Month: December 2022
Watching the original Perry Mason in 2022
I confess to watching recently more than 3 years of the original Perry Mason mystery series. It premiered in 1957 and ran until 1966. I see it free on Freevee. I saw much of the series when it first ran but have forgotten the plots. Here is what I’ve learned:
The plots are as intricate and interesting as they were then, when I was 12-15. Unlike many of today’s TV mysteries, they rely little on technology and a lot on the initially hidden relationships among people. You always know Mason will win in court, except for one early case where it turns out he is defending an impostor. Figuring out what he is thinking and how he will play it is still challenging and enjoyable.
Time passes
Lots of things have however changed. There are no cell phones, messaging, videos, or email. Phones have dials. People write notes or letters. Giant cameras with flash bulbs take pictures. The cars, which play important supporting roles, are floppy behemoths with sweeping tail fins. Dollars are worth at least ten times more than they are today. Everyone smokes.
Race matters
The casts are 95% or more white. The first I remember seeing a Black person, with a minor role as a night watchman, was in the second year. He appears in an episode also featuring Japanese participants, who are vital to the story. Before that, I recall only one episode with a clearly non-white character. He is a Chinese factotum. Even nightclubs and jazz joints in Los Angeles are without Black people, who were then called “Negroes.”
Gender does too
Women fare a bit better. They dress stylishly (for the time), unless they are intended for plot purposes to be unattractive. They wear hats, even indoors. But women are mostly subordinated to powerful men. That includes Della Street, Mason’s clever “confidential secretary,” as well as the many other secretaraies, heiresses, wives, and girlfriends who figure in the plots. Some are clever, rebellious, or nasty. But most of those are made murder victims in the first few minutes of an episode or in the end turn out to be the perpetrators.
The men are mostly dressed in suits and ties. They wear fedoras on the street (Kennedy would kill that custom before the series ends). They too can be clever, rebellious, or nasty but still manage to play dominant roles. Paul Drake, Mason’s favorite private investigator seems to be the paragon. His tall, blond (I’m assuming–the series is in black and white) good looks occasionally play a role in the plot. But Della is far more clever.
Raymond Burr, who plays Perry Mason, was what we would now term “gay.” He was closeted. LGBTQ people do not appear in the series, unless I have missed one or two.
Enjoyable, but don’t send me back there
We are having lots of fun watching these murder mysteries while preparing to go to bed. They don’t elicit bad dreams, I suppose because the murders are less gruesome than many on TV today. And always solved. I plan to get through the whole series.
But don’t send me back there in a time machine. The racism is by omission. The sexism is in plain sight. I never liked searching for and plugging dimes into a public pay phone.
Stevenson’s army, December 21
– President Zelensky is coming to DC, will meet with President Biden around 2pm, address a joint meeting of Congress around 7:30pm. WaPo says the big news will be US deal to send Patriot missiles to Ukraine. Politico says Ukraine wants more than US is willing to give.
– WaPo says it’s still not clear who sabotaged Nordstream lines.
– Politico says US will press Netanyahu to discipline his government.
-Legistorm says 2/3 of House offices haven’t used their increased budgets.
– Politico has details from new insider look at Biden administration. Looks like a lot of good interviews.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Stevenson’s army, December 20
– The omnibus bill. including appropriations across the government and the Electoral Count Act as well as other measures, has been released. Here’s the reporting by Politico and RollCall. Also the bill text and summaries by Democrats and Republicans.
– NYT summarizes the growing criticism of the Supreme Court’s seizure of power from the other branches.
– Guardian reports the embarrassing breakdown of German Puma tanks.
– Vox tries to make sense of the crisis in Peru.
– NYT discovered that a newly elected GOP Congressman faked most of his resume.
To me, the blame goes to the Dems for inadequate oppo research. Punchbowl notes:
Yet the DCCC can hardly be accused of ignoring Santos’ candidacy. The campaign arm compiled an 87-page opposition document in August complete with dozens of social media posts, financial filings and information on Santos’ employment with a scandal-ridden corporation. The bulk of the research centered on Santos’ false claims of voter fraud, his hardline anti-abortion rights stances and support for conspiracy theories.
But the DCCC appears to have missed out on fact-checking basic biographical information, such as Santos’ education and employment. The NYT also revealed that Brazilian authorities charged Santos for making fraudulent purchases with a checkbook in 2010.
There are actions the new Congress could take, as a CRS report indicates.
WOTR hasa good historical summary of Truman, Eisenhower & Kennedy policies on Taiwan.
