Fatima, best-of-all king-size cigarettes brings you dragnet. Detective Sergeant, you're assigned a robbery detail. A gang of hijackers has set up operations in your city. Truckloads of merchandise worth thousands of dollars vanish completely. The criminals know their business. Their system appears foolproof. Your job? Stop them. Fatima, best-of-all king-size cigarettes. Definitely the best quality in its class. But the same price as the cigarette you're now smoking. Now, because of its quality, more smokers coast to coast. In-sit. Fatima. You see, Fatima contains the finest domestic and Turkish tobaccos, superbly blended. And Fatima is extra mild. With a much different, much better flavor and aroma. So compare Fatima yourself today. You'll find Fatima gives you all the advantages of extra length plus Fatima quality, which no other king-size cigarette has. Remember, the cost of Fatima is the same as the cigarette you're now smoking. Remember, in Fatima, the difference is quality. Next time, buy Fatima. Dragnet, the documented drama of an actual crime. For the next 30 minutes in cooperation with the Los Angeles Police Department, you will travel step-by-step on the side of the law through an actual case transcribed from official police files. From beginning to end, from crime to punishment, Dragnet is the story of your police force in action. It was Saturday, November 8. It was foggy in Los Angeles. We were working the day watch out of robbery detail. My partner is Ben Romero, the boss is Captain Didion. My name's Freddy. I was on the way back from R&I and it was 11.23 a.m. when I got to room 27A, robbery detail. Joe. Hi. Where you been anyhow? I've been sitting here 20 minutes waiting for you. Oh, I'm sorry. I've been checking a couple of names through R&I. It took a little longer. At least you could just leave a note in the book. I do the same for you. I've been sitting here 20 minutes. Oh, I told you. I'm sorry. What's the matter? What you feeling well? No, I'm all right. Just like a little cooperation, Joe. That's all. What's the matter with you? Oh, I don't know. I guess I was mad when I woke up. Got a crazy house. What's the trouble? Do you have an argument with your wife? In-laws are visiting again. Six of them. Where are they sleeping? All over the place. Four adults, two kids and a great Fox Terrier. He's not even housebroken. How long are you going to stay? A couple of days? Two weeks. I don't know how I can last it out, Joe. They're crawling all over the place. Kids screaming, dog crying at the front room. No privacy. I don't know what I'm going to do. They just level with him. Ask them if they wouldn't mind staying at a motel for a couple of days. I suggested that to the wife this morning. What do you think? That's when the argument started.  Oh, yeah. It's about time. Where is he? Took him across the hall of the mug room. Got him checking out some coming-out mug books. I guess we better see how he's doing. You sure took his time getting here, didn't he? Didn't offer any excuses. He's no more helping than he was yesterday. No. Surly. Not very cooperative. How are you doing, Mr. Burris? You don't live with my partner. Sorry to frighten you. How are you, Burris? I ain't got a headache. This is just a waste of time waiting through all these pictures. I've been through two of these books already. I couldn't identify any of the guys. Yeah, well, we know it's pretty tedious. We'd just like to have you check through a few more volumes if you wouldn't mind. Look, I don't want to give you a hand when I got time, but I got things to do today. I got something on for tonight. Have to get a haircut, my suit pressed. Well, this thing's pretty important to us, Burris. I know we're putting you out, but we need every lead we can get. But we appreciate it if you could just give us a little more cooperation. I don't know what else I can do. I told you everything I know. Just the way it happened. A few more things we'd like to ask you about, sir. Some of the details you didn't make quite clear. What details? How do you mean? Details about the hijacking. Mind going over it again, boys? I laid it out for you the last time you talked to me, just the way it went. It's the same as a rest. Well, how do you mean the same as a rest? Well, the other hijackings are the same as though. It's no different. You're pretty familiar with the other jobs, are you? Well, I followed them in the paper. The bullet and the cops got out on them. They got up on the dispatch board in the garage. Is that fresh water in that cooler over there? Yeah, I think so. How about this, sir? Thanks. Got to have a couple of aspirin for this headache. Can't take aspirin without water. You know, you've been driving a couple of years for a Lavelle trucking line, is that right, bros? That's right, yeah. What if you'd mind running it through for us again, bros? Maybe there's a few details about the thing that you forgot to mention, huh? It won't be any different than the last time. I pulled out from the loading dock about six o'clock yesterday morning hauling a load of Scotch whiskey over to Phoenix. Pulled up for the red-lighted Alameda and Jackson. That's when the guy pulled open the door and got him next to me.  The first thing he did was hand me that pair of goggles and told me to put them on. Same kind of welders you use. Front of the lens was covered with tape. I put them on. I couldn't see a thing. I took over the wheel and started driving. Well, did you have any idea what direction you were having him? No, not with the goggles on. I tried to follow it first, but I got all mixed up, couldn't tell where he was driving. Made quite a few turns. He drove about 20, 25 minutes, I guess, before we pulled out. That's where the switching point was. Two more guys met us there. I could only tell by the voices. They pulled me out of the truck and put me in a car. Well, Jenny, tell us anything at all about that transfer point. I mean, were there any sounds, anything like that, that would give you an idea that maybe where you were? Well, a figure must have been someplace out in the valley pretty far out. No traffic sounds at all. Just crickets, you know, things like that. He got me in that car. I drove around about an hour, I figure.  Well, how about those two men at the transfer point? If you heard their voices again, you think you could recognize them? I don't know. I doubt it. I didn't say too much. Not that I heard anyway. I'm just curious, Burris. How is it you thought of calling your company first instead of the police? Well, it's their cargo.  If somebody hijacked it, I figured the company ought to be the first to know. I'd like to ask you just one more question. There's no offense intended here. Yeah? Have you ever been arrested? Why? What'd that have to do with it? Probably nothing at all. Have you ever been arrested? I'd like to set you straight on it right now. If you think I was working inside on this thing, you got it wrong. I didn't have anything to do with it. I mean, there's nothing to worry about, any of it. All right. Yeah, I've been arrested. When was that, Burris? About 10 years ago. It was back east, West Virginia. What was the charge? Hijacking. Our record showed no previous arrests for Frank Burris. For the next few days, he was kept under observation. When we got the kickback from Washington, it showed Burris had one previous arrest, the one he told us about for hijacking. We checked all his friends, relatives, and associates. We found nothing suspicious. His employer said that they were aware of his police record, but they told us that Burris was one of the best drivers they had. There was nothing to link him with a series of hijackings, which had been going on all over the city for the past month. Our crime lab checked a pair of goggles, which Burris had been forced to wear during the hijacking. They were an ordinary industrial type, easily obtained and impossible to trace. Other than those belonging to Burris, there were no fingerprints on them. Late that afternoon, the missing truck and trailer was found empty in a deserted section of the valley. No latent fingerprints or other physical evidence. 9 a.m. the next morning, we met with Captain Didion. Cargo's gone. Not a trace of him. That's it, Skipper. High-grade Scotch whiskey. 150 cases. Got out of Bolton, all the liquor wholesalers. Serial numbers listed. That ex-con burrows. Nothing turned up on him? No, nothing. We double-checked everything about him. He's clean. You didn't get a thing off that abandoned truck? No prints, no physical evidence. Seems like they got it down to a science. Well, at the Fat Brown, he's getting all the kicks from the warehouse operators. 30 days and six hijackings. How about moving faster? Well, as you know, we've got 12 stake-outs running down freightloads, Skipper. Yeah. Incoming, outgoing, got three girls in the stats office doing nothing but making runs for us. No new suspect. We've got a meeting with an informant after lunch. He figures he may have something. There's nothing to bank on. How about an inside tip-off on these jobs? Any indication the gang's working something like that? No, nothing definite, Skipper. Jobs seem to be pretty well-paced, though. We've checked out everybody with a record working for the trucking lines. No reason to think any of them had a hand in it. Excuse me a minute. Did he in? Yeah. Live Oak, near Trenton Avenue. Yeah, I got it right. Thank you. We got another truck early this morning. Where? There's a location. Better move on it. Looks like they got their signals crossed. How do you mean? Doesn't make sense. The car go the hijack. What was it? A load of toothbrushes. 