communist and the union that they have fought so hard for since 1933 could be decertified so what does Emmett Lavery do does he testify like a friendly witness and name names does he shut up and thereby align himself with the Hollywood 10 and risk his union what he does is he very cleverly when he testifies says when they ask him the 64 dollar question he says I don't think you have the right to ask me that question however to alleviate the suspense let me say I'm not a communist I've never been a communist I have no intention of being a communist I'm a devout Catholic and I get my social conscience not from Karl Marx but from the Gospels of Jesus Christ and this kind of shuts up the committee fairly effectively and he says I've been a lifelong Democrat and if you'd like to know why I'm a Democrat and then at that point he shuts them up and says we're not interested but that is the moment where the screenwriters guild might have been decertified but this guy was clever enough to get around that and that's why we still have a screenwriters guild now at the end of the committee the tenors cited for contempt of Congress and then the consequence of this is the motion picture association of America adopts the enabling document for what will be the infamous Hollywood blacklist it's called the Waldorf statement in November 25th about a month after the hearings all the moguls and the studio heads meet in New York and they get together and they decide the publicity is so bad that we are going to forbid any communists from working with us we will publicly announce that we're not going to hire any communists and this is the beginning of the Hollywood blacklist in which a generation of Hollywood artists we really don't know how many are affected by the blacklist one way or the other certainly scores probably hundreds had their careers either terminated or derailed or truncated in one way or the other as Hollywood goes on kind of an anti-communist campaign we will not knowingly employ a communist or member of any party or group this blacklist is in effect throughout the 1950s if you go on to IMDB and look at say Marsha Hunt's credits you'll see suddenly she stops getting hired or Lee Grant dozens of other Hollywood stars who have their careers truncated until then most of the Hollywood ten go to jail for six months or a year most of the committee for the first amendment has to recant Bogart for example Leo McCary starts making anti-communist films and the blacklist and I'll end on this anecdote because it's Washington DC centric the blacklist goes on until Kirk Douglas breaks it by hiring Dalton Trumbo one of the members of the Hollywood ten to write under his own name the screenplay for Spartacus and Trumbo at the premiere of Spartacus sees his name on the screen for the first time since 1947 the film comes out in late 1960 and even then the American Legion and the Catholic League of War veterans are still protesting this film because it's been written by a known communist who had been blacklisted and this is the film that's going to break the blacklist however it's a huge hit and there's one moment I'd like to end on that I think is emblematic at the end of the blacklist and that is a moment in February 1961 here in Washington DC Spartacus is playing at the Warner theater which is right down the street a couple blocks right and in the White House is John Kennedy and he's having a conversation with his brother Bobby and Bobby has just seen this terrific film called Spartacus and he's really excited about it but the White House doesn't have 70 millimeter projection and JFK says it's playing it you know where do you see it and Bobby says well I saw it at the Warner theater and JFK says well yeah let's go I want to see it and so you know in those days you didn't sort of need like five months of secret service advanced planning and so the secret service calls up the management of the Warner theater and says you know the president's coming over to see Spartacus and the manager like flips out and says the film's already started and you know Kennedy drives the three or four blocks over you know just in the secret service limo a couple people and he and the manager by then has put up the lights and gone to the front of the theater and said ladies and gentlemen I know we're in the middle of the film the first 20 minutes or so but the president of the United States is coming over and he'd like to see Spartacus from the beginning and I'm sure nobody had mind if we start the film up for the president now today of course 50% of the audience would probably object you know just on principle for the other guy but in it was a different time in 1961 and everybody said oh of course and JFK comes in and watches Spartacus and what he does is symbolically cross the picket line because he's a Catholic and he's a veteran and he's backing Spartacus and so if you had to pick any moment that is sort of symbolic of finally the blacklist's ending is when John Kennedy in Washington DC comes to see Spartacus so any questions yeah Mike go to the mic if you would yeah well Mike's talking the other anecdote about Kennedy at Spartacus at the Warner Theater is before the lights go down he spots his secretary of agriculture in the audience and he taps the guy on the shoulder and says this is a hell of a way to plan a farm program just to add to that comment as you and I both know it wasn't easy to rewind the film in those days to the beginning you know 70 millimeter print and very slow rewind you know but I was going to ask about the committee for the First Amendment we always hear you showed the Bogart piece that he wrote saying I was a sucker and so I guess I have a question people like Marcia Hunt did they also back off from their support? Marcia didn't yeah I think the question is how many of the committee for the First Amendment backed off and most of them did Bogart most famously wrote that mea culpa here because he was getting word from his producers that he was having trouble getting financing for his next project and so he backs off and a few of the others them