text:
Boehner says he supports Obama on Syria strike
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Tuesday he's confident Congress will authorize a military strike in Syria, and he won the support of House Speaker John Boehner, who said acting against Syria was something "the United States as a country needs to do."
Boehner, Congress' top Republican, emerged from a White House meeting with Obama and told reporters the U.S. must respond to Syrian President Bashar Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons. Boehner said only the United States has the capability and the capacity to stop Assad and warn others around the world that such actions will not be tolerated.
Obama's meeting with congressional leaders was part of his push to win over support for his request for authorization for limited military strikes against Assad. He indicated he is open to changing the language to address lawmakers' concerns, but urged them to hold a prompt vote.
"So long as we are accomplishing what needs to be accomplished, which is to send a clear message to Assad, to degrade his capabilities to use chemical weapons, not just now but also in the future, as long as the authorization allows us to do that, I'm confident that we're going to be able to come up with something that hits that mark," Obama said.
With war-weary Americans skeptical of sparking another long-winded intervention, Obama tried to assure the public involvement in Syria will be a "limited, proportional step."
"This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan," Obama said.
Boehner's support is key; however, Republicans in Congress do not speak with one voice. Some tea party-backed Republicans are among those who have expressed skepticism.
After a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, polls show most Americans opposed to any new military action overseas. That reluctance is being reflected by senators and representatives, some of whom say Obama still hasn't presented bulletproof evidence that Assad's forces were responsible for the Aug. 21 attack. Others say the president hasn't explained why intervening is in America's interest.
The meeting in the Cabinet room included Boehner, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, along with other members of leadership and the heads of the committees on armed services, foreign relations and intelligence. Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey also attended before heading over to Capitol Hill for testimony later in the day before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A classified briefing open to all members of Congress was to take place as well.
Obama won conditional support Monday from two of his fiercest foreign policy critics, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
A congressional vote against Obama's request "would be catastrophic in its consequences" for U.S. credibility abroad, McCain told reporters outside the White House following an hour-long private meeting with the president.
But despite Obama's effort to assuage the two senators' concerns, neither appeared completely convinced afterward. They said they'd be more inclined to back Obama if the U.S. sought to destroy the Assad government's launching capabilities and committed to providing more support to rebels seeking to oust Assad from power.
"There will never be a political settlement in Syria as long as Assad is winning," Graham said.
McCain said Tuesday he is prepared to vote for the authorization that Obama seeks, but the Arizona Republican also said he wouldn't back a resolution that fails to change the battlefield equation, where Assad still has the upper hand.
In an appearance on NBC's "Today" show, McCain called it "an unfair fight" and said that if the authorization for U.S. military intervention doesn't change the balance of power, it "will not have the desired effect."
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he believes the panel will back Obama if the administration explains "the full case" for the use of force as well as what it sees as the end result. "Not acting has huge consequences," Menendez said on "CBS This Morning" Tuesday.
"It sends a message" not just to Syria, he said, but to Iran, North Korea and terrorist groups.
After a Labor Day weekend spent listening to concerned constituents, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said the administration needed to make its case on these points, if only to counter the misinformation and conspiracy theories circulating about Obama's plans.
"Several people asked me if we were only interested in getting Syria's oil," Coons, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "It's important that Americans get the facts."
Petroleum is hardly the most pertinent question. Even before Syria's hostilities began, its oil industry contributed less than half a percent of the world's total output. And Obama has expressly ruled out sending American troops into Syria or proposing deeper involvement in the Arab country's violent civil war.
But such queries are a poignant reminder of the task awaiting the administration as it argues that the United States must exert global leadership in retaliating for what apparently was the deadliest use of chemical weapons anywhere over the past 25 years.
Obama has insisted he was considering a military operation that was limited in duration and scope. The White House said Monday that Obama was open to working with Congress to make changes in the language of the resolution, which Congress was expected to begin considering next week.
In a conference call Monday with House Democrats, several members of Obama's own party challenged the administration's assertions.
In a post on his website, Rep. Rick Nolan, D-Minn., reflected a view shared by at least some of his colleagues: "I am vehemently opposed to a military strike that would clearly be an act of war against Syria, especially under such tragic yet confusing circumstances as to who is responsible for the use of chemical weapons."
Their skepticism is shared by many tea party Republicans and others, whose views range from ideological opposition to any U.S. military action overseas to narrower fears about authorizing the use of force without clear constraints on timing, costs and scope of the intervention.
The most frequent recurring questions: How convinced is American intelligence about the Assad regime's culpability for the chemical attack, a decade after woefully misrepresenting the case that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction? And how does a military response advance U.S. national security interests?
Pressuring the administration in the opposite direction are hawks and proponents of humanitarian intervention among both Democrats and Republicans who feel what Obama is proposing is far too little.
Obama's task is complicated further because he leaves for a three-day trip to Europe on Tuesday night, visiting Stockholm, Sweden and then attending the Group of 20 economic summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. The White House said Tuesday that Obama spoke to a key ally in the G-20, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, by telephone Monday night to discuss Syria and pledged to continue to consult on a possible international response.
The simple case for action is the administration's contention that the sarin gas attack violated not only the international standard against using such weapons but also Obama's "red line," set more than a year ago, that such WMD use wouldn't be tolerated.
The U.S. said it has proof that the Assad regime is behind attacks that Washington claims killed at least 1,429 people, including more than 400 children. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which collects information from a network of anti-regime activists, says it has so far only been able to confirm 502 dead.
Intervening in Syria's conflict is no light matter, however. Having claimed more than 100,000 lives in the past 2½ years, the fight has evolved from a government crackdown on a largely peaceful protest movement into a full-scale civil war scarily reminiscent of the one that ravaged Iraq over the last decade. Ethnic massacres have been committed by both sides, which each employ terrorist organizations as allies.quot; Tuesday.


text:
Auto Glass Repaired or Replaced In Your Driveway!
Local Installers In Hiawatha, Iowa Available
Broken auto glass is no problem for Auto Glass Now. IA law may require you to correct a damaged windshield as a safety hazard. You don't need to worry about finding auto glass close to Hiawatha. Save time and money by comparing Leading Glass Technicians. Get that crack fixed on your terms; don't wait for it to get worse.
Auto Glass Services Offered
- Windshield Repair
- Windshield Replacement
- Rear Windshield Replacement
- Car Window Replacement
Hiawatha Loves our Qualified Glass Professionals!
Hyundai Santa Fe Sport Windshield Replacement
5 5 1
5 years ago
''Auto Glass Direct'' did a professional job on the installation of my windshield. Windshield Guru, I would give a 4 rating. An email regarding 'Your Appointment With Windshield Guru' came at 11:21 today and Auto Glass Direct arrived at 10am. I was expecting a confirmation email with who and what time my appointment would be back on 11/5 when the appointment was scheduled with Luke/Jaylin. I call early today to find out if the appointment was truly scheduled, at which time I was promptly transferred to Roy who confirmed an arrival time. Thanks Terri
Theresa B• Urbandale, IA • 2017 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Kansas county OKs gaming
Wyandotte County voters Tuesday night overwhelmingly approved two measures that will allow a destination casino in the county and slot machines at The Woodlands race track.
With 100 percent of the county's precincts reporting, 15,976 voters, or 80.84 percent of the total, voted "yes" to Question 1, which opens the door for a casino to be constructed in the county. An even larger percentage said "yes" to Question 2, which allows slot machines at The Woodlands, with 16,189 voters, or 82.04 percent, supporting the measure.
Total voter turnout was 23.46 percent, substantially higher than other recent elections, and particularly high considering Tuesday's vote was over a single issue.
"Our voters have spoken in this election, and this casino will benefit everyone in Wyandotte County," Unified Government Mayor/CEO Joe Reardon said during a watch party at The Woodlands.
The atmosphere at the race track was celebratory and high-spirited even before any results came in Tuesday night. Hundreds of elected officials, gaming supporters and members of the public who came out to see the spectacle crowded into the greyhound racing building, where TV monitors showed the results live as the votes were counted. After about 50 percent of precincts reported in -- and it was a sure thing that both measures would pass -- local officials held a ceremony that was more pep rally than press conference. A jubilant Cindy Cash, president of the Kansas City, Kan., Chamber of Commerce, served as master of ceremonies and introduced Reardon, along with the mayors of Bonner Springs and Edwardsville.
"This is a huge night for us," Bonner Springs Mayor Clausie Smith said. "This is a victory for all of Wyandotte County; all three cities. Every resident will share in what this will bring to Wyandotte County."
"The voters have spoken loudly, and they've made a definitive decision," Edwardsville Mayor Heinz Rodgers said. "I look forward to the opportunity this decision affords the community."
Although the vote was by all indications a landslide of support, not everybody in the county was happy with the outcome. On Question 1, 3,787 voters, or 19 percent, said no; 3,545 voters, or 17.96 percent, said no to Question 2.
Before the election, opponents of gaming who were willing to speak out about the issue were few and far between. In fact, the Kansas City Kansan received only one letter to the editor and one guest editorial voicing negative opinions on the issue.
The writer of that editorial, Rev. Steve Neal, pastor of Oakland Park Baptist Church, said Tuesday night he was not happy with the outcome.
"I would say that even though 80 percent voted in favor that not necessarily it's the wisest, best decision," Neal said. "I'm just kind of disappointed that people didn't take the time to look at the evidence out there about the negative effects a casino can have on a community.
"What we have to do now is hold our elected officials accountable."
Supporters are hopeful that the positives will outweigh the negatives.
"I think this is going to keep the progress in the county going," state Rep. Margaret Long said. "I'm looking forward to it. I'm looking forward to see what it's going to produce, what we're going to use that revenue for."
Long said supporters were bracing for a negative campaign that never materialized.
"I was very surprised, and everybody was worried that at the last minute, something would happen, that they'd put a big push on, but it just didn't happen," Long said.
As officials at The Woodlands were playing host for the watch party Tuesday evening, they also celebrated what has been a yearslong struggle to bring slot machines to the facility.