9.23 a.m. Ben and I drove to the intersection of Live Oak Drive and Trenton Avenue in the Hollywood Hills where we located the latest driver to fall victim to the gang of hijackers. His story was the same as the others. He'd stopped his truck for a red light at a deserted intersection when a man jumped on the running board and pointed the gun at his head. The man with the gun took over the wheel and forced the driver to put on a pair of blacked-out welders goggles. Then the truck was moved to a remote spot where the driver was transferred to a car and later released in the remote section of the Hollywood Hills. The hijack truck was found empty a day later. And again, there was no physical evidence, no fingerprints. The driver could add little to what we already knew. The only point that made the case any different from those that had gone before was the cargo that had been stolen, the load of toothbrushes. We began an immediate check of the neighborhood where, according to the driver, he was first held up. It was a fairly remote intersection in the San Fernando Valley. After four hours of interviewing ranchers and gas station attendants, we talked to the operator of a practice driving range for golfers located just off the highway. His name was Fred Garrison. Matter of fact, I did notice something out of the ordinary this morning. Little 4-6 a.m., I think, spotted this big semi-turning off on that dirt road down the highway there. Which dirt road is that, Mr. Garrison? Oh, right up the highway there. See it? It turns off by the clumped trees. Couldn't figure out why a big truck and trailer would be taking that road. It doesn't make sense. How do you mean, sir? What's a dead end? It turns off there by mistake. There's a big sign right there at the intersection. It says, not a through street. Right there. See it? Plain as day. What if you could describe the truck for us, Mr. Garrison? Well, it's a pretty good size. One of those big aluminum jobs. Black lettering on the side, I think.  Mm-hmm. Did you notice any activity going on and go? No, no, I didn't. Oh, maybe I should have walked over and checked it. I figured it was just some truck driver pulling up to catch a few winks of sleep. I see. My boy Dave was with me at the time. I wanted to check it, but I told him to mind his own business. He says a couple of minutes after the truck pulled in, he saw Gray Sedan come down the road and parked next to the truck, riding that same clump of trees. Well, I didn't always look a little suspicious to you, sir. Oh, I suppose so, in a way. I just don't like the metal words. It's not my business, that's all. Well, did your boy Dave get a good look at this Gray Sedan? Do you know that?  Sure. Oh, thanks. Hey, sit right there if you like. All right, thank you. Uh, let's see you now. Where were we? About your boy Dave's. Oh, yeah, yeah. You said that he saw Gray Sedan pulling next to the truck over that clump of trees. Did he mention anything else that he noticed about the car? I mean, other than the fact that it was a Gray Sedan. Oh, yeah, I think he did say something else about it. No, let's see, yeah. Well, I wasn't listening too close at the time. Dave's doing some errands downtown for me right now. He'll be phoning in pretty soon, though. I can ask him about it then. He paid a lot more attention to the thing than I did. Well, how long were the truck and trailer in that Sedan parked in the grove of trees? Do you remember that? Well, not too long. Maybe 15, 20 minutes. The car pulled out first and took off down the highway away from town, that way, see? And the truck and trailer left a few minutes after. Well, you figure they were up to. We've got an idea. What time was that again, sir, when you saw the truck turn off the highway onto the dirt road about 6 a.m.? Maybe a few minutes one way or the other. I wonder if you'd show us the exact spot where you saw that truck parked, would you? Oh, sure, here. You want to come over here with me to the window? All right. Now, you see the clump of trees there? Yeah. A eucalyptus. They boarded right on the road? Yeah. Maybe that's him now. Here are some fairways. Oh, yeah, Dave. How'd you make out? Oh, fine. No, no, no. Listen, a couple policemen here now are asking about that truck and that gray Sedan you saw up on the road this morning. Want to know what you noticed about the Sedan besides the color? How's that? Oh, you did, uh-huh. Yeah.  They probably want to talk to you about it. All right, Davey. Hi. What'd he have to say? Oh, he'll be back in about 20 minutes. I figured you want to talk to him. Well, how about the Sedan, sir? Did he get a pretty good look at it? Did he say? Yeah, I guess so. He got part of a license number. Red Garrison's son Dave returned and gave us all the pertinent facts about the truck and the gray Sedan, which he'd noticed in the neighborhood early that morning. His description of the truck and trailer, what he saw of it anyway, matched closely with that of the latest vehicle to be hijacked. He described the car as a gray Sedan, and he said it looked to him like it was a late model Nash, but he couldn't be sure. He said the first three units on the license plate were 7T7. The location in the Grove of Trees, where the truck had been spotted, was checked thoroughly. Outside of some in-depth and attire tracks, there was no physical evidence. 410 p.m., we put in a call to DMV and asked for a rundown on the three license plate numbers. The next morning, DMV returned to us a list of more than $1,000 registrations, which began with a figure 7T7. We went down the list and gradually eliminated 600 of these, as not being physically close in description, to the car seen by Garrison's boy Dave. We kept checking. Almost 300 more on the list were registered in distant parts of the state. That left us with over 100 vehicles registered in or around Los Angeles to check out. It went slow. Three weeks passed. We narrowed the list down to 23 possibles. Tuesday, December 10th. We were checking registrations with addresses in the east end of the city. What's the name on this one again? Perry. Walter R. Perry. The garage is straight back to drive. There's a car park in it. Let's try the bell again. What do you say? Let's give the car a look. People sure do get careless. Nobody home. Garage wide open. Car sitting there. Qualifies so far. You want to check the steering post there. Registrations. Check out, all right? Just a minute. What do you got there? Here. Found these under the seat. Maybe we're home. It's a pair of goggles. Take a look. Both lenses covered with tape. We're in the forgery division of a metropolitan police department. Handwriting analysis. Let's check it against the forged letter. The capitals print evenly. The o's and the a's are clean. No, this isn't the typewriter we're looking for. Capitals print high. A's and o's are solid. P's slanted. This is the one. It's the same with cigarettes. There are many king size brands to choose from. But when you know all the facts, you'll make your choice, Fatima. Here are those facts. Fatimas are the same in length and circumference. 85 millimeters long, one and one 64th inches around. And Fatima filters the smoke exactly the same long distance as any other king size cigarette. But in Fatima, the difference is quality. Remember, Fatima gives you extra mildness. A much different, much better flavor and aroma. You get all the advantages of extra length. Plus Fatima quality, which no other king size cigarette has. Fatima, best of all king size cigarettes. Definitely the best quality in its class. But the same price as the cigarette you are now smoking. Next time, buy Fatima. Fatima. Tuesday, December 10th, 2.15 p.m. The pair of goggles found in the automobile registered to Walter R. Perry were the same brand and style as the goggles used to black out the truck drivers and all the previous hijackings. Ben and I searched the car, but we failed to come up with any additional physical evidence. We left the garage, checked the house again to make sure that there was nobody at home. Then we went down the street, checked the car. We put in a call to R and I and requested a make on Walter R. Perry. He had no previous criminal record. A few minutes later, we spotted two women loaded with grocery bags, come down the street, go up the stairs of the Perry house and let themselves in with a key. We went up to the front door, rang the bell, and the younger of the two women answered. Dark brown hair, blue eyes, about five foot six, 28, 29 years old. We identified ourselves and she showed us into the living room. We saw Perry and that Walter Perry was her husband. They'd been married 11 years, no children. We asked her where her husband was and she said he was out of town on a business trip up north to Montevista, California. We asked her what line of business he was in. Well, right now, Walter's jewelry salesman, which himself has to quite good traveling. Your husband's blonde, about five, nine hundred and sixty pounds, that right? Yes, that's right.  Well, I think he went up by train, I'm not sure. Do you have any idea how we might contact your husband up north? Well, I'm afraid I don't. He said he had a couple of business apartments in different towns in that area up there. He didn't tell me where he'd be staying. What's it about, Sargey? Just a routine check, Miss Perry. Is that a photograph of your husband over there on the piano? Yes.  Let's see, this is Tuesday. He should be home sometime Thursday. I see. A minute ago you said right now your husband's a jewelry salesman. Is that his usual line of work? No, Walter's a truck driver. Do you work here in Los Angeles? He drove for a company up north in the Bay Area, Oakland, Berkeley. We had that job for ten years, almost from the day we were married.  We moved down here to find work, but he just couldn't seem to get placed. How long has he been selling jewelry, ma'am? About eight months, I'd say. He's doing very good at it. We have more now than when he was driving a truck. A lot of money in the jewelry business. Well, it's just you and your husband living here. Is that right? No, my mother lives with us, too. We just got back from doing the shopping. I guess she's busy putting the groceries away. I see. Mom? Mom? Say that's all right, ma'am. I think you can give us the information we need. Well, I'd like to know what this is about. I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me. Walter isn't in any kind of trouble, is he? Just a routine investigation, Miss Perry. Doesn't necessarily mean your husband's involved. I can tell you right now, my husband isn't involved in anything.  