back off and you would have to kind of recant your position the committee dissolves itself a few months later because it's so difficult for the liberals of this time to kind of walk that line where you don't want to be associated with the toxic communists on the one hand right but you also don't want to embrace the committee and the name naming and so there are very few people who kind of managed to come out of this with dignity and I guess that's one of the reasons I admire Emmett Lavery so much is he managed to not name names if he answered the 64 dollar question he professed his liberalism and democratic fidelities he saved his union and you know you came away pretty well Gary Cooper comes off pretty good he doesn't name names and he's clearly dissembling and he's playing dumb because he's Gary Cooper because the tight lipped Gary Cooper but he's a very eloquent guy about this and Reagan, Montgomery and Murphy all of whom didn't name names and all of whom really I think stood up in a way that you know when you imagine yourself in those times you always you know there's a famous moment in Woody Allen's The Front where you know the committee calls them and he you know walks out righteously and tells them to perform an unnatural act on themselves and we all kind of think of that we will be that guy right and it's usually a little complicated in life and I think those people came off with a kind of dignity that might have been difficult under the circumstances. Yeah, Tom? Sure, could you speak up? Question from the online audience? Sure. Apparently it's a former student of yours, Stuart Feinberg great talk can you please talk about the committee for the First Amendment and why it fell apart. Talk about more about the committee for the First Amendment? Yeah, you probably already. Yeah, well it's a fascinating group. It was put together by John Houston, William Weiler and Phillip Dunn, all old school Hollywood liberals who had been through those popular front wars in the 1930s and when they put the committee together they were very insistent that we're not communists, we're not allies of the communists we are objecting to the committee investigating us and slurring us as communists subversives and in fact before everybody got on the plane William Weiler took them aside and said look if any of you guys are members of the Communist Party or have been, get off the plane now don't get on, don't cause us this trouble because we don't want to have our liberal motives libel to be slandered if people found this out about you and two of the members actually did get on the plane who were communists and Dunn is really still mad at them 50 years later when he writes his memoir one of whom was Sterling Hayden who later than you know recants before the committee in names names so this committee was really an interesting group of Hollywood liberals who in the end many of them couldn't walk the line Danny Kay never recanted and Danny Kay is a name I think some of you know the actor amazing guy amazingly versatile performer, comedian doesn't seem to be remembered today at all by the present generation of film goers, yeah I find it quite curious because he is really multi-talented and very articulate when he spoke for the committee Gene Kelly was also part of the committee for the First Amendment you don't see him in the picture because he had broken his ankle on the set of Easter Parade right and then he was replaced famously by Fred Astaire so he's not out walking in the committee, yeah? One question with respect to you know the initial hearings in 1947, 75 years ago when you know of course it was sort of the first major go around and you know people were sort of on both sides trying to figure out what they were how to handle it but we know several years later and we think of in the 50s with Elia Kazan you know naming names there was a kabuki you had to name names cleared but was it at that point a requirement that people named names or was that even expected that people would name names if they were to get on the good side of the committee? That's a really good point how in later iterations of the House on American Activities Committee it became almost a kind of you know darkness at noon ritual where you would have to name names even if the committee had the names in order to prove your ideological purity right and it became like a real ringer for people like Larry Parks and well maybe Elia Kazan more willingly. My sense is not in this first round of hearings that the people who testified the friendlies and especially the screenwriters who are always kind of getting payback for the arguments of the 1930s there's a very complicated tango between two unions claiming to represent the screenwriters in the 1930s the screenwriters guild and then a company union called the Screen Playwrights and they had a get to for about four or five years before the screenwriters guild gets certified by the National Labor Relations Board but the union members who backed this union are still mad 13 years later so they're naming all these people as communist and some name like a whole bunch of people right but you can kind of get away with it so Gary Cooper when he plays dumb you know they ask him well have you ever read a subversive script and he says yeah I think so and say can you remember the script and he says no I just in the names they just can't get them so he manages to like play dumb and occasionally somebody could do that or they just wouldn't name names in their testimony. Robert Taylor to his eternal discredit names, three names during his testimony and he really didn't want to come back and testify again in the files downstairs in fact or in this building there is a blistering letter that Robert Taylor writes to Jay Parnel Thomas about how you're going to have to subpoena me because you betrayed me in May so you know that point about the ritual really kicks off in the 1950s and it becomes particularly anguishing I think Carl Foreman and Michael maybe you can correct me on this I believe Carl Foreman was the only screenwriter who manages to get D