"This means that we have a future, a bright future," Woodlands general manager Jayme LaRocca said. He said temporary slot machines could be moved into the facility as soon as next spring, and that a full slots casino could be completed by 2009. The current plan calls for the casino to be built onto the front of the horse racing building, and for all racing operations to be consolidated there as well.
Kansan reporter Sam Hartle contributed to this report.


text:
My father plagiarized himself frequently, most notably in his Thanksgiving columns. In 1934, 1936 and 1938, he wrote about the Pilgrim fathers, who in 1623 faced "their second winter of hunger, cold and peril" until, after a day of prayer, sighted "a ship loaded with friends and supplies." He ended every one of these columns with the question of whether "Negroes" should be thankful. He would give a nod to the Scottsboro Boys, who were incarcerated in Alabama. A favorite refrain was that the "Negro's winter is still on" and the ideals of safety and happiness continued to elude American blacks.
In 1939 his column still included these elements, but had a more optimistic tone. That year, President Franklin Roosevelt decided that Thanksgiving should be celebrated the next to the last Thursday of the month, rather than the last Thursday, which had been American tradition dating back to the end of the Civil War.
"Now, in the year of 1939, Americans find themselves sandwiched between two Thanksgiving Days," Ebenezer wrote. According to my father about half of the nation's bosses "preferred to adhere to the traditional (Lincoln's). . ."
Apparently, my father thought the whole debate was silly.
"It is safe to say that the idea of giving thanks on this day has been lost in its routine acceptance. It is now rather a day of feasting. And to hear the opposition tell it, one is almost moved to believe that there IS a difference between gormandizing vittles and guzzling corn liquor on one Thursday as against another Thursday. But this is a Democracy."
Under Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini, he asserted, the "thanksgiving edict" would have come without choice and accepted with the "clicking of the heels. Dictators' proclamations have but one 'alternative': yes or YES. . . Not in America. And that's a good reason for giving thanks – any day."
Ebenezer gave his customary nod to the Scottsboro boys. Five of the original nine were still imprisoned. "Should the question of Thanksgiving Day penetrate those prison walls, those lads could well ask: What have we to be thankful for on the 23rd or the 30th of November?" he asked. "Their oppressors quibble over trifles."
"Quibbling over when one should give thanks is hardly productive of the spirit of gratefulness – at that. "
As for me, I'm giving thanks every day that America is changing, as evidenced by the recent election. Thankful that more Americans will have access to health care and that women will have agency over their own bodies. That race-baiting and big money don't always prevail and that the Supreme Court's activist slide will be slowed.
No doubt, our nation is still deeply divided between those who "want to take their country back" and those who want to move forward. But, as Ebenezer said, "This is Democracy."
By the way, I was going to wait until tomorrow to add a photo of President Obama pardoning a turkey, but I thought this video said more about thankfulness.


text:
Sidney Lumet: Memories From the Early Years
July 18, 2011
Although it's been three months since his death, it's the season of Sidney this summer in New York. On June 27, which would have been Lumet's eighty-seventh birthday, a celebrity-packed memorial service at Lincoln Center's Alice Tully Hall featured eulogies by Lauren Bacall, Gene Saks, Walter Bernstein, Marcia Jean Kurtz, Phyllis Newman, Christopher Walken, James Gandolfini, David Mamet, and others.
Starting tomorrow, the Film Society of Lincoln Center begins a week-long tribute to Lumet, with screenings of sixteen of his films. Among those being shown are his debut, the live television adaptation 12 Angry Men (1957), and Fail-Safe (1964), followed by a question-and-answer session with screenwriter Walter Bernstein. At ninety-one, Bernstein is perhaps the oldest living television dramatist of consequence, and of course he also scripted (anonymously, because he was blacklisted at the time) many live episodes of Danger and You Are There that Lumet directed during the early fifties.
After I wrote about Lumet's directorial style in some of his live shows in April, I decided that it might be worthwhile to approach Lumet from another angle. Since then, I've been speaking and corresponding with some of the actors and craftspeople who worked with Lumet in the early years of his career. What follows, then, is a sort of oral history of Lumet as a live television director. Each of the speakers is identified below by their credits that were directed by Lumet, and their remarks are ordered in a loose chronology based on the sequence of their initial collaborations with him.
Rita Gam
Actress, Danger (1951)
Married to Sidney Lumet, 1949-1955
His was a quintessentially American story. He was the ultimate self-made man. Sidney was always going forward. He had a tremendous positiveness about him, and a practicality. He was the most immediate person that ever lived. Everything had to be solved, could be solved, would be solved.
Sidney and I met when we were eighteen. He was a friend of my brother's, and I was just starting out as an actress. Actually, we met in a play called A Flag Is Born, and I replaced my brother as Young King David. That was his last acting part. He replaced Marlon Brando.
He lived with his sister at the time. He had moved out of his house when he was about twelve, with his sister Fay. Fay brought him up. Sidney was not close to his father [Baruch Lumet]. But I liked his father. He was sweet, or seemed sweet, but tough. A 2nd Avenue Jewish actor, who lived in California by this time. He lived in a motel, and he always kept his door open so he would always have visitors come in whenever they wanted.
Sidney and I got an apartment together on Fifteenth Street. We still weren't married. My parents were in shock, for this expensively educated girl to go off and live with an actor! I modeled, and that paid the rent. Sidney took job as a teacher at the High School For Performing Arts for $65 a week, and he adored it.
At about the same time, we had a workshop, an actors' workshop. I said, "Sidney, there isn't anyone to direct. Why don't you be a director, too? I mean, you're so good. You can do everything." So he became a director. And we just had a jolly good time. We just loved theater, and never thought of the big picture. Making it wasn't in our mind; in our mind was, what wonderful work can we do?
Sidney was kicked out of the Actors Studio, in the first round of dropouts, because they didn't think he was going to be anything special. This was Bobby Lewis, who had been his mentor when he was a cute little child. Bobby, who was this nasty old queen, was disappointed that he grew up to be heterosexual and not beautiful.
His real break came once I was doing a commercial for Colgate Toothpaste. Our best friend at the time was another unemployed actor named Yul Brynner, who used to play guitar at parties. I was doing this commercial at CBS Studio, and suddenly Yul comes down on a break and sees me. He said, "Hey, Rita, how are you doing? How's Sidney?" And, "How would he like to come in and be a director of television?" I said, "What a great idea. Call him tonight and ask him." I went home and I said, "Yul's going to call and ask you to come in as a director at CBS. It's a new medium." He said, "I'm not interested. I really like being a teacher." I said, "I don't think you're right, Sidney. I think this is an opportunity."
Anyway, Yul called, and Sidney said, "I'm not interested." I stood behind him and I said, "I'm going to leave you if you don't say yes!" It was a very funny conversation. He said, "All right, I'll come down." And he went down to 42nd Street the next day to see what it was all about, and just fell in love with it. He immediately came in as Yul's assistant.
The intensity of the control room was just his tempo. The whole complication of having to direct the cameras and the actors all at the same time just appealed to him. He was very quick, very bright, very immediate, very tactile. He loved running between the control room and the floor and the actors. Within four months, Yul Brynner went off to be the king in The King and I, and Sidney went on to fill in for him as a director. Within eight months, he was one of the biggest directors at CBS.
I didn't act much for Sidney, except at the workshop, and then on Danger a couple of times. One time I played a walk-on, and one time I played the lead. But I had my own career. There was a Life magazine article about six of us – the six leading television actresses. One of them was Grace Kelly, before she was a big star. I met her on the set of You Are There. That's where I was introduced to her, on the floor, by Sidney. She was playing Dulcinea in Don Quixote.
I was at CBS all the time. I'd sit in the control room and just make fatuous notes. Sidney was in such total control of everything. He had a producer by the name of Charlie Russell. Charlie was a typical advertising agency, buttoned-up guy who adored Sidney. Anything Sidney said, went. We also became very good friends with Marlene Dietrich because Sidney sort of discovered Maria Riva, who was Marlene's daughter. Very nice girl, and he would use her a lot. Marlene would cook us Sunday night supper all the time, and Marlene just adored Sidney. She thought the world began and ended with him, and she flattered him into thinking he was a great director.
Sidney had a main chance aspect to his personality. Sidney had the kind of personality that attracted people and then formed a little clique, a little coterie, around him. He used the same cameramen all the time, and his ADs. He had that "love me, I'm a talented child actor" [quality]. Sidney was very stubborn. Sidney always had to win his points. He never compromised himself, or he never compromised to make the circumstances easier for himself. He was a tough little fighter. That's what was interesting about him – he was a really strong person who was also very anxious to please, and make other people happy.
We decided to get married because we got tired of living in one room with a bathroom in the hall. We both figured out that my parents, who were good middle-class parents, would furnish an apartment for us. Maybe we'd lift ourselves up if we had a little bit more security, because we had a decent place to live! So we got married. It was a lovely wedding, actually. It was at my mom and dad's house. Yul Brynner was there, and [his wife] Virginia Gilmore, and our other close theater friends. Sidney finally bought a blue suit for the wedding, a navy blue suit, three-button. That's the first suit I think he'd ever owned. His typical look was a sweater and sneakers and dungarees.
Then we moved up to 110th Street after we got married. It was only a studio apartment, just a little bandbox apartment, but really it was home. He was a lousy cook, but I was worse. Once we got married, I think he gave me The Gourmet Cookbook as a Christmas present. I started digging in and doing all those things. It was a young, fun marriage. We didn't break apart until the world became serious, and Hollywood money and all that stuff became involved.
Bob Markell
Production Designer, Danger (1951-1953); You Are There (1953-1955); 12 Angry Men (1957); Studio One: "The Rice Sprout Song" (1957); Play of the Week: "The Iceman Cometh" (1960); Associate Producer, Playhouse 90: "The Hiding Place" (1960)
Sidney and I first met on Danger. First of all, he was my age. We were exactly the same age. He had this amazing background in theatre which I envied, with the Group Theatre. His father was a great actor in the Jewish theatre, and he [Sidney] was an incredibly fine actor.