Walter has trouble with the police? What is it, Leon? It's nothing. Ma, these policemen want to talk to Walter. They just want to ask him a few questions, that's all. This is my mother, Mrs. Burke. This is Friday, Mr. Romero. I told you, Leon. I felt it all day. Something's wrong. Walter's done something, hasn't he? Don't start on that again, ma. Please, the officers told me they want to talk to Walter. But for if he hasn't done anything, why do they want to talk to us? Routine duty, ma'am. There's nothing to get excited about. I know what would happen. I felt it all the time. That funny job he has selling jewelry, going out at all hours. Couldn't fool me. I knew it wasn't right. What's he done? Where he's relative is we've got a right to know. Well, there's nothing we can tell you definitely, ma'am. How about these odd working hours your husband has, Miss Perry? What's the reason for that? Could you tell us? Well, I don't know. Walter works for himself. He just has to make business contacts when he can. That's all. Sometimes it's late at night. Sometimes early in the morning. Why don't you stay out of it, ma'am? After all, it's our business. Walter's in mind. You just marked my word, Leon. I'll find out about this. That husband of yours has done something, and these policemen are after him. I knew it wasn't right. I felt it all along. Well, then please take out his jewelry business, his big money. I should have left him taking you with me the day it started. Walter's a truck driver. It's all you'll ever be. It's where you should have stayed. Why are you always picking on Walter? Why? Because I told you in the first place you never should have married him. Eleven years ago, I told you. I never should have come to stay with you.  It had to be Walter Perry. Well, maybe you will see now. Trouble with the police. Now you'll see what kind of a man you married.  Sorry, officer. Well, I'm afraid that isn't helping much, Miss Burke. I suppose not. What is it that can help? You have kids? You try to tell them something? Make it easy for them? Never listen. Stand back in the garage, ma'am. Does anyone else drive it besides Mr. Perry, do you know? No, Leonor doesn't drive it. He's the only one who runs it. He drives it to all these business appointments he has at odd hours? That's right. Only times he doesn't take it is when he's out of town. Have you ever seen this pair of goggles perform in? No. I never have. What does it mean? That tape all over the front of him. How about your son-in-law's friends? Do you ever bring any of them here to the house? Since I've been staying here the last six months, let him in. Call him on the phone. He goes out. He doesn't bring anyone around, though. I'm just sick of it. Can you tell us anything about this jewelry business Mr. Perry's working here? I don't even want to think about it. I raised four daughters, nice girls, every one of them attractive. You make plans for them and you're wanting to be happy and marry some nice fellow. Have a nice, comfortable home. You try to tell them and they never listen. About the car, ma'am. They get to be seventeen and they know everything. My girls could have married wealthy if they were smart. A lot of other girls have done it. They had nice clothes. They got through business school, good home training, all this talk about love. They're all so smart. They know everything and they know nothing. This is what happens. They wake up and find out. Would you finish putting the girls through the way mom told you? Anything you want, Leona. I didn't mean to upset you. Maybe things will be all right. Just a few more questions, Miss Perry, not so. Well, whatever it is, I know Walter hasn't done anything wrong. He wouldn't do anything wrong. It doesn't make sense. There's just no reason for it. I remember your father, Leona. Sixteen years we were married. One night he packed up and left me. There wasn't any reason for that either. Wasn't there, ma'am? We continued questioning the wife and the mother-in-law of the suspect, Walter Perry. From the wife, we got the names and addresses of four close friends of Perry's who were supposed to be associates of his in the jewelry business. In the basement and in a loft over the garage, we found more than a dozen cases of high-grade Scott Twiskey, cases of expensive furs and other loot taken in the hijackings. Mrs. Perry said her husband told her he was storing this stuff for some friends. There was only a small portion of the take. We called the office and got out a broadcast and an APV on the suspect and arranged for an immediate stake out on the Perry house. Then together with Matthews and Gonzalez from Robbery Detail, we began checking out the four close friends of the suspect. We could locate only two of them, but those two paid off. In the basements and garages of their homes, we found another portion of the loot, along with evidence that showed that both men had taken active parts in the hijackings. They were booked at the main jail on suspicion of 211 PC. A full week went by. The stakeout continued on the Perry house. Still no sign of them. Saturday, December 20th, 4.45 p.m. We checked back in at the office. This thing's short-dragging, huh? It'd be nice to wrap it up before Christmas, wouldn't it? Get it all the way. It might work in a couple of days off. Yeah, I don't know if I'm too interested, Joe. What? The day's off. I mean, we've got visitors on the way again. What do you mean, for the holidays? Who's coming? Same old bunch. My brother and his wife and his kids and that little dog are there. Well, they were just with you for three weeks worth it. What's the deal? Well, a broken log got home. Father noticed from his company. He's been transferred out here. They're going to stay with us all through the holidays and then they'll start house hunting. How about that? Got a problem. He's got a new rug in the living room. I'll bet 20 to one on it, Joe. What's that? A little fox terrier. Oh, hi, Skipper. Anything before we check out? Peace of news for you. Just talked to the Ventura Sheriff's Office. We owe them a favor. What do you mean? They grabbed Walter Perry half an hour ago. Monday, December 22nd. Suspect Walter Perry was returned to Los Angeles. He was taken to the interrogation room where Captain Diddy and Ben and I questioned him for almost two hours. He was confronted with the evidence and testimony against him and after another hour and a half of interrogation he broke. He gave us a full signed statement describing his part in the campaign of hijackings. He also gave us the names of everyone in the gang, how they participated and to what extent. He said most of the property looted from the hijacked trucks was stored in a rented barn located at the north end of the San Fernando Valley. A detail of men checked it and confirmed the information. The suspect's wife, Leona, was notified of her husband's arrest. 1.35 PM, we completed our interrogation. That's it, very nice girl. You asked me a lot of questions. How about it? Can I ask you one? What's that? Well, why do you think I did it? Why I got mixed up in this? Well, according to your statement, you wanted the money a minute. Well, you'd been out to my house, haven't you? You met my wife. Yeah, that's right. I guess you met her mother, too. Yeah. Well, then you got it. Nobody in the world could make me go for a hijack deal, nobody could. I even remember the morning I'd made up my mind to do it. I was out in the kitchen. I'd hear yapping at Leona in the other room, the same old roasting.  Her mother lived with us, nine of them. Didn't get any better, didn't get any worse, just the same old yapping. Her and her four girls, why couldn't they listen to her? They were the best girls in the world. Why couldn't they marry money?  Same thing every day, always the same. Nine years of it.   Matt? Oh, hi, Olson. I want to remain jailed as we're ready to go. Only be a minute, Rex. Right. Thank you. All right, Ty. Yeah. Sergeant, my wife's been told. She knows about it. She's waiting outside in the hall with her mother. You can see them on the way out. Oh, thanks. Well, why did you do it? Ask him whether they're honey. You heard as much of it as I did. Nine years worth. I guess it finally got me sick. She wanted you to have money, so I went out to get it. You coming to see me when you can? No, I wasn't going to any jail to see you. I knew it all along. I knew what you were. It's the truth. She never should have married you. All right, Perry. Let's go, Mr. Hold. Hold. Why? How are you feeling? I don't know. How about some coffee? Okay. Sure is funny. You see other people sweating about your troubles look like nothing. I'm just thinking about it. What's that? I don't know some more. What about them? I guess I haven't got it half bad. The story you've just heard was true. Only the names were changed to protect the innocent. On March 5th, trial was held in Superior Court, Department 87, City and County of Los Angeles, State of California. In a moment, the results of that trial. And now here is our star, Jack Webb. Thank you. Friends from our many talks with law enforcement agencies and letters from police officers, we're especially gratified to know that a great number of these men agree with us that Fatima is the best of all long cigarettes. Now our latest sales figures back that up. Every week, more and more smokers are enjoying king-sized Fatimas, people from every state, from all walks of life. If you haven't tried Fatimas yet, buy a pack tomorrow. In Fatima, the difference is quality. The quality is better. But the cost of Fatima is the same as the cigarette you're now smoking. Next time, buy King-sized Fatima. Music Walter Richard Perry was tried and convicted on several counts of robbery in the first degree. He was sentenced to the state penitentiary for the term prescribed by law. First degree robbery is punishable by a term of five years to life. His accomplices receive similar sentences. Ladies and gentlemen, as we know, thousands of people in Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Illinois have been driven from their homes by floodwaters. Many are being sheltered and fed by the Red Cross. All Americans are urged to give through their local Red Cross chapters. Your contribution of just a dollar will give you a feeling of justifiable pride. Music You have just heard Dragnet, a series of authentic cases from official files. Technical advice comes from the Office of Chief of Police, W.H. Parker, Los Angeles Police Department. Fatima, best of all, King-sized cigarettes has brought you Dragnet, transcribed from Los Angeles. Stay tuned for Counter-Spy, next on NBC.