blacklisted without naming names because usually you had to go through the ritual Any other comments or questions? Oh yeah, hi Could you speak up a little bit? Yes I have a question regarding the worldview, can you speak a little bit about how the hearings were perceived and reported in the world press and along those lines was there any ripple effect in the film industries in our ally nations because of the hearings here and also a kind of whatever happened to question is were any of the actors or players in Hollywood that were affected in their careers cut shorter curtailed by being named or being associated with Communist Party were any of them able to find work or subsequent careers in foreign film markets in our ally nations? Right that's a good question to address the last part first that some of the Hollywood 10 and other writers who were blacklisted or about to be blacklisted did go to Europe especially England guys like Joseph Lausie Carl Foreman actually went to who wrote High Noon actually goes to England so some of them did find employment overseas and of course famously many of them also wrote under assumed names or had fronts at some point in the late 1950s and especially after McCarthy himself in 54 is kind of terminated in terms of his political influence even though McCarthy has got nothing to do with the Hollywood side of it things start opening up and it becomes more like an open secret that we are hiring or Hollywood is hiring blacklisted screenwriters now actors have another problem because their face is always going to be on screen so it takes actors much longer for that and it does discuss the second part of your question it does discredit sort of Hollywood in America in the eyes of the world if we're persecuting people you know allegedly we're you know the beacon of freedom in a bipolar world we're persecuting people for their political affinities and political associations but by the late 50s you really see it start opening up so it's kind of an open secret that Dalton Trumbo has written the brave one and it's an open secret that Nedrick Young has written the defiant ones people in Hollywood just kind of know at a certain point and then in 1960 two famous directors both announced that they're going to hire Dalton Trumbo under his own name Auto Preminger for Exodus and he announces it first and then Kirk Douglas says he's going to do it and Spartacus comes out before Exodus the next year although there are people who are blacklisted and you know it takes some people longer than others to try to get you know back into the industry some have just kind of you know lost their mojo by that point and will never have the careers they might have had Pete Seeger I think has the the folk singer probably has the longest record for blacklisting he's blacklisted in 1949 and isn't put on television again until the Smothers Brothers bring him back in 1967 so I think that's the record for the longest period of blacklisting so it goes on for a long a long time you know I'll be happy to you know chat afterwards thank you for showing up in your corporeal material selves you know non virtual people are really nice to see so thanks again


Thank you so much. What a powerful presentation we've heard this evening. Over the course of the last year, I have had representatives from my office because usually the Welcoming Coalition has been meeting while Joaquin and I have been in Washington. Attend your meetings. Most recently, Mary Ellen Velice, who's my district director, being there. But there's nothing like hearing it ourselves and hearing this powerful and emotional testimony. I applaud the courage of those who are living their faith and exercising it in responding to this situation. Let me just respond one by one on your questions. And if there's time, I'll touch on other things. Yes, I support H.R. 2808. No, I don't believe that it goes far enough. I'm pleased that it would prohibit negotiating these bed mandates and quotas. It's a good start, but we need to end the quotas in both the private contracts and in the DHS appropriations bill. We've actually had a vote in Congress on an attempt to do that as an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations previously that we both supported, but we didn't have the votes to overcome a majority that is in control of the House. Currently, in further response to your question, H.R. 2808 is pending in the House Judiciary Committee. It's not a friendly place because it is also controlled by people that do not share our commitment to ending detention. Second, you ask if we will continue urging President Obama and will work with our colleagues to bring about change. And yes, I certainly am committed to doing that. I think that the August 6th brief that Jonathan so powerfully referred to about family detention and the response to Judge Gee was just plain wrong. He made the case for why it is. Locking up women and children in detention just does not work. It's not the answer. You know, I first got involved in this before there was a Dilly and a Carnes because before there was Dilly and Carnes, there was T. Don Hutto. And some of you were involved in protesting that. T. Don Hutto, people were in prison uniforms. They got education one hour a day. They spent about 12 hours in their cell. And it was the humanizing and the response to the protest that finally shut down T. Don Hutto that produced Carnes.  