On Danger, I was the set designer and he was the assistant director. The director was Yul Brynner and the producer was Marty Ritt. And John Frankenheimer was the commercial director! Sidney was a wonderful assistant director. He loved Yul, and I think it was reciprocated. He was right on time. I think, in his head, he was able to conceive and anticipate –a live television room was the equivalent of everything you do in film post-production. You were editing, bringing effects in, bringing sound in, bringing music in, all simultaneously. So the director, literally, had to say "Take one" or "take two" or "take three," take whichever camera, plus when the effects went in and the sound effects went in. And the assistant director had to anticipate this, and Sidney was awfully good at it.
What happened was this: Yul and Marty had some kind of fight with either the agency or the sponsor, I don't know which. I have in my mind an image of a photograph they sent me of both of them throwing the Danger card into a trash can and holding their noses as they both quit. I'm not sure why. The position of the director was open. Sidney did not get it automatically. It was given to Ted Post and Curt Conway, and they did it for a while. And Sidney was, I guess, looking for it or trying to get it, although these two guys were relatively well-known directors. And sooner or later, he got the show, as a director.
Rita Gam and my wife were close, and Sidney would come up to the house. We would go over my floor plans and he would figure his shots out. I remember him in my kitchen one day when Curt Conway and Teddy left and he was going to start directing. He wanted to really be sure he knew what he was doing, and so he came here. But otherwise we didn't really socialize. We just were different people.
I knew, when I did something with Sid, it was experimental. We did a lot of experimenting in those days. Generally on Danger, but especially on You Are There, in terms of visual effects. I had to create with rear screen and other effects all kinds of things that they do with computer generated scenery now. If the director didn't use it correctly, it would get all screwed up. I always knew I could depend on Sidney. He would keep the perspective correct, he would keep the people in proportion to the picture in back.
Danger was a regular weekly detective show, but You Are There I had to create everything from the Oklahoma land run to Genghis Khan and the burning of Saint Joan. We did a show called "Mallory on Mount Everest," and he and I guess Charlie Russell got some stock footage of the real Mallory on Mount Everest. The rule in those days was you could never use white. Blue was the equivalent of white on television. Nobody was ever allowed to wear a white shirt or anything like that. I had a wonderful lighting director at the time working with us, Bob Barry. I said to Bob, "You know, we can't paint the snowflakes blue. Let's just see what happens if we put everything white." Now, I needed the cooperation of the director and the technical director and everybody else to do that, because they had all the dials and tools at their disposal to change the intensity of the light and stuff like that. Sidney didn't fight me. He said, "Let's give it a go. Let's try the white." I mean, another director would say, "You're not supposed to do that. It'll give us a lot of trouble." So we did the scene white, literally white. What happened was because it was so hard for the TV cameras, because it was so bright, it suddenly became the same as the stock footage they had from these old movies. It integrated beautifully. And I got my first Emmy in 1954 for "Mount Everest."
I'd go to a rehearsal with Sidney and the production assistant would have taped out on the floor my entire floor plan. They would block the show, and Sidney would indeed be the camera. One time I think it was either Jack Klugman or Jack Warden, where Sidney would go right up to his nose, nose to nose, for the famous close-up. And I remember Klugman or Warden saying, "Sidney, what lens are you on?" They were good days.
Frank Leicht
Associate Director, Studio One (1957-1958)
Sidney was wonderful. He'd get very intense, but never lost his temper. First of all, he was very good with the way he dealt with people. But more than that, he was never at a loss. In live television, there were so many things that always went wrong. Once I remember him climbing up a ladder to fix something, and the stagehands would let him do that. He deserved it, and they gave it to him.
But you knew he was an actor's director. They all loved working with him. Because Sid was spontaneous. Some directors would map it all out at home over a week, and they wouldn't budge. That's the way they were going to do it. Sid would block well, but he was ready to make a change whenever he had to. He wasn't locked into it.
John Connell (left) and Frank Overton in "The Sentry" (The Alcoa Hour, 1956)
John Connell
Actor, Danger; You Are There; The Alcoa Hour: "The Sentry" (1956); Studio One: "The Deaf Heart" (1957); Fail-Safe (1964); Family Business (1989)
He was a guest in our home, with George C. Scott and his wife [Colleen Dewhurst], and Sidney and his wife, at an event that we had in our Forest Hills home. We were dear, close friends for many years.
I don't know how many people did this with him, but I rehearsed two of his scripts in the same week. One in the afternoon and one in the evening. You Are There was shown on Sunday, and then Danger, which was the other one, was shown during the week, and the rehearsal periods were the morning for one and the afternoon for the other. Isn't that amazing? I worked with him at least eight times in live television, and another couple of movies, including Fail-Safe, where I played the radio operator in that bomber that bombed Moscow.
He was an actor himself before he started directing, and he brought all that experience to his television work. It was always personal, always just the two of you. He would give you a hint of what was in his mind, and see what you did, and adjust that if he felt he had to.
Van Dyke Parks
Actor, The Elgin Hour: "Crime in the Streets" (1955); The Alcoa Hour: "Man on Fire" (1956)
The reason that I ended up in live television was to pay for my board and rooms at the Columbus Boychoir School. I had no ambition to be an actor. My parents were quite dubious about it, my father especially. There was no show biz mom or so forth. A tutor would go up with me to New York City when I had a show. But it paid for my tuition. I was probably getting about $450 a week for participation in a show by the time I met Mr. Lumet.
On the show "Crime in the Streets," which was directed by Sidney, my elder brother was being played by John Cassavetes, and I said something to him that was confrontational or accusatory. It was then his job to slap me on the face, and then I was to start crying and say, "But, Frankie, you're my brother." I learned to jerk my head to the left, because of course he would pull his punch and not hit me. Well, it came to the show, the live show, and he landed one across my nose and I started to bleed. Cut to commercial. The blood is gushing from my nose, and I cannot remember the specifics of what was done to staunch that flow, but it did not stop. And of course when we came back from commercial, [the setting] was the next day! I was doing everything I could to keep from bleeding. Cassavetes felt awful, but not as bad as I did.
Sidney was tremendously invitational. Bob Altman is so famous for his what seems like laissez-faire attitude toward actors. Sidney Lumet was equally empowering, drawing on his subjects' invention and contributions. He was not disciplinary in any way.
Loring Mandel
Writer, Studio One: "The Rice Sprout Song" (1957)
I met Sidney Lumet at the first day of rehearsal for a Studio One play, "The Rice Sprout Song." We rehearsed, in those days, in Central Plaza, formerly and later to be reborn as a concert hall on 2nd Avenue in the fabled Lower East Side of Manhattan. But in 1957, it was – floor by floor – a ladder of rehearsal halls served by a large, creaky elevator. Food service was from Ratner's Kosher restaurant on the main floor. Studio One seemed to have dibs on the 4th.
While a production assistant taped the outlines of the sets on the floor, the cast sat around a large table, Sidney at the head. He was very energized, and obviously enjoyed the opportunity to engage his actors, almost all of whom were only recently freed from the blacklist. The first two days of rehearsal never moved from the table to actual blocking of scenes. Of the leading actors, only John Colicos, a Canadian, was not ethnically at home on 2nd Avenue. And Sidney, who began as a child actor in the Yiddish Theater, was more at home than any of them.
He took pleasure in telling of his European trips and great meals with his wife, Gloria Vanderbilt, as if to underscore what a great distance this little Jew had traveled. And yet he reveled in the Lower East Side. He took us to Moskowitz and Lupowitz, to Sam's Roumanian Restaurant, a vivid and informative guide. But most of all, he loved telling stories of the Yiddish theater.
On the third day, he began the more serious business of directing the play. There were strange overtones: after all, these actors had all suffered for their political leanings toward the Left, and the play itself was a bitter diatribe against the Chinese Communist government.
Plagued by technical problems that in turn disrupted the actors' performances, "The Rice Sprout Song" became one of the legendarily disastrous live television broadcasts. Mandel related that story in my video interview with him for the Archive of American Television, and also wrote about the incident for Television Quarterly.
I showed Sidney the article before I sent it in for publication. I asked him to tell me if he felt anything was unfair or untrue. He told me he didn't have exactly the same feelings as I did about the resultant show, but he had no problem with what I'd written.
Sidney negotiated himself the opportunity to direct the film 12 Angry Men. I heard about this both from my friend Frank Schaffner, who had directed that property for Studio One, and from Jerome Hellman, Frank's agent and mine. Frank very much wanted to direct the film, and felt he had some claim to do so. Sidney (according to Hellman) was reaching the end of his commitment to his agent, and said that if the agent got him the assignment, he would stay with that agency. And so he got the job, pretty much devastating Frank and, I think, rupturing Frank's relationship with Reginald Rose. I have to say, for myself, I think the film was pretty much a duplication of Frank's direction of the television version.
The last time I saw Sidney was at an Motion Picture Academy function in 2002 or 2003. We had a brief conversation about my HBO film Conspiracy. He said he had voted for it in every catagory for which it was nominated (for the Emmy). Which, you will have no problem understanding, thoroughly endeared him to me. He had become a prodigious worker, a man who sought the substance beneath the surface of each film he led. I would have preferred that he not write what he directed, when he reached that stage in his life where he wanted to do both. But my admiration for him is immense.
Bob Markell (continued)
Production Designer, Danger (1951-1953); You Are There (1953-1955); 12 Angry Men (1957); Studio One: "The Rice Sprout Song" (1957); Play of the Week: "The Iceman Cometh" (1960); Associate Producer, Playhouse 90: "The Hiding Place" (1960)
We both learned about film because You Are There went to film for thirteen shows. We went to the old Edison Studios, in the Bronx, and we shot these final thirteen shows, before it was taken away from us and sent to Hollywood. The first one we did was the Hindenburg disaster. Sid had never done a film prior to You Are There, and he was fabulous with the film camera.
12 Angry Men was my first feature, and it was Sid's first feature. I went and took pictures of the exterior of the courthouse [as the basis for the backdrop behind the jury room windows]. The drop came in from Hollywood and it was a translucency, not a transparency, so that they could drop it in and the lights could go on and stuff like that. When it showed up, everybody who was from Hollywood was very upset. They said, "Gee, that's not good. In Hollywood, the lines are sharper, the details are stronger." They may well have been correct, but it had to be used anyway, because we had it up.