Vermont PBS in cooperation with Orca Media and the Vermont Press Bureau presents Capital Beat, the Week in Review from the Vermont State House. Here's host Neil Goswami. Welcome everyone to Capital Beat. We're glad you could join us this week. The House last week passed its budget on a 143 to 1 vote. We'll talk about who that one person was. And joining me to discuss the state budget this week is Representative Kitty Toll, Chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Senator Jane Kitchell, Chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which will take up the budget at this time. Thank you both so much for being here. Thank you. Most people probably know this, but one very interesting aspect to the appropriations process this year is that you two are sisters. Perhaps one of the most unique setups in a legislature, state legislature in the country. You're both from Danville.  And now you're both in control of a almost $6 billion state budget. Has there been a bit of sibling, sibling rivalry as you go through this process? No, not for either of us. I make a point of never speaking for my sister, but I would say no in this case. We obviously do talk, but there has been discussions, but nothing that would cause the hair on the back of my neck or her neck to raise. Would you agree with that? Well, I think so. I think it just shows what a small place Vermont is, and I would make the statement I was here first, of course. But no, I think House and Senate approach bills very differently. They approach the budget differently. The composition of the committees are different. And so I think that really is what influences how the House and the Senate might look at issues quite differently. Well, it's very true that the two chambers do approach the process differently. And state law requires that the budget begin in the House, so it does every year. And you had first crack at it. Perhaps maybe the more difficult position to be in taking the governor's proposed budget and trying to figure out how to turn that into a living, breathing document that the House will pass. As I noted at the top of the show, 143 to 1 vote, which is pretty remarkable. Nobody can remember a vote like that, that lopsided in recent history. So we started this year, you were looking at a $70 million budget gap. That's the difference between expected revenues and expected expenses. Maybe you can start us off with a brief overview of how you put together a budget that closed that $70 million gap. The governor's budget was given to the House first, as you mentioned. And there were provisions within the governor's budget that were not widely embraced by either Senate education or by the House membership. And so our committee at that point had to switch gears, knowing that leveling school budgets was not going to be something happening this year. And we took the current budget and the current services and worked from there, adding initiatives that we could afford to make investments in and looking where we could make reductions and continuing investing in current services that's critical to Vermonters. And that's how we proceeded. Yeah, there's $18 million or so in additional enhanced federal funding from the student or the child health insurance program, a lot of federal funding there. $10 million from Medicaid money that had not been spent in previous years and had sort of been collecting. And then you did make some reductions in spending. We did. Which is always a difficult conversation for lawmakers like yourselves, but also Vermonters who depend on some of those things. How difficult is it as you go through a budget with such a large gap to sit down and actually figure out where you can make reductions without doing too much harm? Well, you mentioned the easy ones that we were able to take off the top. And so making those first reductions is always the easiest. And before town meeting break, we were down to about $18 million. The last 18 and especially the last five, that is where there's more disagreement and finding common ground becomes more difficult. The Ways and Means Committee, they were able within their miscellaneous tax bill by not there were no new taxes and fees. They did not support any new taxes and fees. But using compliance within systems already in place, we're able to produce $5 million to go to our bottom line. And then reductions that we made, there were small reductions made throughout many areas of state government, whether it was travel or positions that were not filled. But the big areas were within human services within the grants that go out to communities. And we made going into fiscal year 18, two and a half million dollars in reductions in grants. Okay. One of the things that the governor wanted to do was spend more money on early education and childcare and higher education. That is something that didn't really make it into the House budget plan. The funding simply wasn't there after you went through the exercise of closing that gap. At what point did you realize you weren't going to be able to embrace some of this new spending that he proposed? We had to get to zero. So we had to have a balanced budget. And it was early on that we knew it was going to be a challenge to fund many of the governor's initiatives that he laid out. And those are important initiatives to all of us. But it was also important to legislators not to put pressure on the property tax and moving these expenses to the property tax in the out years would have created additional pressure in that area for Monters. We were able to make a few investments, but we were not able to make the investments in childcare. And hopefully as the economy grows, we will be able to make those needed investments. One of the things that we've heard from both the Senate, the House, and administrations this year and in the past is that the budget needs to be more sustainable, that the growth of the budget is expanding too quickly, that revenues aren't keeping up. What does the House version of the budget do to make it more sustainable in the future? The House version of the budget actually makes the reductions in the expenditures and the spending within the budget that brought us in at just a 1% growth rate over all funds, general fund, federal fund, all funds was just 1%. If you look at just the growth within the state funds, we were less than 1%, just a tenth of 1% by making reductions in areas that make people uncomfortable. These were not easy reductions to be made. And so we're starting to bend that gap between the anticipated revenues versus what we expect for expenditures. And we use no one time money for ongoing expenses. One time money were applied to one time needs only. Right. And so we are using ongoing money for ongoing expenses. So there's no built in gap there? No, we're bending that curve. Okay. I did mention it was a 143 to one vote. Representative Warren Van Wick of Ferrisburg Republican will be a footnote in history as the vote against the budget. Myself and a few other reporters had a chance to watch you speak to Warren Van Wick after the vote. And I saw somebody in yourself who was sort of trying to understand why he would cast a no vote when everyone else found a way to support the budget. How frustrating was it to have that loan no vote? I think after you've put in weeks and weeks of work and you're that close to a unanimous vote, it was not so much frustrating, but more disappointing. Our committee made a large effort this year for a very transparent process from Vermonters in communities and within all legislators allowing time for every legislator who wanted to testify to come into our committee. Each member in the Appropriations Committee was assigned a group of members in the house so that everyone had contact with the entire membership and we felt our outreach had surpassed this year, you know, was much ahead of other years. And so I would have liked to have heard from all members who had concerns so that we could address those concerns or at least understand what the issues were that would cause no votes. Okay. Senator Kitchell, before I get into asking you what they did wrong and how you'll fix it, I just want to ask you the budget brought the Democratic Party into the fold. It kept progressives in the fold and it managed to hang on to the Republican caucus but for Warren Van Wick. How were you able to accomplish that? As I said, nobody has seen a vote like this on a budget in a very, very long time, if ever. So what how did you keep everyone in the tent as you as you went through this process? I think different pieces of the budget were attractive to different individuals. Obviously, the no new fees and taxes was was very enticing to many Democrats and to many Republicans. And we did make some investments within areas that that allowed the progressives and independence to also join in. We made some changes to the cold weather exemption that that, you know, people were unhappy about. But we also invested in shelters for the homeless. And we also changed the language within general assistance to include emergency housing. So even though we made a reduction in one area, we enhanced another area. And I think that those changes within the budget were very appealing, as well as an understanding that legislators had that we were preparing ourselves for the uncertainties at the federal level. Right. Senator Kitchell, you've just heard your sister discuss the House version. It is now your responsibility to guide the senator appropriations through a similar process and take a look and maybe tweak it or make some larger changes. You have just taken possession of the bill. But but what at first glance, do you see that works and what might need some some fixes until we finalize and figure out what we have for available revenues. And certainly the no new taxes and no new fees construct is going to apply. We I think there's certain areas one would be the provision around electronic monitoring for corrections and the extent to which we can move from our current level of under 10 to what