Charlie added this interesting note later:
I was exchanging reading recommendations with a friend and realized that there have been a few books in recent years that actually changed my mind regarding what I thought happened in history. I read a lot of disappointing books — too shallow, too heavy, too incomplete — but I generally enjoy revisionist historians, especially if they have a provocative thesis and ample evidence. If you want to buy one of these, the best place to look is https://www.bookfinder.com/ So here’s a short list:
World War I: I’m now persuaded that Russia shares much of the blame for the start of the Great War by its policies to dominate Turkey and by mobilization during the July 1914 crisis. After deep dives into long-hidden Russian archives, Sean McMeekin showed in The Russian Origins of the First World War that even Barbara Tuchman got the sequence wrong by relying on the falsified memoirs of the Russian Foreign Minister. McMeekin’s books on Russian diplomacy and the July crisis changed my view of German war guilt, though Austria-Hungary still deserves shared blame with Russia. See also his Russian Revolution, July 1914, and Stalin’s War, which describes World War II from Stalin’s viewpoint rather than the usual FDR/Churchill one.
Philip Zelikow’s The Road Less Traveled persuaded me that leaders missed a chance to end the war in December 1916 with a poorly staffed peace initiative by Woodrow Wilson that was undercut by Secretary Lansing and “Colonel” House.
FDR’s boldness: I had long admired Franklin Roosevelt’s strategic bravery in maneuvering the United States in support of Britain and against Hitler, believing that he was just ahead of public opinion, skillfully pulling it along. Lynne Olson’s Those Angry Days persuaded me that, much of the time, FDR vacillated, doing less than many of his advisors urged and hoped. He still was a great leader, just not quite as bold as I had thought.
World War II: James Lacey’s The Washington War, a bureaucratic politics analysis of FDR’s leadership, persuaded me that administrative and economic policies had as much to do with America’s ultimate success as its military operations. Phillips Payson O’Brien’s The Second Most Powerful Man in the World: The Life of Admiral William D. Leahy, Roosevelt’s Chief of Staff persuaded me that Leahy was far more influential on FDR’s war policy than General George Marshall. Jonathan Schneer’s Ministers at War: Winston Churchill and His War Cabinet persuaded me that much of Britain’s success was due to the way the cabinet worked together; Churchill dominated, but the cabinet mattered.
Postwar American policy: Derek Leebaert’s, Grand Improvisation: America Confronts the British Superpower, 1945-57, persuaded me that Britain hoodwinked America into doing what it wanted until the collapse at Suez. Samuel F. Wells, Jr.’s Fearing the Worst: How Korea Transformed the Cold War, convinced me that American misjudgments in the Korean war made the nuclear arms race with the USSR more likely. Serhii Plokhy’s Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, persuaded me that JFK lied about his policies and we came dangerously close to a full-scale nuclear war.
Slave Power’s influence on foreign policy: I never thought that slavery and its perpetuation had much impact on American foreign policy until I read Matthew Karp’s eye-opening history, This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy.
Karp details how the South dominated key foreign policy posts and consciously advocated policies to protect and even extend slavery in the decades before the War of the Rebellion. Defenders of slavery really had a “deep state.”
The Revolutionary War: I used to have a typical American high school student’s view of our war for independence as a story of brave patriots, toughened at Valley Forge and led by George Washington, who finally triumphed at Yorktown. Two books have changed my understanding of that conflict. One was Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy’s of British politics during the conflict, The Men Who Lost America. He argues that the British gave up for broader strategic reasons. Add to this Holger Hoock’s Scars of Independence, which describes the local violence on both sides and the mistreatment of Loyalists during and after the war. The good guys won, but they won dirty.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Stevenson’s army, December 19
– Russia’s buildup for new offensive per NYT.
– Action with Belarus, per WSJ.
– What Ukrainian generals see, per the Economist.
– What Kevin McCarthy will do, from New Yorker.
Meanwhile, from TMC, suggestions for bingeworthy political shows.
Charlie also posted this:
End of year ruminations led me to post this explanation of how I choose what to send you.
The most frequent reason is to send something worth talking about in class — something revealing about Congress or interagency policymaking. I want the class to follow key foreign policy legislation and interagency fights.
I assume you get your regular news elsewhere, but if I see one lead story as significantly better than the others, I’ll send that.
When there are official documents like National Security Strategy or interesting think tank reports, I want to send actual links and not just the news articles.
I want you to think about overlooked problems or emerging ones– hence stuff on trade, technology or cracks in our alliances.