I was hoping that Sidney would recognize that it was okay, and would back me up more than he did. Henry Fonda was also the producer, and it was his money, and he was getting antsy once in a while. Boris Kaufman was a very famous photographer. He'd just come off of Kazan's movies. He even got the [Academy] Award for On the Waterfront. And so I was left hanging. I was the guy who was kind of blamed if anything went wrong and they had to go into overtime. If I put myself in Sid's position, he couldn't back me up the way he should have, or that I felt he should have. And I understood. But I was hoping for more than that.
In [television] or stage, you'd get together and try to fix it. I suddenly realized that in film, you looked for a fall guy. And I was the fall guy. [Associate producer] George Justin kept saying to me, "Fight back. Tell him." I said, "I can't. I don't know what to say."
Henry Fonda and the infamous backdrop.
My problem with Sidney actually was that he gave me a second show [Lumet's next film, Stage Struck, which he filmed in color in 1958] to do after 12 Angry Men, and I started working on it. Meanwhile, Fonda was giving him a hard time, and blaming me. I got a call from George Justin, who was also on the show, saying, "You know, of course, that you're not on that second show, that it's being taken away from you."
I said to George, "Who is going to be the designer? Who is taking my job?" He said they'd gone to [Kim Swados, another designer with experience in live television]. Well, it was his first movie, and I knew that he had trouble with color recognition. But I found that I couldn't say to George, "George, he's the wrong guy," because it would sound like I was being ugly.
Later, I'm designing "The Rice Sprout Song," and I'm going in for my first meeting with Sidney. I hadn't seen him for a while since he dumped me. I walk in. I say, "Hi, Sidney." Sidney looks up and he says, "How come you never told me he was colorblind?" I said, "Oh, Sidney. I knew you'd get me one way or the other." Then he and I laughed. I said, "I was trying to figure out what you'd end up saying to me when I walked in."
But that's show business, and I was really not angry at Sidney at all. We worked together a lot, even after the movie. We did a Studio One, a Playhouse 90, and "The Iceman Cometh." The sad thing was that we totally lost touch with each other. He never really went back to his live television people, because he was on a course himself, meeting new people, new wives, new this, new that.
Fred J. Scollay
Actor, Danger; You Are There; Kraft Theatre: "Fifty Grand" (1958); Kraft Theatre: "All the King's Men" (1958); Purex Special: "John Brown's Raid" (1960); A View From the Bridge (1962)
He was a little crazy, but very nice. He was an ex-actor himself. He acted when he was younger, and he really had great empathy for actors. He knew the pressure that we were under. Everything was live then. You didn't get a break.
One thing actors loved about the guy is he let you do stuff. He'd see something in what you were doing in a scene and he'd say, "Oh, boy, let's elaborate on that."
He was, not loose, completely, but he'd say, "What do you want to do in that scene?" And then he'd look at it and say, "That's good. Let's use it." Or, "Let's try something else." Like in one show, I got some bad news, and I got a little woozy. He said, "Let's have you faint."
So it was creative fun in working with him, because you contributed something. There were some directors who said, "In the book it says, 'Turn left,' so you'd better turn left." I don't mean to denigrate anybody, but some directors had a very standard, by-the-book [approach] – they really didn't have the creative [impulse].
[On Danger] he hired a young, real fighter, a professional fighter, and Jack Warden played the fighter, and fought with this guy. Sidney said to Jack, "The kid's a little nervous, so when we start doing the show, give him a little belt." So Jack gave him a little belt and the guy went crazy, almost killed Jack.
He was a lot of fun. A situation on the set, because of the tension, would make things a little more tense, and he'd throw a doughnut at you or something like that, or trip you, something to break the tension. I did A View From the Bridge. He directed that. One of the actors was told to go down the street – Sidney said, "Go down there" – and at the end of the scene the guy never came back. So Sidney would break up. He'd never get mad at anybody.
He gave me my first big break. He cast me in something, a leading role before I was getting leading roles, and I really appreciated that. The name of the show was "Fifty Grand," with Ralph Meeker. That was my first big part. I walked on the set and we started reading the script, and I kept saying, "They made a mistake. This is one of the lead roles. When are they going to find out they got the wrong guy?" I did a lot of extra work. I was a very busy extra. And out of the blue he called and said, "I've got a part I want you to do." No audition or anything. He said, "I want you to do it. Now here's a rehearsal schedule."
When we did "All the King's Men," I had the third part. He gave me a big shot in that. There was Neville Brand who played the lead, and Maureen Stapleton, and I had the third role. But in the credits, Bill Prince got third billing and I had fourth or or fifth or something. So he got a very nice review for me doing my part! He got my review. They thought, well, he got the third credit, he must have been the actor that played that part. That was kind of heartbreaking.
[Technically] he was perfect. He'd say, "Cut two seconds." Or, "We've got to cut four seconds out of this scene." He had a mind like a clock.
Chiz Schultz
Associate Producer, Kraft Theatre (1958)
David Susskind was in charge of Kraft Theatre. He was executive producer, and Herridge was producer, under him. Susskind had his own outfit, and Herridge was like a lone hippie. Susskind was the suit and the tie and Mister Executive, and Herridge was the creative artist, almost a Greenwich Village type. The two were just real opposites. I think Susskind brought him in because he respected the work that Herridge had done, and I don't think he knew much about him. Sidney got along well with [both of them]. He knew how to handle people.
Sidney was extremely short, and the first day when the cast was assembled and waiting for him on the floor, Sidney came down and he had taken a newspaper and folded it into a little Napoleon-like hat and put it on his head. He was wearing this ridiculous little Napoleonic hat, and he put his hand in his shirt like Napoleon, and he walked on and he said, "Okay, I hope you all know who's boss." It was just hysterical. People just screamed with laughter, and Sidney laughed. Everyone loved Sidney.
When he was working, he was just the opposite. He was intense. He was super-serious. Technically brilliant. He would check every shot with the camera person during rehearsal, and in the control room he was like a hawk watching that everything was right. He knew his lighting, he knew his camera, he knew his lenses, and he certainly knew performance. I don't know anyone who could get better performances out of anyone. Franklin Schaffner was a brilliant director, but very remote from his cast. He really kept an arm's length. But Sidney was a hugger, an embracer. He kissed everybody. Sidney combined everything good.
"All the King's Men" was a very intense shoot, because it was a two-parter. Neville Brand had done features, and was the second most decorated hero to come out of World War II, and a really rough [type]. I liked Neville a lot. Sidney had to work with him and really got an extraordinary performance out of him.
Then when we finally finished the whole thing, Herridge invited everyone up to my apartment for a wrap party. Herridge never wanted anyone to go to his place. I worked with Herridge for years and I never even knew where he lived. I had this really seedy apartment four flights up on West 56th Street. It had a convertible couch with a spring sticking out, and my coffee table was a mirror over four sewer pipes. Everybody came. Susskind came. Sidney brought Gloria Vanderbilt, who was then his wife. The apartment was just jammed. People were having a good time. Music was playing. Maureen Stapleton passed out onto Gloria Vanderbilt's lap. I remember that because Maureen was fairly large at the time, and she was just out. Vanderbilt was sort of very sweet but also you could see she was like, oh my god, how do I get out of this?
Then a friend of mine whom I had invited, a young actress, Georgine Hall, was dancing with the production designer, and he tripped and she fell backwards onto the coffee table, and he on top of her. All the shards went up into her back. We got her up and she went into the bathroom and said, "Let me check how I am." I went in to see how she was. When I opened the door, she was just kind of soaked in blood. So I gave her some towels and I said, "Wrap up. I'm going to get you to Roosevelt Hospital right away." I came out and I said, "I've got to take Georgine to the hospital. We'll be back as soon as we can." It was about midnight, or maybe eleven o'clock. I ran out of the apartment with Georgine, got a cab, went to Roosevelt Hospital, and stayed with her until they had stitched her up, and never gave a thought about the party. All I cared about was Georgine.
Georgine lived in Princeton. I said, "You've got to stay over here. You can't go back to Princeton." We went up to the apartment and the door was locked, so I opened it. And everyone was there! It was three in the morning, and Neville was standing by the door. He said, "You know what, Chiz? All these sons of bitches, the minute you left with her, wanted to run. They were scared. And I told them they stayed until we found out how she was." Neville had stood in front of the door and kept everyone in until three o'clock in the morning. I'll never forget that as long as I live. People were just – I mean, Sidney and you can imagine Gloria Vanderbilt were just so kind of pissed off, but in a way I guess sort of respected what Neville had done, maybe, to say, "We've got to make sure that woman's okay. Don't run from this." That was his code. I think it came right out of the war, out of battle. You don't leave unless all your buddies are accounted for. I can't imagine what went on while we were gone, during those three hours.
Fritz Weaver
Actor, You Are There; The Doctor's Dilemma (Off-Broadway, 1955); Studio One: "The Deaf Heart" (1957); The DuPont Show of the Week: "Beyond This Place" (1957); Fail-Safe (1964); Power (1986)
There was a play called "The Deaf Heart," with Piper Laurie, which I did for Studio One. My son was about to be born at that time. We reached the dress rehearsal. My wife had gone to the hospital, and was ready to give birth. But it was a dress rehearsal, and I didn't see any easy way out. Sidney came over to me on the set and said, "What are you doing here? You belong with your wife. Get out of here." I remember thinking, "Well, yes, of course, that's exactly how I feel." But, you know, the pressures you were under with live television in those days. It was like going over Niagara Falls in a barrel. The rules got suspended somehow. But not him. He just excused me from the dress rehearsal, had the dress rehearsal with an understudy, and I came in for the live television presentation. I mean, that was taking a huge chance on his part. But he was a gambler.
I was always aware, even as a young, inexperienced actor, that he was on my side. He once said to me, "If I can't get it with love, I don't want it." I was a complete partisan of Sidney Lumet because I just wasn't used to that. I wasn't used to directors who thought of themselves as cooperating in a creative process with the actor, and loving what he was getting from the actor. He would say, "Keep that in."
In Fail-Safe, I finished a take and he said, in a very quiet voice, "I don't want a better one than that." I was walking on air after that one.