is provided for and savings are attributed from electronic monitoring in the House version. The advantages just say electronic monitoring is like the yes, yes, yes. And so we're having a lot of discussion around well, you can have electronic monitoring. These are individuals who are past their minimum. But what about the housing? What about the other services that have to go with monitoring to support a successful presence in the community? The other area of certainly that has been identified is higher education. And for those of us who have state colleges, and we do we have Lyndon state, we know that, in fact, our financial support of our state college system is has atrophied over the years. And so the House budget provides for taking 2 million out of the higher ed trust fund. Now higher ed trust fund I have a history with because there was a proposal to take 10 million out of it a few years ago to build a building for Community College in Brattleboro. And I said, no, the purpose and the reason that trust was established was to provide financial assistance to Vermont students and attending college. So to move money away from students to the institution, the house, it's going to weigh it one way. The advantage being second bite at the apple. Maybe there's some, you know, we might have some additional one time monies that are available. But, you know, that's how you weigh that out in terms of how you address what is an ongoing need for financial support. And it provides assistance for one year. Is there, you know, will there be alternatives to that? So I think that's, for example, another area where really want to look at how our systems are performing. And from my perspective, the budget is really where your policies and your priorities ultimately get put in place with the dollars that you put behind them. So, you know, another area that the governor proposed, but when the money wasn't there was guardian ad linems. They are surveys which show that kids are going into foster care or in foster care. That's the one in their volunteers are really key. And we're trying to move more children through for permanency and termination of parental rights. And we, for whatever reason, and I will admit, I didn't pick it up last year when we put in a major package to address that increased caseload for child welfare, child protection, we put in deputy state's attorneys and social workers and, and defender general and judicial resources. But that last player was not included. So whether we can do it or not, I would say it's a priority for us to make sure that cases are heard promptly that children who are in need of permanency get them. And how we will be able to do that is is a challenge for us. The one thing that I would say is the House and Senate are very different because the Senate actually senators serve on two committees. So that brings a lot of policy experience in depth just by virtue of people being on transportation or on judiciary or agriculture or whatever, just as part of just working knowledge. And so that obviously influences discussions and what people, you know, focus on in terms of what our priority should be. And certainly children are about as vulnerable as one could get. Right. Well, the issues that you raised are very important issues and very important for a lot of people. They're not necessarily big construct problems with the budget. Does that mean your committee and the Senate will be able to move quickly on your side of things? Well, we don't have too much time if we're going to get out of here, you know, May what six or something. So we're going to have to move quickly. There are certain things that we want to look at. It's no secret. We took testimony in the EB five office. And we're going to have a discussion about should the state be not the regulatory side, but on the marketing and the, you know, the financial transaction and that kind of involvement. And the other and the House had language in it, but at some point, Vermont life, it's operating at a deficit, it's been operating at a deficit for a long time. It's something we've struggled with. And is this a year you make a decision or do you look at different alternatives? And the fundamental question is, should the state of Vermont should government be involved in the publishing business? Yeah. And depending on what the answer is to that, then it makes a big difference between how you want to proceed.  Do we do this? Or, you know, what route do we take? The governor began, ran his campaigns and ran his election largely on no taxes, no fees, no new taxes, no new fees. The House adhered to that message. Will the Senate look to do the same? Or will, is there a chance that you look at some additional revenue capacity this year? I would say at this point, we're not looking at new revenue this year. We're looking at where money is currently being spent. And so I think from that revenue perspective, there was some discussion, certainly one of the governor's initiatives was around housing. And that required a million dollars of general fund, along with money from BHCB to support that housing initiative. The Senate had suggested a revenue source, but at this point, that's all on hold. So I think that's indicative. There was the $2 occupancy fee that was passed by the committee and then withdrawn, I believe. Yes, that's, well, no, the bill's in my drawer, but it will be withdrawn, I should say. Well, it just won't see action. Okay, all right. Fair enough. One or the other is going away. Yeah, there will not be a $2 occupancy fee. Not, well, one never says never in this business, but I don't think that's very likely. The idea is to adjourn around May 6th or somewhere within that range. Any chance that it's that you all are out of here earlier than that? I don't know. I don't know. A lot depends on, you know, how quickly things get negotiated. Sometimes it's the totally unexpected bill that ends up creating unanticipated havoc at the end. Okay. One thing we haven't discussed yet, and which sort of looms large over both of your committees in the entire legislature is the federal budget situation. We know that President Donald Trump has put forth a budget framework that would do some very drastic things to federal funding here in Vermont, not to mention around the country. What, when you were putting the House budget together, how did you address that issue? And what was the game plan moving forward to address any potential major funding cuts from the federal government? A couple of things. When we made the reductions with the AHS grants, we gave a lot of flexibility to the Secretary of Human Services. So if reductions did come down, they could dovetail the reductions with the reduction with the target amount that we had come up with. It was important for us not only to fill our reserves, but we have filled them above statutory level. And that was a priority for the House Appropriations Committee. There's another fund that prepares us for year 2022 where we have a 53rd week and a 27th pay period that hits at the same time. In a couple of years ago, we were not prepared for that, and we were short millions of dollars that is fully funded to date to the amount that we need to at this time to be prepared for 2022. And in working with ways and means, if there is capacity to raise additional revenue, it was felt that it was important to step back and not look at raising additional revenue so that we have that capacity when, I'm going to say, when reductions do become clear from at the national level. Yeah. As your committee jumps in, how concerned are you about what's coming? At this point, I think all I can say is we suffer from ill-defined anxiety because we don't know. And our congressional delegation says that's the President's budget, but that's not the budget that we produce. And until you know for certain what you're dealing with, but I would say that when 35% of the state budget is federal dollars, there cannot people need to understand this state would not have the capacity to step in and make that whole. You cannot back down. No, you can't. And in fact, I think the experience showed that we had catamount coverage that was in place before the health care reform, the ACA was passed. And while we tried to mitigate the impact, we weren't able to completely make everybody at the same benefit level. I think you have to only look at our reach-up program in the federal block grant. We have not been backfilling for the fact that that hasn't increased since 1996. So I think we have to be honest. That's why it's going to be really important to set up what are the priorities? What are those key services or benefit levels that Vermont can find sustainable? And sometimes it's luck of the draw. One of the things that's luck of the draw this year that helped with the budget and the governor's budget is the reach-up caseload went down. Three million dollars was available to support the budget without any, without having a negative impact. But you don't always have your caseloads and that helps on closing the gap. But I was here when we had the big recession and we rode those caseloads up and we rode those revenues down and that was a very different environment. So I think we just have to say to people those decisions and the level of federal support is just well beyond the capacity of a state of 620,000 people to create any expectation that it's all going to be made whole. Where do you even begin when you're trying to prioritize what to address or what not to address in a situation should we find ourselves in where there's significant drop in federal funding? I mean, how would you even begin that process? On the house side it was a directive of the speaker for all the policy committees to set priorities. And those priorities needed to be related to the House Appropriations Committee so that when we started to make our decisions on balancing the budget we could understand the priorities of the of the policy committees. And so that practice is now in place in our budgeting process where they weigh in on the on the decisions that we're making. Yeah, at some point the Senate will complete its work on the budget and pass a version of it and you too will end up on opposite sides of the table and