The problem is you just can't humanize prison and detention for mothers and children. And that's what we've seen tonight. The administration should be implementing Judge Gee's decision of a long ago florist decision not appealing it. And I applaud and salute Congressman Castro for getting so many of our colleagues down here to see the conditions. And I would certainly join in the comments he's already made and join him in any effort that we might make together with our colleagues to the administration. I remember when at that point it was Janet Napolitano came to our caucus and told us about the limitations on the administration doing some of the things that it has now done. Originally, the president said he did not have authority to respond to our dreamers. They have he has responded. And as a result, so many dreamers right now are achieving their dreams and are contributing here in San Antonio. Third, you ask about ankle monitors. I think they're inhumane. They're not the way to treat refugees who have asylum claims. And I'll work with you to find a more dignified and less burdensome solution. Fourth, you ask about campaign contributions. I have not sought am not seeking contributions from the private prison industry. I think you do have to follow the money. And I pledged to refuse such contributions in the future. This I mentioned T Don Hutto. This has been a long fight. I first heard about this because of T Don Hutto before I even had the honor of representing parts of Bear County. I've been involved in this struggle originally with the grassroots leadership, a fellow named Bob libel who who formed that group. And continuing with Riesus, I think I've been involved in it now for about seven years. We are making some progress. But it is a fight that we need to renew and engage more of our neighbors in trying to bring about change. And while I applaud the idea that Jonathan mentioned of using your phones to call us, keep in mind, Joaquin and I are not the only two members of Congress from Texas. We we just happened to be the two that are on your side on this. And Joaquin so powerfully noted what is happening in New Hampshire tonight. I know that at least the pinata business has gained from Donald Trump. But that's about the only thing good that's come out of really the poison that's been renewed and the misinformation that's out there. Our Constitution guarantees every person a day in court, not just citizens of the United States, but immigrants who are waiting a determination on their asylum claims and their immigration status. Prolonged detention makes it difficult for individuals to make that case. And DHS has deliberately picked places like originally Artesia, New Mexico in the middle of nowhere, and dilly and even cars though it's a little closer to make it difficult to have access to legal counsel. Grassroots and Rises have met with our office just within the last few days to discuss further ways for us to be involved along with the American immigration Lawyers Association. Lawyers need to be able to get access to process these claims because when they do, these claims are successful. The broader question of immigration reform awaits our attention. It is outrageous that people even today this afternoon, we're still fighting the executive orders that the President has issued that is the pathway forward to us. And hopefully after the next election, the opportunity to get the immigration reform that we so very much thought would be forthcoming after it was approved on a bipartisan basis by the United States Senate. That struggle has to continue. There is so much opportunity and hope out there. And that's what brings us together tonight. Not only our faith, but our hope and belief that enough of us are engaged working together, we can make a difference. That's what led to help for the dreamers. It's what can lead to the implementation of these executive orders that are being held up in the courts. And it's what can end detention once and for all. I look forward to continuing to work with you in that effort. Thank you.


Hello to all of you and welcome to our Five Reasons video series. Today I would like to give you five reasons for doing linguistics. And just in case you wouldn't believe me, I have someone with me here who will not only argue much better than me, but in fact he will do it better than anyone else. He's the world's most popular linguist, one of my former teachers, David Crystal. Welcome, David. Hello, nice to see you. Hello everybody. So, I don't think I have to introduce David Crystal. Just google his name and you will find that he has written more linguistic books and articles than anyone else, and that he's been part of many TV and radio programs. Alternatively, of course, you can consult his website. Here it is, David. That's your website. That's it. Okay. Now, David, before we talk about the five reasons for doing linguistics, let me ask you a personal question. What was your motivation to become a linguist? Oh, well, I think the answer is what's your motivation to get interested in languages and language generally? And in my case, it was growing up in a multilingual environment. So, I grew up in North Wales and that was at a time when Welsh was widely spoken in the town and English too, of course, and also Irish Gaelic too. And I was a monolingual family. My mum didn't speak any Welsh, but my uncle Joe did and the people on the street did. So, I was curious from a very early age, why do I understand you, but I don't understand you? And that's one of the motivations, I think, for wanting to know about languages and eventually studying them. And you can speak Welsh? Oh, yeah, I speak Welsh. And can you greet our audience in Welsh? Well, Borydda Chigid, good morning to you all. Well, Borydda, well, it depends when they're watching. You know, Pnoundar, good afternoon, you know. Okay. Thank you very much. I understand. So, knowing your personal reason, David, for becoming a linguist, I'll discuss your five points for actually doing linguistics.  