We were a company. We were rehearsing for two weeks in a warehouse on the West Side, and we got to know each other as actors and as people. We were playing frisbee out on the floor, and everybody became quite friendly, and quite helpful to other actors. I was still relatively young when I did Fail-Safe, but I can remember the encouragement I got from people like Walter Matthau.
Sidney did an interesting thing. He offered me several parts in it, and I understand he did it to other actors in the company, too. He said, "Which one would you like to play?" He let us have some choice in the matter, which was unusual, to say the least. And I chose a different part. I wasn't particularly close to Colonel Cascio. Then, after thinking it over, he said, "I've decided for the balance of the company that you should play Colonel Cascio." And he said it in such a gentle, persuasive way that of course I accepted with enthusiasm. I wanted to play Walter Matthau's part. It was very similar to a part I had just played on Broadway, and I thought, "I know how to do that one. That's easy for me. I know how to have fun with that." I was wrong. If you see the finished film and you see what Walter did with the role, you'll know that I was too young for that part.
We were having problems with how [Colonel Cascio] breaks down. The character breaks down at one point and actually attacks his commanding offer, because there was a violent diagreement about the choices that have to be made. He's in favor of being tough on the Russians and even dropping the bomb, and when he is overruled, he goes crazy. Authentically crazy. And I had trouble with that one. So Sidney and I got together and we tried several things. One thing we came up with – and it was kind of a mutual thing, but I suspect that I got most of it from him – was just a violent physical convulsion. Locking of the jaw, trembling, to the point where I was out of control physically before actually doing the deed. I don't know if it worked or not. But it was a physical solution to a mental problem, and it seemed to work for me.
He directed me on stage, too. He directed Doctor's Dilemma, the Bernard Shaw play, at the old Phoenix Theater. I played a very small part in it; it was my first part with him. There again, I was in his rooting camp forever from that production, because of the care he took with the young actors. Because I had done that with him, and I had done some Shakespeare at the Shakespeare Festival, Sidney used to say that Beatrice Straight and I were his "classical actors." He had another category called his "New York actors." And we tried very hard, Beatrice and I both, to break out of that category! We wanted to be among these "New York actors" as well, because he was famous for his New York movies, and his understanding of New York. I would have been thought of [by Lumet] as the senator, or perhaps some extreme right-wing character or someone who had some familiarity with language. I always wanted to be among the "New York actors" as well, because I thought I could do it. I couldn't change his point of view. But I saw his point.
Lee Grant
Actor, Danger; Kraft Theatre: "Three Plays by Tennessee Williams" (1958)
Sidney was always intense, and charming, and somehow that made for a very good working combination. I worked with him on a show called Danger, and he had this great brilliance and intensity. He was all over the place. He knew everything. He enjoyed it like a Baryshnikov. He fiddled. Physically, he flew, and in his mind flew. He thought at twice the intensity of anybody else. Keeping the house in order, and keeping this actor here and that actor there, and enjoying the unexpected that came from his actors. But always at an intense, high decibel.
I joined a group that he and Ted Post were the head of, when at a certain point Bobby Lewis threw his class out of the Actors Studio. Eli [Wallach] and a bunch of people went to work in a separate group, and Sidney was the head of it. We did all kinds of exercises and all kinds of scenes, and he directed me in a lot of them. It was a very important experience for me, a big growth experience.
He was a Method director, of course. All of us were part of that – Stella, Lee Strasberg, Sandy Meisner – we all came out of that new acting. What I remember is you doing it, not that he talked to you beforehand. The comments he would make would be small pushes in one direction or another, but never anything he sat down and talked to you about. That's not the way he worked.
["Three Plays by Tennessee Williams" was] deep in the blacklist, and I wasn't working on television at all. I don't know how Sidney pulled strings, or David Susskind, the producer, but it was like a miracle that they managed to get me on. Then I did it, and I didn't like myself in it at all. I had done that play on stage, and I'd done it brilliantly. It had come out of the group that Sidney and I were in, with Sidney directing. A lot of times when you do something for the second time, you lean on what you've done before, and so it wasn't fresh.
When I went into directing myself, and I hit a problem, we were both doing post work at the same studio, I would run into him there, and anything I had a problem with I knew I could ask him about it. He was, as he always was, generous, open, interested in any problem. He was that kind of friend, that's all.
Looking back, I had no idea how privileged I was to be working with young people who were all so energized and gifted and talented, and who had no barriers in front of them. Sidney kind of exemplified the "no barriers." He exemplified leaping first before anyone, and taking all kinds of chances. He maintained that all of his life, that almost childhood thing of leap before you look. There was an excitement and a courage about him that nobody else had.
All of the interviews above were conducted between May and July 2011, by the author and by telephone, except in the cases of Rita Gam (in person, in New York City) and Loring Mandel (by e-mail).
June 12, 2009
Here's a list I've been noodling with lately. The first entry kind of gives it away, but see how quickly you can guess what these films have in common:
Marty (Paddy Chayefsky/Delbert Mann)
Patterns (Rod Serling/Fielder Cook)
The Rack (Rod Serling/Arnold Laven)
The Catered Affair (Paddy Chayefsky/Richard Brooks)
Crime in the Streets (Reginald Rose/Don Siegel)
1984 (William P. Templeton/Michael Anderson)
Ransom (Cyril Hume & Richard Maibaum/Alex Segal)
The Fastest Gun Alive (Frank D. Gilroy/Russell Rouse)
Twelve Angry Men (Reginald Rose/Sidney Lumet)
The Bachelor Party (Paddy Chayefsky/Delbert Mann)
Dino (Reginald Rose/Thomas Carr)
Edge of the City (Robert Alan Aurthur/Martin Ritt)
Spring Reunion (Robert Alan Aurthur/Robert Pirosh)
The Young Stranger (Robert Dozier/John Frankenheimer)
Fear Strikes Out (Mel Goldberg/Robert Mulligan)
Man on Fire (Malvin Wald & Jack Jacobs/Ranald MacDougall)
The D.I. (James Lee Barrett/Jack Webb)
The Unholy Wife (F. W. Durkee, Jr./John Farrow)
The Left-Handed Gun (Gore Vidal/Arthur Penn)
No Time For Sergeants (Ira Levin/Mervyn LeRoy)
Sing Boy Sing (Paul Monash/Henry Ephron)
Middle of the Night (Paddy Chayefsky/Delbert Mann)
The Rabbit Trap (JP Miller/Philip Leacock)
Visit to a Small Planet (Gore Vidal/Norman Taurog)
One Foot in Hell (Aaron Spelling/James B. Clark)
Judgment at Nuremberg (Abby Mann/Stanley Kramer)
The Outsider (Merle Miller/Delbert Mann)
The Hellions (Harold Swanton/Irwin Allen & Ken Annakin)
Days of Wine and Roses (JP Miller/Blake Edwards)
The Miracle Worker (William Gibson/Arthur Penn)
Requiem For a Heavyweight (Rod Serling/Ralph Nelson)
Incident in an Alley (Rod Serling/Edward L. Cahn)
Pressure Point (S. Lee Pogostin/Hubert Cornfield)
A Child Is Waiting (Abby Mann/John Cassavetes)
Dear Heart (Tad Mosel/Delbert Mann)
Baby the Rain Must Fall (Horton Foote/Robert Mulligan)
A Big Hand For the Little Lady (Sidney Carroll/Fielder Cook)
The Incident (Nicholas E. Baehr/Larry Peerce)
Charly (James Yaffe/Ralph Nelson)
The Legend of Lylah Clare (Robert Thom/Robert Aldrich)
Tomorrow (Horton Foote/Joseph Anthony)
Bang the Drum Slowly (Arnold Schulman/John Hancock)
The Trip to Bountiful (Horton Foote/Peter Masterson)
As you've probably deduced already, all of the movies above were adapted from live or videotaped dramas from the "golden age" television anthologies. The writer of the teleplay (but not necessarily of the subsequent screenplay) and the director of the film (but not necessarily of the original TV show) are listed, respectively, in parentheses.
I think it's a revealing compilation because, once you get beyond the Serling and Chayefsky scripts, many of the films are not often cited as having their origins in live television. Mainly that's because most of the authors and the original teleplays never became famous on their own, as Serling and Chayefsky and "Marty" and "Patterns" did.
I can only scratch the surface of this idea here, but I'd like to posit this list as Exhibit A in a theory that the live television adaptation represents a genuine and unacknowledged movement in the history of American cinema. How significant a movement? Less influential, certainly, than Italian neorealism or the French or Japanese New Waves were upon their national cinemas – but perhaps as discrete and coherent as any of those.
One thing that fascinates me about this list is the chronological curve it forms. If you mapped this data on a graph, the line would trace Hollywood's explosion of interest in live television following the success of Marty; the early peak in 1956-1957 during which just about any live TV writer could make a lucrative movie-rights sale; and the gradual falling off as escapism regained ground in mainstream American filmmaking for a time during the mid-sixties.
"Kitchen sink" realism was the umbrella term for the elements of the archetypal fifties television drama: working class characters, urban and ethnic milieus, claustrophobic settings, center-left politics. All of these concerns migrated west to Hollywood on the backs of teleplays purchased from early New York-based TV dramas. So did a new style of emotionally intimate acting that developed in tandem with, and partly within the pressure-cooker workshop of, live television. The American theatrical renaissance of the postwar era – the influence of Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, the Actors Studio, Stella Adler – is often and correctly credited with importing many of these ideas into the cinema. But television was an equally vital conduit.
If this wave of derived-from-live-television films is not enshrined as part of the historical canon, it may be because it foundered so quickly. Part of the problem was simply the process of filmmaking itself, which tended to dilute the characteristics that made television-derived material distinctive. Hour-long scripts were padded to feature length. Shooting in Hollywood studios, with cinematographers and production designers trained to make movie stars and their surroundings look as appealing as possible, added a visual gloss that no amount of carefully positioned garbage in backlot alleys could diminish. The commercial imperative to attract a wider, more mainstream audience led to the de-ethnicization and de-urbanization of characters and scenarios. Ernest Borgnine and Betsy Blair were happier and prettier than television's Marty and Clara.