what's known as a conference committee when the House and Senate look to reconcile differences in the two bills. Will that be a familiar scene for the two of you being sisters? Have you squared off in ways before that will require a back-and-forth and a negotiation? Well, we were both on the conference committees last year. It's just what role you're playing. And the other thing is it's three people from each side and the other is you try to figure out where there is agreement where you can come up with some kind of compromise. So I will have to wait and see. I don't assume they're just going to agree. In a very different comparison we have a family dinner every Sunday night and Jane and I are across the table from one another and there's a lot of discussion about politics within all of the family dynamics and so we have those discussions weekly. Who's the better negotiator? She's a better cook. We'll put it that way. So maybe a tacit admission that you're the better negotiator? No, we have different strengths across the board. We're going to have two very different teams. Last year I guess it was Senator Westman, Senator Sears and myself. But the chair does bring considerable sway to the process. There's no question about that. Well I think it'll be a fascinating thing to watch for folks like me and the media who get a front row seat to seeing how all of this unfolds. So I look forward to that. And we are just about out of time so I want to thank you Senator Kitchell and you Representative Toll for joining me today and we look forward to seeing the progress of the budget over the next few weeks. And we thank you for watching. On behalf of Orca Media and Vermont PBS I'm Neil Goswami with a Vermont Press Bureau. We hope to see you next week.


about leadership here on a given Monday morning afternoon here on ThinkTech. And we're talking about architecture. As in humane architecture, Martin Disbang's show on Tuesday afternoon, and we're comparing the elements of architecture as a reflection of our world today. It's true, architecture is an expression not only of art, but of humanity, of society, of our world. If you snapshot architecture through the ages, you see it reflects, usually accurately reflects, how things were going. And so today we're going to take a look at classical architecture and we'll look at what we call cynical architecture, cynical classical architecture, and see what that represents, how it is happening, and what it represents about the direction of the world in general, and leadership, especially leadership, because government always has a lot to do with architecture. Big capital, investment, infrastructure has a lot to do with the way architecture and buildings come out. And for this discussion, you know, our hero in architecture, professor at the School of Architecture here at UH, and our host of humane architecture, Martin Disbang, applause please. Thank you for having me, I appreciate it. Even though this is sort of, well thanks for having me on the other side of the table as a guest, although the reason for this is not so funny as, you know, we will talk about it. So bring up the first slide, please. And I was trying to remember when it was the last time when I was on the other side as a guest, and that was Tim Apicella, who took on with you to report weekly about what our government and our leader is doing, it's called Trump Week. And we thought the news that Trump wants all federal buildings to be of classicist style, so the obviously, the nickname is like Trump wants to make architecture classicist again, made us get our existing or nonexisting hair and get up and wanting to do a show at Trump Week, but Trump is at the end of this week, and so we thought this requires more immediate action. So here we are. So I was at Tim's show four years ago, this is a folding the show, we were talking about a project, the topic, which is transportation, which is another very hot topic on our island. This is public transportation, this is sort of light rail because it's underground, all the things we're not doing here on the island, right? And little did I know that maybe, you know, we could have talked about this project also in the context we want to talk about today, practicing. So let's quickly recap and use Google what classicism is per definition, which is stated here. The style comprises a range of conventional forms, notably columns, known as orders, each with fixed proportions and ornaments, especially Doris, Ionic or Corinthian, proportion symmetry and the relationship of individual parts to the whole also characterized classicism. And if you go to the next slide, what I will talk about what characterizes democracy is freedom. And this project came out of a competition. So you have a non-corruptible jury and that awards what I think is the best, no matter what style or what party you belong to. We won this competition in 2001 and it took a dozen of years to be completed on the next slide. It's basically me having gone back to my native culture over the break and visited my sons and their girls and our capital in Berlin. And at the bottom right, you see one of my heroes in architecture that Lutzi meets from the rower. He was kicked out by this other guy dictating way worse things than style but that too and kicked me out of the country and then luckily we here in the United States got him. This is one of his latest last project, the National Gallery at the very bottom right. It's currently being remodeled by someone who admires me and that is David Chipperfield. David Chipperfield just completed the Simon Gallery, which you see at the bottom left. And you see up there a book that I think I gave you a copy of one of those charms that we were published next to what I look up to, which is Chipperfield. So the next slide and let's quickly look how Chipperfield is sort of implementing constructively critical classicism. You see the old building on the right and when he remodels that he takes the very ornated columns and simplifies that so the column, the second from the right is sort of the remodeled column. When he asked to them, which is the left part, he told him purifies to the most extreme. And next slide is a model picture because again, democracy, this was an architectural competition in 2007. It took another, you know, desert to basically complete the water in front of that. That's interesting because that's a little sort of a canal that's in front of that. And on the other side of that, guess what? There is all German ma a lago and we go to the next slide and I know you're very interested in that topic. Yes. We talked about this before the show. So share with me your reaction. Well, it looks like Mar-a-Lago. It's airsots. That's maybe that's an overuse of the term, but it's airsots. And I mean Mar-a-Lago is. This is the original and Mar-a-Lago is the airsots. And you told me that Angela Merkel has her apartment here. She lives in this building. Hence the policeman out in front. So what does this building tell you on a, you know, on a classical basis? What does it tell you? You know, it's a historic building. It's classic, but more importantly, again, is democracy behind styles, architectural styles, because she is not an owner. She's a renter in there. And recently she was inspired by young people who said, you know, I don't think our generation is listening to politicians anymore. And she said, well, let's get this going. And she started a little bed and breakfast at the bottom of the place that she's running with her, with her professor husband up there, right? So she's living downtown. She's living in a very humble way. And that's, that's a symbol for democracy, rather than being sort of the emperor who lives in a big castle, right? Of pathetic nature, which we're going to talk about further on down the road. What is the difference between this building and Mar-a-Lago? I mean, in terms of architectural elements and in terms of its faithfulness to true classicism? Well, stylistically, I guess we need to stop for historians, but I think, you know, this is an urban building. Trump's big thing is a sub-urban thing. This is climatically appropriate, because this is wall architecture.  Trump's thing is in the tropics. It shouldn't be hermetic, right? So this one is right. The other one is wrong. Let's just say that. Right, right. And let's go to the next slide, because talking about wrong, you know, we have these very dark days where, where Islam was prescribing, ironically, sarcasticly, the same style. And then his architect, Allah Shahr, you see at the bottom right, was coming up with these megalomantic visions of supersize everything and everything in that kind of old style. And while on the left side is the brighter side, which is always, you know, pokes me and says, you guys have started this new business thing. And so the architecture that you see up there is gropeyos in 1926 with a foggy factory where he was about modern. It was about democratic, bringing light and air to the people, carter of absence, right? All these things. So both things I have, you know, as a baggage, obviously in my culture, both the bad and the good. And the next slide is how I deal with that. This is a project from our firm. It's a public building. There we go again. It's not federal, but it's a state building. It's a state school building. And I was once giving a lecture, a guest talk at the nearby when I was still in the prairie at K-State. And the colleague said his TA made this poster and he couldn't resist to make this reference to the third rise at the top left. Next slide. One of my mentees became a writer and he was a little bit more mild. He called this article that he wrote about at the dining temple out of concrete. And he refers to the very sort of initiating style of classicism is the Greek and the Mormon architecture with a sort of similar kind of syntax, but more importantly a very civic nature. I mean, this is architecture for the people, right? Which Trump's Mar-a-Lago is not. That's just for him or the few rich people. Oh, by the way, in Andrews, the bread and breakfast, you can sign up for that. Everyone can. Of course they do some security check, but it's for very little money you can live with a president and talk. Isn't that great? It is great. As you say, very democratic. And that's the nature of true classicism, you know, to be open to the people, to be the people's place. Exactly. Yeah. And so you're right. You take the same elements and you put them in a very private place only for a few rich people. You're violating the spirit of classicism as originally existed in Greece and Rome. Absolutely. You kind of gentrified it, right? And we go to the next slide. This is our talking hero. Thank you for the nice words. But my true hero is your other host, you know, Howard Wade, Mr. Code Green. He's here. And we will, when doing a show, we have the building as a demonstration of how you might want to build, you know, in this art climate and in my climate. And this building is probably the closest. If you take out the fixed glazing and replace it with jealousies, it would very much work here too. It shakes itself, and then it would be easy to breathe in. And it is frankly, as you can see. And the temper climate, it left the sun deep in. This is the winter situation. And you've got the young kids dating there. So how much more frankly could you be?  