Why? Yes. Well, I started to write down all these reasons and I got page after page after page after page of stuff. There are so many reasons, but the fascinating one is the thing. You know, I've never met anybody who hasn't got an interest in language. You know, everybody finds language fascinating now. Which aspect of language do they find fascinating? Everybody is interested in place names. Where does that name of their town come from? Or their personal names? Or they're interested in some accent or some dialect or some usage? I've never met anybody who isn't interested in that. How children learn to speak, all of this. And the other thing is that you never get bored when you have that kind of interest because language is always changing. Whatever English, German was like yesterday, it's different today, it will be different tomorrow. So there is a kind of infinite set of possibilities of exploration that come with language study and that's why I find it particularly fascinating. I fully agree with you and fascination often means fun, doesn't it? Absolutely. But it's a lot of fun doing linguistics. Well, it is because language is for everybody. I mean, if you're interested in people, you have to be interested in language. And vice versa, interested in language leads you to be interested in people. So when you're studying language in the broadest way possible, you're meeting every conceivable type of person and every conceivable type of situation because language is always there. So in the course of my linguistic career, I've met novelists and poets and actors and producers and directors and film stars and all the rest of it. This is fun, you know. And even if you're only studying aspects of there, even linguists I've met, you see. And all human life is there, they used to say, about one of the newspapers in Britain. And I think when you're studying language, you're studying all aspects of humanity in this kind of fun sort of way. I fully agree with you and I share your view. I have always enjoyed this, for example, dealing with speech sounds, with unknown languages. So can linguistics also be useful to us? Well, I think this is one of the most important domains, actually. We're talking applied linguistics now rather than linguistics, but the useful side of language study is something that's shaped my career more possibly than anything else. It usually starts with a phone call, somebody rings you up or an email these days and says, you know, I've got a problem, can you help? So this was one of the motivations for developing the whole domain of clinical linguistic work where you're trying to help children who have problems with language or adults too, who have problems with language, try using your linguistic expertise to improve the quality of their lives. One of the big motivations about English language teaching, of course, is to improve methods of teaching so that people can learn languages more efficiently. And computers? Well, the whole computational side of things, very critical now in that domain. And then a very specific area like forensic linguistics, you know, the fact that you can use your linguistics in order to help people solve crimes, effectively, in the broadest sense of the word. There are so many areas where it's useful. And I think this is one of the most rewarding aspects of the whole business. But it's also a challenge, isn't it? So it's a huge challenge for someone being a linguist to deal with all these things. And so why is linguistic challenging as well? Well, it's challenging because, remember, this is linguistics. We're talking about all human languages here. The whole aim of linguistics is to understand the language faculty as it were. What is it that we've got in our brains, in our lives, in our behavior, in our ways of thinking that language actually manifests, motivates, and all languages are part of the business. So, you know, we're talking about somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 languages here. They all need to be studied. Each language expresses a vision of the world. All languages are different. No language translates perfectly into any other language. So this is the most challenging thing, it seems to me, to try and understand what all languages have in common, hence general linguistics and the generalizations about universals that people like to make. And yet at the same time, not to lose sight of the way, languages are different in the individual ways in which they express the vision of what it means to be human. And there is no greater question than that, it seems to me. What does it mean to be human? And linguistics provides one of the best answers to that. Okay, so you mentioned four reasons now already. There's one thing left. Looking at you, you wrote a large number of books. Is linguistics also profitable? Oh, profitable. Well, I think it certainly is. Now, for those of you out there who immediately say, well, I haven't made my fortune out of linguistics, this is what I want to say to you, that things are about to change. Yes, it has been difficult to make a living out of linguistics. Applied linguistics a bit easier. I know some very well-off people who have made a career out of forensic linguistics, for example, charging good fees, you know, for what they do. I know some foreign language teacher, teaching experts who travel the world and their books sell in hundreds of thousands. So, you know, there have been traditions where you can make a respectable career out of it. But things are about to change because it's the internet now and the technology that is offering opportunities to linguists like never before.  And when you think about what's going to happen, speech to text, text to speech, automatic translation, all of these issues, why is automatic translation at the moment still pretty pathetic? It's getting better, but why is it still pretty poor? Statistics? Because the algorithms are so naive and they need to be made sophisticated. Their semantics needs to be more sophisticated. The pragmatics needs to be. Who's going to do that? Well, it's got to be linguists. And in the technology world and in the internet world, these are some of the careers which are opening up now. One can make a fair bit of money, it seems to me, by developing new types of linguistically sophisticated software and all the rest of it. I think there are opportunities here like we've never seen before. Yes. Okay, David, as far as we know, you could go on for ages and we could listen to you endlessly, but we have to stop here because our policy is to be short and concise. So this is why we confine ourselves to just five reasons. So on behalf of all our viewers, let me thank you very much for having been with us. And goodbye to all of you. All the best to your future. Thanks very much again. Thank you, everybody.