Another factor in the diminution of the live television school's influence on the movies is the extent to which its major practitioners deviated from the styles they had developed in television. There was no reason to expect otherwise; consider how quickly the Italian neorealist auteurs diverged into maximalism (Fellini), minimalism (Rossellini), abstraction (Antonioni), decadence (Visconti), or banality (De Sica). Here's another list to illustrate this point – a roster of the major live television directors who transitioned into features, with a chronological selection in parentheses of some of their most significant films. The directors are also listed chronologically, according to each man's initial foray into filmmaking:
Delbert Mann (Marty; Separate Tables; That Touch of Mink)
Fielder Cook (Patterns; A Big Hand For the Little Lady; Seize the Day)
Alex Segal (Ransom; All the Way Home; Harlow)
Sidney Lumet (12 Angry Men; Long Day's Journey Into Night; The Pawnbroker)
Martin Ritt (Edge of the City; Hud; The Molly Maguires)
John Frankenheimer (The Young Stranger; The Manchurian Candidate; Grand Prix)
Robert Mulligan (Fear Strikes Out; To Kill a Mockingbird; The Stalking Moon)
Robert Stevens (The Big Caper; In the Cool of the Day; Change of Mind)
Jeffrey Hayden (The Vintage)
Arthur Penn (The Left-Handed Gun; Bonnie and Clyde; Little Big Man)
Vincent Donehue (Lonelyhearts; Sunrise at Campobello)
Daniel Petrie (The Bramble Bush; A Raisin in the Sun; The Neptune Factor)
Buzz Kulik (The Explosive Generation; Warning Shot; Villa Rides)
Ralph Nelson (Requiem For a Heavyweight; Father Goose; Soldier Blue)
George Roy Hill (Period of Adjustment; Hawaii; Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid)
Franklin Schaffner (The Stripper; Planet of the Apes; Patton)
Jack Smight (I'd Rather Be Rich; Harper; Midway)
Elliot Silverstein (Cat Ballou; The Happening; A Man Called Horse)
Paul Bogart (The Three Sisters; Marlowe; Skin Game)
George Schaefer (Pendulum; Doctors' Wives; An Enemy of the People)
I've handpicked the films listed above (and potentially stacked the deck, I realize) to diagram the seemingly inescapable expansion of their directors from television-sized projects into larger-scaled and more stylistically varied films. Instead of building upon the techniques of live TV to develop radically new methods of filmmaking (of the type, say, that John Cassavetes, an actor but never a director in live TV, would do), the live directors all moved toward established Hollywood practices. The directors who resisted or failed to master these conventions are the ones who struggled.
Jeffrey Hayden, in a recent interview, told me that he felt underprepared and overwhelmed when MGM sent him to France with a veteran film crew to make his first (and only) feature. For Hayden, devoting two years to the planning of a single project translated into crushing boredom, and he returned to episodic television. Vincent Donehue is a case study in how live television experience can fail to prepare a director for working on film; nearly every camera angle, blocking choice, and cut in his two films is conspicuously ill-chosen. Delbert Mann, who hewed more closely than most to the kind of material he had directed in television, found worthwhile projects scarce after the mid-sixties. George Roy Hill and Franklin Schaffner were talented filmmakers, but they became such efficient purveyors of large-scaled, star-driven dramas that their roots in television (not to mention their own personalities) are difficult to discern in their work.
The richest filmographies among the directors above belong to those who fused what they learned in television with the broader possibilities of the cinema. Lumet adopted an intimate, mainly realistic approach that relied upon extensive rehearsal to foreground the work of his actors. He developed a preference for practical locations over the soundstages of live TV, and yet returned again and again to a vision of a grimy, teeming New York City.
Frankenheimer, almost a polar opposite, developed an aggressive visual style that drew heavily upon, but extended and refined, the tools available to him in live television: daring camera movements; frequent and extreme shifts in focal length; and complex, assertive editing. Where Lumet rarely chose to draw attention to his camera, Frankenheimer often abdicated in the area of performance, deferring to his actors to make their own choices (and often to overindulge themselves). Yet the basics of both styles derive measurably from live television.
To extend these musings one step further, I wonder to what extent certain aesthetics of live television may have resurfaced in the reborn "New Hollywood" of the seventies. Penn, Lumet, and to a lesser extent Ritt and Mulligan were still making major films at the time, films that attempted to interrogate or dismantle the classicism of their earliest features. The studiously drab imagery of Network and Night Moves, the Method-style acting of Little Big Man and Dog Day Afternoon circle back to the television that Penn and Lumet were directing in the fifties, even though both had flirted with a range of contradictory styles in the interim.
I've always been struck by how many of the key American filmmakers of the seventies who did not come out of live television apprenticed instead in its West Coast counterpart, the episodic filmed TV of the sixties. Altman, Peckinpah, Rafelson, Cassavetes, Spielberg, Sydney Pollack, Michael Ritchie, Stuart Rosenberg, Lamont Johnson, Robert Towne, Alvin Sargent, Frank Pierson, and others all did significant early work there. Any serious pre-history of the New Hollywood movement must take television into account. The initial question that comes to mind: was TV any kind of a positive influence on the mature work of these filmmakers, or just the holding pen from which they broke loose in order to innovate?
Thanks to Jonah Horwitz for correcting some technical errors in my earlier writing on John Frankenheimer, and for adding to my understanding of Frankenheimer's and Lumet's visual strategies. An earlier draft of this piece omitted A Child Is Waiting (1963), Dear Heart (1964), A Big Hand For the Little Lady (1966), and several other films from the first list.


text:
A cookie is a small text file that stores Internet settings. Almost every website uses cookie technology. The cookie is downloaded by your Internet browser the first time you visit a website. The next time you visit this website from the same device, the cookie and the information in it are either sent back to the originating website (first-party cookies) or to another website to which it belongs (third-party cookies). By that, the website can detect that it has already been opened using this browser, and in some cases it will then vary the content it shows.
Some cookies are extremely useful because they can improve your user experience when you return to a website you have already visited. This assumes that you are using the same device and the same browser as before; if so, cookies will remember your preferences, will know how you use the website, and will adapt the content you are shown so that it is more relevant to your personal interests and needs.
Based on what function cookies have and the purpose for which cookies are used, there are four categories of cookie: strictly necessary cookies, performance cookies, functional cookies and marketing cookies.
Are essential in order to enable you to move around the website and use its features. Without these cookies, some services cannot be provided – for example, login authentication, site security, and remembering previous actions when navigating back to a page in the same session.
Gather information about how a website is used – for example, which pages a visitor opens most often, and whether the user receives error messages from some pages. These cookies do not save information that would allow the user to be identified. The collected information is aggregated, and therefore anonymous. These cookies are used exclusively to improve the performance of the website, and with it the user experience.
Enable a website to save information which has already been entered (such as user names, languages choices, and your location), so that it can offer you improved and more personalized functions. These cookies collect anonymous information and cannot track your movements on other websites.
Are used to deliver advertisements and other communications more relevant to you and your interests. They are also used to limit the number of times you see an advertisement and to help measure the effectiveness of advertising campaigns.
If you are using our products services via a web browser, you can restrict, block or remove cookies through your web browser settings. You can also visit https://www.aboutcookies.org for more information on how to manage and remove cookies across a number of different internet browsers. It is important to note that if you change your settings and block certain cookies, you will not be able to take full advantage of some features of our site, and we might not be able to provide some features you have previously chosen to use.
Date: November 30, 2021
Port 58 Apartments @ Hillpoint respects your privacy and is committed to protecting
it through our compliance with this Privacy Policy.
This Privacy Policy describes the types of
information we collect from you or that you may provide to us when you use our
website, products, and services (collectively, the "Sites"), our practices for
collecting, using, maintaining, protecting, and disclosing that information and
the choices you can make about the way in which your information is collected
and used when you use our Sites.
This Privacy
Policy applies to information we collect
when you use our Sites; information you provide when you
use our Sites; information you provide to us if we contact you by other means,
such as telephone, text message and/or email; and information we collect when
you interact with our advertising and applications on third party websites, if
those applications and advertising include links to the Policy.
Please read this Privacy Policy
carefully to understand our policies and practices regarding your information
and how we will treat it. If you do not agree with our policies and practices,
your choice is not to use our Sites. By accessing or using our Sites, you agree
to this Privacy Policy. This Privacy Policy may change from time to time (see
Changes to This Privacy Policy below).
Information We Collect About You And How We Collect It
We collect several types of
information from and about users of our Sites.
you choose to provide to us.
Information you provide to us by completing a leasing form on our
Sites. This includes information by
which you may be personally identified, such as your first and last name, phone
number, email address (personally identifiable information), move-in date,
number of occupants and pets.
Information that you choose to provide to us over the phone if you
contact us at one of the phone numbers listed on our Sites.
Information that you provide to us if you apply to lease one of
our apartments, which includes in addition to the personally identifiable
information listed above, your SSN or ITIN, income, credit information, employment
information, vehicle information, and bank information. In addition, you will
be asked to provide the name, date of birth and relationship of additional
Information we collect through automatic data
collection technologies.
As you navigate through and interact with
our Sites, we may use automatic data collection technologies to collect certain information about your equipment, browsing
actions and patterns, including:
· your IP address, the type of browser and operating system used;
· date and time you access our Sites and pages you visit, and if you
linked from or to another website, the address of that website; and
your ISP or
mobile carrier, and the type of handheld or mobile device that you used.
information we collect automatically helps us to improve our Sites and to
deliver a better and more personalized service, including by enabling us to: estimate
our audience size and usage patterns; store information about your preferences,
allowing us to customize our Sites according to your individual interests; speed up
your searches; and recognize you when you return to our Sites.
Data Technologies. The
technologies we use for this automatic data collection may include:
Analytics. In addition to using cookies and
related technologies as described above, we use Google Analytics to help us
understand how our customers use our Sites. You can opt-out of Google Analytics
here: https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout.
Adwords. We also use third party vendor
re-marketing tracking cookies, including the Google Adwords tracking cookie.
This means we will continue to show ads to you across the internet. As always
we respect your privacy and are not collecting any identifiable information
through the use of Google's or any other third party remarketing system. If you don't want to
see our ads, you can opt-out of interest-based
advertising here http://optout.networkadvertising.org/.