And if I find something quirky or funny, I like to send it.
I wish I could find more on threats to American democracy and examples of things that help.
As you’ve probably noticed, I think reporting on Ukraine is overly optimistic, so I send counter-messages about nuclear risks, alliance and American backsliding, and the need to find off ramps for both sides.
I have a regular schedule for reading the news — up early every morning — but I don’t always have time to curate before doing other things.
Thought you’d like to know.
Happy Holidays!
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Trump is history, Trumpism is not
Donald Trump has embarked on a massive campaign to monetize his presidency. It is not only the NFT playing cardsj. It is also Truth Social (his social media site that caters to right-wing white supremacy and other extremisms), the political funds he collects for challenging election results and supporting extemist candidates (but spends mostly on himself and his family), and the millions his Gulfie friends are loaning him and investing in his golf courses. Most of this will fail, like his much-vaunted steaks. But he’ll come out enriched, which is ultimately the only purpose he is serious about.
He needs the cash
He is going to need the money. His company has already been convicted of tax fraud. He faces more or less a dozen other investigations. Several of which seem close to bringing charges against him. Today the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on The Capitol will recommend that the Justice Department bring serious, unprecedented criminal charges against Trump. He is a cheapskate when it comes to hiring lawyers and stiffs many of them. But even two or three indictments will generate enormous legal bills. Not to mention the likelihood that his tax cheating will end with hundreds of millions in penalties.
No he won’t be president again
No, this man is not going to be President of the United States again. He has led his party into three losing elections: 2018, 2020, and 2022. What loyal GOPer would want to see a fourth? A large part of the Republican Party is already abandoning him, including Senate Minority Leader McConnell and lots of other members of Congress. Those who aren’t are mostly extremist flakes and committed thieves. Americans are looking for compromise, not further polarization. Serious money and media will steer clear. Florida Governor De Santis is already beating Trump in the polls. He won’t be the only serious contender.
But the alternatives are all tainted
But De Santis, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, former Vice President Mike Pence and others are all tainted with Trumpism. Of the top 10, the Washington Post lists only New Hampshire Governor Sununu as leaning hard against Trump. Whoever is nominated (it won’t be Sununu) will have to satisfy the Trump wing of the party. It will turn out for the primaries while many more moderate people stay home. The Trumpians want to block immigration, make voting more difficult, reduce constraints on police violence, cut taxes for the wealthy, ban abortion and gay marriage, challenge election results, and prevent the government from taking necessary public health measures.
American elections are not predictable
These are not positions the American public generally supports. But there is nevertheless no predicting the outcome of the 2024, any more than there was in 2022. There is a large part of the electorate that votes not on particular issues, but rather on the “direction” of the country. Concern about the future direction of American democracy gave the Democrats an edge this year, compared to what would normally be expected in a mid-term election with the economy in trouble, high inflation, and the President under 50% approval. Who knows how the economy and American democracy will be faring in 2024?
Some continuity in foreign policy
Does any of this make a difference to foreign policy, which after all is the main concern of peacefare.net? We don’t really know, though there are indications within the Republican Party that support for Ukraine, NATO, and especially the EU is soft, sympathy with Russia rampant, enthusiasm for Netanyahu’s Israel and Mohammed bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia higher than in the Biden Administration, and hostility to Xi Jinping’s China marginally stronger.
That said, there has been a good deal of continuity in foreign policy between Trump and Biden, on Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and even China, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. It isn’t easy to pursue a pro-democracy foreign policy in the Middle East, or in China for that matter. Whether that signals a return to bipartisan foreign policy “at the water’s edge” is not yet clear. Trumpism will have to be thoroughly obliterated for that to happen. But it could happen.
Stevenson’s army, December 17
Most of you know that I’m a print guy, enjoying broadsheet newspapers and wishing everyone read them. But I see online that the NYTimes has an amazing piece on Russia’s Ukraine war, with numerous videos and artifacts and photographs. I suppose the print version will run tomorrow. Don’t wait. View the online version now.
-Yahoo News has a summary of what little new there is in the just-declassified JFK files.
– And for a comprehensive end of year assessment of US foreign policy by FDD, described as a “hawkish think tank,” read this.
Charlie also added this to yesterday’s edition:
– Someone listed as N.S. Lyons does a frightening job of foreign policy papers using Chat GBT.-[h/t Andrew Sullivan]
– An official review seems happy with current joint command of CyberCom and NSA
– Vox reports military-industrial complex is happy with Ukraine.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).