Hello, everyone. It's Bernice, your community outreach specialist, and today I'm bringing you another special video. I say that every day, but I am going to be talking to two members for code enforcement. And sorry, in the background, I'm just in the parking lot today outside of my office. It's what I do guys, but we're gonna be talking about what code enforcement is. Yeah, I'm literally just diving to that because I actually really don't quite know. They write a lot of citations. That's what I have for you, but I'm gonna get you some proper information and not get hit. All right. So guys, we're gonna talk about code enforcement. So I have corp rolls, Oheda, Celeste with me, and they're gonna dive in and give us the nitty-gritty and apologize in advance for their sunglasses. It's bright outside guys. It is bright. But they're really, it's actually a really nice day, but it's cold. So there's that. Okay guys, say hey. It's like 70 outside. It's like 65. It's like 65 degrees. Okay, what's code enforcement? Let's just start there. So the sheriff's office has three corpals. It's me, Pedro, and Chris Crawford. Wait, I need you guys to come closer. Like I can't, there we go. He's not able to be with us today. Okay. So we deal with not so much complaints, but we deal with problem properties and problem drug houses and problem meaning messy just for like lack of, like so our people, okay, okay, okay. A lot of our nuisance and drug houses have many violations. So we'll go and if they want to be a nuisance in the community, we're gonna make sure that they have the cleanest properties in the community. Okay. Okay. That's cool. I know you guys write a lot of citations. What else do you do besides write citations? We assist in the human trafficking task force in the county. So we do the inspections at massage parlors, strip clubs, and some other types of businesses. So basically just to ensure that, okay. So just to make sure that there's, how do you say that? Yeah, sexually, what? Sexually oriented, oriented, there you go. Don't, wait, you guys know me, like me and my English on these videos.  My goodness. Okay. All right. So, so basically you monitor massage parlors to make sure there is no sex trafficking going on in the businesses. Yes. We do inspections. We interview people and we see if we can, sometimes we'll have a translator come with us. Okay. And we try to make sure that they're working for themselves. They're not being forced to work. Okay, I got you. Forced labor. Okay, okay. What else do you guys do? I know that there was a list of things that you guys do. So we also manage trust pass agreements in the county with vacant properties or developed properties. So for example, if Home Depot has a trust pass agreement with us and people are in the parking lot at three in the morning, up to no good, that gives us the authority to kick them off. Okay. Okay. Cool. Cool. Okay. So we manage that for the entire west side of the county. Okay. Just for the west side. Okay. And you said that there's three. Crawford does the east side. Okay. By himself. He doesn't have a partner either. We have more issues with that on the west side. Oh, okay. Okay. I got you. What else? I mean, how do you join code enforcement? Do you apply for it? Is it like a unit like that? Like you... It's a specialty unit. Okay. February will be three years that I've been working with this guy. Oh, that's an anniversary. This guy. How are you guys going to celebrate? Are you guys going to have like a work... All right. We got off work on time. We're going to just... No? Okay. Did you celebrate year two? We might go to like Chick-fil-A or something. No. No. We're at Gas Flurge. We're going to have some large fries and I don't even... There we go. The fancy stuff. Okay. Good lighting. Right? Nice lighting. Stop. It's great lighting. In front of a jail. It's the old jail. You guys... If you watched and paid attention to the videos, guys, you know that this is no longer the jail, but it's been repurposed as the admin building. I worked here once. Did you? Huh. Wait, I don't even remember how long this has been here. Like nine... I think it was 81. It was built. Okay. Very cool. Just another fun fact for you guys. Is there anything else that you guys want to add? So you're like 10 years old? Wow. Just... You can tell that they worked together for a long time. But there are some facts about code enforcement for you guys. If you didn't know, if you have any other questions about code enforcement, let me know. Put them in the description. I'll do my best to get an answer for you. But yeah, shout out to these guys because they see some stuff on the regular. Yeah, you guys... So the complaints are handled by county, but when they need help, then they call us. So most of the time, if there's a code enforcement complaint, you actually call the county, not the sheriff's office. Okay. And if it becomes a sheriff's office issue, then that's when we will get involved. Go into action. I'm sorry. We're going to one now, actually. Oh, yep. Okay. Because I'm holding them up. But, alright. Thanks for giving us a couple of minutes to talk to us about code enforcement. If you haven't liked the video, go ahead and do so. Comment below if you have anything. Subscribe if you're feeling froggy. And we'll see you next time. Bye.