You go to the next slide. One last time going back at the very bottom, the two pictures. This is how George W. Bush thought America should be represented with its embassy in the, you know, old and new capital of Germany and Berlin again. This is the American embassy. I always thought it's an embarrassment. And I don't think the style was mandated, but the architect, actually, nice architect. You remember C-Range, the old hippie day of Jay, at the very middle to the left, you can see C-Range. This is an icon of hippie architecture. And I once was on a very memorable spring break trip with a lovely mentee. And we gave a presentation of what's now called the More Rubel Udel. And one of the principles proudly showed the pictures in the hallway of that project, the embassy. And I didn't know where you look at it, because I find it pretty embarrassing. And the only good thing about it is at the top left that the facade is very good as a canvas that some people who want to voice their democratic opinions are projecting onto it. And this was projected when Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement. Total losers, so sad. So that was a projection of the public onto the building from the outside. The top left one I pulled out, because in the better days under Kennedy, where by the way, there's some research, also they were thinking about that federal projects should be special and mandating some sort of standards, but they intentionally didn't prescribe a style. So this guy here at top left is Edward Durell Stone. This is the American Embassy in New Delhi built in 1959.  The top right, we have the Edward Durell Stone building as well on New Age.  So again, you know, style as we're talking doesn't mean we're a bag, right? It's about your intentions and your talent. And talking about that, the next slide is probably the most shocking. And I have to thank my dear Mihaara, who was sensitizing me about the topic, and we're probably all doing the show about this to her, because she was sending this to me and she said, this reminds her of the darkest moment of her death practice back in the early 90s, where a campus architect who is now still the principal of one of the biggest architectural firms on the island played Trump and basically said the School of Architecture building should be neoclassical in style. And he said two other things. One was ground floor parking, and the third one was central axis in the quads. And that killed what you see at the very bottom, John Hara, beautiful design, democratic design, moving the School of Architecture out of this sort of pretty too strict sort of axis, moving out of it, open the quads. And at the bottom right, you see, he made a little sort of a therapy, you can call this classicist, postmodernism, that was in postmodernism at the peak of it, picked up, but he's a modernist, so he interpreted and, but he was shut down by the, by the Trump of our university at that time, and now we're left with that piece of pathetic homo-case, right? Yeah, the School of Architecture much less. Exactly, and I boycott, I don't teach in there, because I teach easy breathing in other buildings and often called Saunders Hall, which is an easy breathing brutalist. People might not like brutalist building, and this reminds me also of, Prince Charles was another one who was trying to do something with what Trump is doing right now, and he was lobbying against modernism and brutalism, but again, there is no, there is no, you know, bad or good, it's just how you do it. And go to the next slide. We are thinking about our most classicist architect in the best sense on our island, and this is someone who is going to be with us in many shows in the recent past and in the future. This is Ronald Lindgren with his partner at what Killingsworth, and the buildings at the top are references to shows with the Kahala Hotel, the Seaside Airlines Hotel, lastly shows were by Harvard Square, his Kapaluah Hotel on Maui, which shame on the people who were privately, you know, again, reaction is tore down. And I was sharing here what Ronald certainly recently, this is what looks the most classicist, this is what should have been the case study house number 26 in the, in the legendary case study house. And again, once again, a very democratic, a very fresh, a very American in its best sense of the word. You know what strikes me as a German, as an Americano is of course, you know, our ancestors came here, mainly from Europe with the wagon trains and all that new and how they build when they were built was what they remembered some way back, right? The old European style. But then postmodernist basically came and said, oh, we need our first own style and never mind they stole it from the Italian, or the Russian brand, but they, they pretend that that's the first truly American style, which I think is BS, excuse me, because modernism is the thing that once, you know, the new American, you know, settlers had felt comfortable. They looked back at Europe and modernism had come up and they basically, while German glossed the war, luckily, and were after that traumatized, the modernism became very stiff while Americans picked it up and made it fun. And I think this feeling is worth project again. Everyone in Germany looked up to the case study how serious back in the mid-century that was the coolest, the best stuff and everyone wanted to be like that. So let's go to the concluding slide, which is a compilation of many things. This slide and the one about the Zonner and the naked, I stole from the most ambitious show that the soldier and I have been in the making for years now and it will be about skins. It will be about the relationship of the first skin, the human skin, the second, the clothing we put over and the third, the fenestrations, the windows we put around us. And we compare these. The very academic subtitle of the show will be address codes, address codes so the relationship between, you know, enclosures. So here you see obviously at the top right, well starting at the bottom left, there we see the guy who was trying to mandate classism and theirs was canceled, Mar-a-Lago. And how is he dressed? Well, his wife and his son, luckily, are sort of easy breezy dressed, but he's totally inappropriate dressed, right? And so are his building and that's why we have to assume so will be what comes out of his mandate. Not that it's classism, that it's bad, as I hopefully made my case, but that Trump made his mandate because I'm sorry while his early buildings in New York City as a developer were sort of okay as modernism and recently the way the ties he wears and then he wears them too long and the suit he wears, I'm sorry, there's a lack of sense of taste and that's why this humanly architecture he wants to mandate will be all the same. While our local boy, Barrick, when he was running the country and you see him at the top right back home, he's more appropriately dressed, right? Easy breezy, but you know, at top left, as we actually did a show you might want to revisit that guy's disorder and I would look into the subject sort of and it was called presidential paradise flesh, paradoxical presidents, and we went through each and every, well not every, but you know, significant presidents and while obviously Reagan in the 80s had started the whole thing with a reactionary, but you see him at the top left after his presidency stopping by in Hawaii with Nancy and taking it back and you know, we're appropriately dressed for that and we looked into that actually his architectural way, but the house he lived in was actually a modernist house still and so you know, his architectural taste or mandate wasn't as bad as his political one, but now we have, you know, this gets more extreme and worse, now we have someone who's political taste is really bad and so will be his architectural one and so I don't think, Jay, it shouldn't be in these days about style anymore, that S, there are two other S's that important, the other one is solar, this traces back to our friends, Howard, to saying, you know, we have this energy crisis in global warming and buildings contribute to the majority to that so we should first of foremost not think about how buildings look like, but how they perform, that's one thing and the other thing I think challenge is and this is what the pictures referred to on the right side in the middle, this is where Obama just bought the former Magnum T.I. has stayed down in Waimanalo and this is going to be very challenging for him, although, he's considered to be more democratic and more empathic in many ways, but there is what I call suburban nomads trying to avoid to say homeless encampment in front of his yard and I'm sort of talking cynical or ironically or sarcastically hoping that he hasn't, while he has torn down the main mansion down but he has kept the guest house and this is where Thomas Magnum was scripted to live in to crush in that little place and he rinsed this out to suburban nomads because otherwise you see the picture on the right and I'm driving by there every other day you see these, you