Do-Not-Track Signals
Some browsers incorporate a "Do Not Track"
("DNT") feature that, when turned on, signals to websites with which they
communicate that you do not want to be tracked. Because there is not yet
an accepted standard for how to respond to a DNT signal, we do not currently
respond to DNT signals on this Sites.
How We Use Your Information
We use
information that we collect about you or that you provide to us, including any
personally identifiable information:
Disclosure of Your Information
We may
disclose information that we collect about you or that you provide us,
including any personally identifiable information, as described in this Privacy Policy:
To contractors, service providers, and other third parties we use to
support our business and who are bound by contractual obligations to keep
personal information confidential and use it only for the purposes for which we
disclose it to them. These third parties may include companies that process
credit card information, manage our email or texting campaign, provide credit
and criminal screening, analyze data, and provide search results and links.
We may
disclose without restriction aggregated information about our users and
information that does not identify an individual.
Data Security
We have in place what we believe to be reasonable physical,
electronic and managerial procedures to safeguard and help prevent unauthorized
access of, maintain data security for and correctly use the personal
information you have provided. However, while such efforts are intended to
ensure the confidentiality of your personal information available to us as a
result of your use of our services, we cannot and do not warrant or guarantee
the absolute safety and security of your personal information.
Special Note for Parents
Our Sites are
intended for a general audience and were not designed for children.
Changes to This
Privacy Policy
We reserve the right
to make changes to our Privacy Policy from time to time for any reason. Such
changes, modifications, additions or deletions shall be effective immediately
upon posting, unless otherwise indicated. In the event of any changes to this Privacy Policy that
materially impact your rights or obligations, we will notify you by posting a
notice on our Sites. We encourage you to periodically check back and review
this Privacy Policy so that you always will know what information we collect,
how we use it and to whom we disclose it.
If you have any
questions, please contact us at (757) 627-8611.


text:
G reel, added 2019-12-07
ABC Source
You can edit the ABC source, and see your changes. This will NOT change the website directly. A brief set of instructions is found here.
ABC Status:
If you feel that your changes are a closer match to the recording on the website, please save your changes (Download ABC button), send them to us at firstname.lastname@example.com, and we will review the proposed changes.
The audio for this tune is sourced from Fergal Scahill. Permission to use is gratefully acknowledged and the audio is made available under this licence: "© Fergal Scahill. All Rights Reserved."
Source of Recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfUBAUkuLA0
The music notation was derived from Henrik Norbeck's ABC Tunes


text:
Why did the hackers at Lulz Security ("LulzSec") invade Sony Pictures websites, take down cia.gov, and release 60,000+ e-mail addresses and passwords? For the lulz, of course—but what might look lulzy to one person could certainly enrage another. In honor of its 1,000th tweet, the witty wankers of LulzSec released a manifesto of sorts, defending their actions to the angry Internets.
Sure, they're in it for the lulz, but they claim that their behavior is also in the public interest. What—don't most public servants end their dispatches with "Thank you, bitches"?
Enemies list
LulzSec certainly has enemies. Gamers in particular have been agitated by the group's attack on login servers for games like EVE Online. Angrier, perhaps, have been those whose e-mail, Facebook, and PayPal account passwords were leaked—and who then had to watch as Twittizens celebrated the sometimes-criminal misuse of those accounts.
"Cheers for the paypal account with £250 in it! ;)" tweeted a user named Murraaayyy. "Oh and just got a random Hotmail with usernames and passwords for Amazon, Ebay, Game, Paypal and Xbox! #LulzSecIsGod."
Murraaayyy soon followed up to say that "whoevers paypal account this is will be receiving; Giant Foam Trollface x 1, Mature Cum Eating Grannies Dvd x 1 and A Fishtank x 1."
Another user wrote that he "ordered a large pack of condoms for an elderly woman on Amazon."
User TheDancingMilk, whose tweets suggest that he's a student, wrote, "@LulzSec Got an Xbox Live, Paypal, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube THE WHOLE LOT! J-J-J-J-J-J-JACKPOT." Most of the hacks apparently came from the LulzSec release of 60,000 e-mail addresses and passwords; many people reuse passwords and commonly use e-mail addresses as usernames, providing easy access to multiple services. That was the case here: "Yeah, idiot had the same password for everything."
(LulzSec has blamed users for this sort of password reuse when it released usernames and passwords from a Sony Pictures hack. "I hear there's been some funny scamming with jacked Sony accounts. That's what you get for using the same password everywhere," the group tweeted. "Hey innocent people whose data we leaked: blame @Sony.")
Such public admissions can invite a quick backlash. After LuzSec retweeted TheDancingMilk's comments, he wrote, "So getting your tweet re-tweeted by @LulzSec automatically makes people DOX you. How fun." ("Dox" refers to publicly posting someone's identifying information; it's usually followed by harassment. Admitting to computer crimes on Twitter, though, may well invite a more private form of "doxing" from the police.)
Lulz lizards
Such accounts are impossible to verify, but LulzSec has apparently been stung by the response to its antics. Its new manifesto admits to having "a mass of enemies, albeit mainly gamers." As for the release of unencrypted usernames and passwords, LulzSec says "hey, it's funny":
Yes, yes, there's always the argument that releasing everything in full is just as evil, what with accounts being stolen and abused, but welcome to 2011. This is the lulz lizard era, where we do things just because we find it entertaining. Watching someone's Facebook picture turn into a penis and seeing their sister's shocked response is priceless. Receiving angry emails from the man you just sent 10 dildos to because he can't secure his Amazon password is priceless. You find it funny to watch havoc unfold, and we find it funny to cause it. We release personal data so that equally evil people can entertain us with what they do with it.
Most of you reading this love the idea of wrecking someone else's online experience anonymously. It's appealing and unique, there are no two account hijackings that are the same, no two suddenly enraged girlfriends with the same expression when you admit to killing prostitutes from her boyfriend's recently stolen MSN account, and there's certainly no limit to the lulz lizardry that we all partake in on some level.
But LulzSec says that those upset at the data releases have missed the point. LulzSec claims it is bringing attention to real security issues; other hackers are doing the same things to the same sites, but they're keeping the information private, and probably preparing it for more nefarious uses.
Do you think every hacker announces everything they've hacked? We certainly haven't, and we're damn sure others are playing the silent game. Do you feel safe with your Facebook accounts, your Google Mail accounts, your Skype accounts? What makes you think a hacker isn't silently sitting inside all of these right now, sniping out individual people, or perhaps selling them off? You are a peon to these people. A toy. A string of characters with a value.
This is what you should be fearful of, not us releasing things publicly, but the fact that someone hasn't released something publicly. We're sitting on 200,000 Brink users right now that we never gave out. It might make you feel safe knowing we told you, so that Brink users may change their passwords. What if we hadn't told you? No one would be aware of this theft, and we'd have a fresh 200,000 peons to abuse, completely unaware of a breach.
Or perhaps LulzSec is engaged in a philosophical game, holding up a mirror to Internet culture and its love of memes, scandal, and trivia. Do Internet users not, the group asks, demand to be entertained? And is not LulzSec providing that entertainment?
We've been entertaining you 1,000 times with 140 characters or less, and we'll continue creating things that are exciting and new until we're brought to justice, which we might well be. But you know, we just don't give a living fuck at this point - you'll forget about us in 3 months' time when there's a new scandal to gawk at, or a new shiny thing to click on via your 2D light-filled rectangle
This is the Internet, where we screw each other over for a jolt of satisfaction. There are peons and lulz lizards; trolls and victims.
If you want to blame someone, says LulzSec, blame human nature—not the individual humans actually doing the hacks, leaking the data, and then logging into other people's accounts.
"Nobody is truly causing the Internet to slip one way or the other," says the statement, "it's an inevitable outcome for us humans."
Update: Just to make it perfectly clear, I am describing the LulzSec arguments in this piece, not endorsing them in any way. It is LulzSec, not Ars, who wants to pin the blame for the entire situation on human nature, etc. I've updated the final section to more explicitly note that these are LulzSec arguments.
Update 2: Interesting response to LulzSec from a former troll who grew up and became "a different person." Money quote:
"Alas, I don't think anything i'll say will register with you. I don't think you have the capability for anything complex because, to be frank, everything you've done has the signature of a child. You will eventually tire of this game because eventually you're going to grow up. Just remember when you do that it's not important what you do - it's who you are. So please, just take a moment and sit down, and i'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called bel air."


text:
1928 Jewelry
1928 Jewelry Red Ribbon King Balthazar Ornament
63913Regular price $38.00 USD Save $-38.00 USD
Limited edition 1928 ornament featuring King Balthazar made in dark blue and dark red enamel on a gold tone frame. This Magi ornament won't last long!
- Dark Blue And Dark Red Enamel
- Measurements: 3.35"L x 2.56"W
- Red Ribbon
From the vaults of rich European capitals to the antique laden attics of old American estates, 1928 Jewelry has created modern replicas of the most beautiful, exquisite vintage jewelry ever made. For those who love all things vintage...1928 is for the chic fashionista on the hunt for affordable antique and vintage inspired jewelry and accessories. Take a peek through collection and you'll find styles that are simple and charming, elegant and classy, bold and dramatic or quirky and unique in the form earrings, necklaces, bracelets, brooches, pins, rings and more.


text:
Buna-N O-Ring (1mm Wide 37mm ID)
The most commonly used O-Ring material due to it's strength and durability. They are suitable for a broad range of fluids including oils, water, and mild chemicals.*Please contact email@example.com or call 1-844-365-7315 to learn about pricing and purchase minimums*
- Color: Black
- Cross Section (mm): 1
- Durometer: 70A
- Grade: Standard
- Hardness: Standard
- ID (mm): 37
- Inch/Metric: Metric
- Material: Buna-N
- Outter Diameter (mm): 39
- Profile: Round
- Temp Range: -40 to 250 (F)


text:
Akeley, MN Lake Properties - Rusty's Up North Realty
Lake Properties on Akeley, MN from Rusty's Up North Realty, your trused local realtor with homes for sale, waterfront properties, lake cabins, luxury executive homes, hunting land, and commercial properties in the greater Akeley, MN, Bakus, and Longville area.