know, flipped on the side cars this is what happens so this is the next I think big challenge for architecture as you perfectly say doing nothing less but nothing more than portraying zeitgeist is to address these issues of being biasplomatic and of being socially appropriate and I threw in at the very left from Ron Lindgren again maybe the most relevant feelings with projects amongst all the great work he's done on Ireland is this one here which is a solution for a new favelas in Latin America way back which are very simple courtyard houses we feel sympathetic with that because picture, to the right of that the smallest picture unfortunately is a project we're having with the emerging generation that we call CCC Cargo Courtyard Cabanas and it's shooting for the $3,000 home that then everyone to afford especially the ones that need and you line up what we call Cargo Steel to avoid say shipping containers in a row so that due to the all-American principle of buy one get one free you get the courtyard for free all lined up in a row that looks very militaristic and we can call that classes but again it's very it has an obligation it's not about how it looks it's about that you feel cool in there and then it's affordable that's what it is and these are more than many more than two cents to this subject Well, if you talk about certain elements so I guess classicism of these columns but I think modern from what you say modern classicism would be reminiscent of the columns but it would be in an appropriate place appropriately functional and it would speak again to the people rather than to some rich guys or some guys in power and so what we have today under Trump is we have architecture that he encourages and builds Mar-a-Lago and elsewhere including the government I suppose government buildings and the like that's classical or I don't know the difference neoclassical and it's cynical classical because it fails to it fails to accurately represent the feeling at the time that classical architecture was developed that is that it belongs to the people it's public space it's all about public space and public space is part of government if you want to have a decent government you have to have public space and the architecture can either do that and so when I get out of this is you as architects I would not include myself there you as architects you're observing what is going on and you're saying here's a building let me evaluate it from all of those points of reference and analysis and see where it fits is this true classicism is it neoclassicism is it cynical classicism is it Trumpian classicism and then that will help us understand the way our society is working what I'm missing on that and I hope you'll discuss it for a minute anyway is how much influence the architect has on what the the capitalist, the capital concentration or the government does in other words can the architect actually influence the design that is coming up these are expensive projects you can go to your clients I'm sure you've done this and say look, don't do it this way do it that way, do it democratically do it with liberty and equality and justice and all that and you can do that for him you know how to do that for him but if he says no or if Trump says no and Trump would say no or if the government under Trump says no where are you, you don't have influence on it you can only be an observer and you can tell me and the world that this really doesn't measure up against the true standard of our of our time how far off am I when I say that to you no you're right on it again I'd like to respectful disagree you're more architect than many other architects I know here on the island so let me tell you that first of all and then secondly I think it's again and I have the privilege to become American as well on top of my German nationality so I would say and I have to learn my heart we the people, we the people, we the people so as tragic as it might be if he mandates but he mandates only where he can so what private developers do he can't mandate so I think it probably puts more pressure or responsibility on the private sector to step up to make up for the decisions we might be getting in sort of this prescribed architecture that the private sector steps up but that's you know they're not really living up to where they what they should I mean we keep talking about Kakaako and hard use and Kamehameha schools maybe then they should kick in and then do much better if the government might fail on that sector and when we hopefully again get a good government again I hope that as coming full circle to the beginning the best tool to basically institute good architecture no matter what kind of I would say you know the way it looks like is again basing it on a democratic process and the most democratic is which is very common in Europe not very common in America is a competition where you either have it open to everyone to apply to submit their proposal and you have a jury that I said at the beginning is non-corruptible right and they basically don't pick by name they pick by which is so perfectly put by making sense in terms of the budget, the program and in that way they may have some influence but let me close with this comment you know if I build a big public building and it's it's Airsoft's classic classicism if I build something that is not democratic that is not for the people is not an accurate reflection of our time but is an attempt to do as in Mar-a-Lago to serve only a few people the rich on the other side the other side of the equation and that building has a useful life of 100 or 200 or 300 years my last question to you Martin doesn't that building have an adverse effect on us, our society for the life of its useful life it's telling us something it's not what we want to hear but it stands there as a monument to the wrong principles doesn't that hurt us doesn't that affect us for the life of the building it certainly does but let's just try to end on a positive note I think that's the good part of architecture is that it certainly survives and it embodies the life guys from the days but you can see wonderful conversions for example let's go back to my original native culture again the big stadium in Berlin that I happened to be there and revisited a few years ago over the summer and that was built for the worst of ideology for the worst of mankind you could think of what Reich and Hitler embodies and it has then been converted successfully to an architectural competition one of the big architects in Germany have converted it into a beautiful arena there you have it Martin the takeaway of all of this is that you can convert the building you can convert the building and thus the message of the building to go back to our title all about leadership you can convert the leadership too and if you convert the leadership and the building you can reach a better place Martin we're out of time thank you so much for this discussion I would like to do it more with you I would like to hear more about this it is a fundamental aspect of our life together in these islands and in the world thank you so much Martin thank you Jay


How can you make someone happy? By giving, this is the common mantra. The superstition that giving makes other people happy. Giving even makes you happy. But giving and happiness are not necessarily and inextricably connected. Not always at any rate. Giving is not the same as making other people happy. Giving cannot guarantee that you will be loved or accepted. Your style of giving is important. Depending on the way you give, your giving can even create resentment in your beneficiaries. You need to know how to give. Giving can generate happiness. It can foster attachment and bonding. It can bring cheer and joy all around. But it rarely does. And the reason is that most people give ostentatiously, grandiosly. And by giving this way, visibly, conspicuously, they humiliate the recipients. This is a humiliating kind of giving. And the other type of prevalent giving is transactional giving. Transactional giving is often perceived by its beneficiaries as a form of blackmail. I'm giving you so that you end up giving me give and take. True giving is hidden, secret, unconditional. True giving is anonymous. True giving is not strings attached. True giving comes from the heart, never from the wallet. True giving is about helping others, not buttressing your sense of well-being or grandiose self-perception. True giving is about lifting other people and uplifting them. True giving is altruistic and empathic. All the other kinds of giving are manipulative and wrong and are likely to result in outcomes which are adverse to the giver.


Huge win for us coming here at this first one thought the there's a lot of effort and You know, I think a lot of that probably is from the atmosphere and Guys just want to play you this first one You mentioned the amount of effort it seemed like it was a really complete win for this season What do you think about all the contributors from the bullpen to different guys offensively? Yeah, it's huge and we know that That's how we're gonna win a lot of games is just everybody Chimping in and making the little plays in just effort, you know, obviously, you know gals, you know play there at first and It's just it's big, you know the bullpen come in and help them there with one run This is a big big team win for us. You guys came in 14 games up in the division It's only July, but was there more adrenaline anything more Yankees Red Sox one-run game at Fenway? I Don't know. I mean, I think we've we've shown up every day and I think it's something that makes this team so good as You know, we can play in this type of environment, but you know, we've shown that you know matter where we're at or What the crowd looks like that we're ready to play 27 outs and we give everything we have Learn something from an experience like this and in an environment like this Yeah, I mean every you know Time be happy a small little victories. No matter what it is. You try to You know take them and learn from them build some confidence and They kind of move on and I think there's a lot of things we can learn that we did well and from tonight And hopefully we can carry it in tomorrow