Lake Properties on Akeley, MN
Akeley, MN Lake Properties
Looking for Lake Properties on Akeley, MN? You have arrived at the right place!
Rusty's Up North Realty will help you find waterfront properties for sale on Akeley, MN and and search area properties by price, size, Akeley, MN - or any other criteria you have. Our experienced agents know the area better than anyone! Whether you're looking for properties you can hunt on, a spot on a good Muskie lake, or a nice hard bottom sandy beach - we'll make it happen with you!
We specialize in Akeley, MN Lake Properties, and have all of the current listings available online.
Knowledge is power when it comes to the waterfront properties for sale in the Akeley, MN area market. There are a wide range of unique characteristics and features that are important to the properties. With an experienced agent that is familiar with the area, you have a competitive advantage. Many factors can determine the price and value of properties, such as;
- Time on market
- Properties history
- Lakes and water quality
- Local terrain and features
- Proximity to schools and hospitals
Trust our experienced, local agents to understand your needs and help choose properties to fit your exact desires. We know all the in's and out's of the area and can provide you with educated answers, and give you practical advice to help you secure the properties of your dreams! Contact us with any questions you have, or to request more waterfront properties for sale on Akeley, MN information. Use the contact form below, or click the button to search our waterfront properties for sale on Akeley, MN listings right now!
Search Our Area Listings For Lake Properties on Akeley, MN
Search now! Take a closer look at the waterfront properties for sale on Akeley, MN, MN listings. We feature an extensive database of local listings and provide comprehensive properties details, so you can be sure that you all the info you need upfront. Also search our listings in nearby areas, as well as other types of properties using our Listings Search, below. You can also Contact Us with any questions, at any time!


text:
$60.63 $121.27
Abstract Botanical Flower, Line Art, 3 Piece Wall Art, Abstract Painting, Abstract Print, Canvas Wall Art, Abstract Art Print
At ArtistiCorner, we pour our love into every piece of art we create and we pride ourselves that we pay great attention even to the smallest detail. Thus we know that you'll find something at ArtistiCorner, that will brighten the day for you and your loved ones.!
My shop "ArtistiCorner - Mali's Art" is a collection of various kinds of artwork that I am creating.
Explore more at https://www.etsy.com/shop/ArtistiCorner
Please select your chosen print size from the drop-down menu.
Papers & Canvas:
All my artworks up to 12" x 16" and A3 are printed on Archival Cold Press Bright Watercolor Paper that retains the look & feel of the original painting.
All the artworks that are bigger than A3, 12" x 16" printed on high-quality photo paper - 270 gsm.
Canvas Prints are printed using a high-quality European canvas made of 100% cotton.
Please note that CANVAS prints will be shipped UNSTRETCHED & UNFRAMED.
All prints come WITHOUT a signature. Please let me know if you'd like it signed by me.
Any frame is not included.
All prints come UNFRAMED and have a small border for framing.
All the paper prints are printed leaving a small white border for framing.
The prints on canvas are printed leaving 4" for stretching.
I love custom work and most of our artworks can be personalized with a change of color, initials, name, date, wishes, or quotes. Please send me a message.
A Shipping upgrade is available in the cart for Express shipping.
Please Note:
** Frame is not included. It is ONLY for
illustration purposes.
** Colors may vary between different
** The image sizes are not to scale. This
is for illustration purposes ONLY.
** For all the artworks that are bigger
than A3, 12" x 16", we need 2-4 more
business days to be prepared
Thank you for visiting ArtistiCorner!
Check ArtistiCorner for new listings: https://www.etsy.com/shop/ArtistiCorner
1-3 business days
Buyers are responsible for any customs and import taxes that may apply. I'm not responsible for delays due to customs.
But please contact me if you have any problems with your order.
Information I Collect
To fulfill your order, you must provide me with certain information (which you authorized Etsy to provide to me), such as your name, email address, postal address, payment information, and the details of the product that you're ordering. You may also choose to provide me with additional personal information (for a custom order of any artwork, for example) if you contact me directly.
Why I Need Your Information and How I Use It
I rely on a number of legal bases to collect, use, and share your information, including:
as needed to provide my services, such as when I use your information to fulfill your order, to settle disputes, or to provide customer support;
when you have provided your affirmative consent, which you may revoke at any time, such as by signing up for my mailing list;
if necessary to comply with a legal obligation or court order or in connection with a legal claim, such as retaining information about your purchases if required by tax law.
as necessary for the purpose of my legitimate interests, if those legitimate interests are not overridden by your rights or interests, such as:
1) providing and improving my services. I use your information to provide the services you requested and in my legitimate interest to improve my services, and
2) Compliance with the Etsy Seller Policy and Terms of Use. I use your information as necessary to comply with my obligations under the Etsy Seller Policy and Terms of Use.
Information Sharing and Disclosure
Information about my customers is important to my business. I share your personal information for very limited reasons and in limited circumstances, as follows:
Etsy. I share information on Etsy as necessary to provide you my services and comply with my obligations under both the Etsy Seller Policy and Etsy Terms of Use.
Service providers. I engage certain trusted third parties to perform functions and provide services to my shop, such as delivery companies. I will share your personal information with these third parties, but only to the extent necessary to perform these services.
Business Transfers. If I sell or merge my business, I may disclose your information as part of that transaction, only to the extent permitted by law.
Compliance with laws. I may collect, use, retain, and share your information if I have a good faith belief that it is reasonably necessary to:
(a) respond to legal process or to government requests.
(b) enforce my agreements, terms, and policies.
(c) prevent, investigate, and address fraud and other illegal activity, security, or technical issues.
(d) protect the rights, property, and safety of my customers, or others.
Data Retention
I retain your personal information only for as long as necessary to provide you with my services and as described in my Privacy Policy. However, I may also be required to retain this information to comply with my legal and regulatory obligations, to resolve disputes, and to enforce my agreements. I generally keep your data for the following time period: 4 years.
Transfers of Personal Information Outside the EU
I may store and process your information through third-party hosting services in the US and other jurisdictions. As a result, I may transfer your personal information to a jurisdiction with different data protection and government surveillance laws than your jurisdiction. If I am deemed to transfer information about you outside of the EU, I rely on Privacy Shield as the legal basis for the transfer, as Google Cloud is Privacy Shield certified.
Sizes are in inches. ALL PRINTS ARE UNFRAMED. CANVAS PRINTS ARE NOT STRETCHED.
All prints are shipped flat in a cardboard mailer, we do not offer gift wrapping (as it increases the cost of shipping) but are happy to include a birthday note or celebration note.
Any Art print can be personalized with a name, initials, date, your wishes or add a quote. Just send me a convo.
Please don't hesitate to contact me for personalisation and/or change of colors or dimensions add a quote. No extra charge!
CUSTOM ORDERS made especially for you and personalized items (with names, date, or some other personalization) are not refundable or exchangeable.
Custom order sales are considered final. (no returns or exchanges, except for if they were damaged in transit).


text:
Old Native American wisdom. We need to gather as one people to save earth and all people.
Wisdom of the Medicine wheel.(I have been lucky. Many kind Native American took me under their wing and taught me how to find peace.)
At the Mall I went to the so-call Native American store.
A Middle East man tried to sell me a China's made items.
I touched a Medicine Wheel.
I told the man.
"A proper Medicine Wheel has the power of the four winds."
I touched a Dream Catcher.
"A real one would protect your spirit and keep bad dreams away."
He grins at me.
He didn't understand a word that I spoke.
He told me.
"Does the same things."
I leave the store with nothing.
Sitting with my Apache Friend outside the gate of Fort Hood, Texas.
I sat and listen to him.
His skin hardens from the Texas sun.
I came and sat with him every Saturday for many months.
He had a story for every item he sold.
I brought him food and water.
His stories were passed on to him by family and elders.
He gave me a Medicine Wheel.
He rose up and made a circle with his hands.
He told me. "All people are part of the circle of life."
"We all have a purpose."
With sadness in his voice.
"Us Apache and Native Americans were responsible to protect Nature.
We did a poor job."
"The white people were responsible for the fire.
They shared their gift and now fire is held in every corner of the planet.
Eyes looking at the ground.
Then he raise his eyes and look to the sky.
The fire was taught(Atomic and nuclear) too well."
"The black people held the strength, wisdom and honor.
The wisdom of the black people lost direction.
We need their strength before we kill off all that is good."
"The yellow people have courage, leadership and clarity.
The gentle and calm souls will be necessary for this world to seek peace."
"The medicine wheel is a compass to all life.
We must know all four directions."
At a Pow Wow in Texas.
A few Native Americans danced and invited all to dance the dance of friendship.
An old Apache man moved around the circle.
Burning sage and blessing everyone who came today.
He welcome us.
He began to speak.
"We were the last Americans allow to dance our Native dances.
We were the last allowed to speak our language in public.
We have not forgotten.
We go on and hope for better days."
He blessed all of us and his kind eyes show respect for all.
He raise his hands and spoke to the sky.
"Teach us four winds.
Give us wisdom.
Teach us humility.
Show us clarity.
Allow us to trust our brothers."
I'm proud of my Ojibwa heritage.
I'm proud of my Mexican/white heritage.
The Medicine wheel showed us we are one.
We need to work together.
Red, black, white and yellow were given gifts.
Old Apache raised his hands to the sky.
Then create a full circle.
He moved slowly around the inner circle and looked in all our eyes.
"We are one.
Let's pray for peace."
East wind-Yellow people-Path of light-Spiritual-courage.
West wind Red people-Path of vision-physical-prayer
North wind-White people-Path of quiet-Mental-wisdom
South wind-Black people-Path of peace-natural-trust
(This is a view of many years of learning. Every teacher tells the story different. I believe we are one people. Peace will come when we learn to work together.)
Black, White, Red and Yellow are the four corners of the Medicine Wheel. All with important gifts to bring peace with each other and the planet.
Via John Coyote
The poet/editor of this website is physically disabled, and lives at a fraction of her nation's poverty level. Contributions may be made at: https://www.gofundme.com/are-you-a-patron-of-the-arts.