Columns
November 19, 1927 PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Thursday, 20 November 2014 15:50

NOTES OF A REPORTER AT LARGE

By Mel Lavine • Special to the Times

I was born in Boston November 19, 1927, the day of the perennial Harvard-Yale game. I know this because my father was at the stadium. No Harvard grad (a year or so at some cockamamie business school was as far as he got) but everybody living in Boston then rooted for the Crimson Tide. It came with the territory.

Calvin Coolidge was in the White House. Silent Cal they called him and for good reason. He was a president who took pride in doing as little as possible. His greatest fan was Ronald Reagan. When Coolidge died, Dorothy Parker is reputed to have said, “How can they tell?”

Herbert Hoover followed Coolidge. Hoover’s White House years were from March 4, 1929 to March 4, 1933. Hoover got beat badly when he ran for re-election but I was five years old and all I can remember is that my parents were rabid Republicans. My father, a flooring contractor, believed the Republicans really cared about the small businessman; my mother, bless her heart, was a snob.

In the 1936 election when Alf Landon, the governor of Kansas lost in a hopeless contest with Franklin Roosevelt, my mother confessed to me she had voted Democratic. After swearing me to secrecy, she said she couldn’t bring herself to vote for Landon. He was too ordinary. For all his faults Roosevelt was at least an aristocrat.

I came of age, politically speaking, in the age of Roosevelt, no secret to anyone who has ever gone to the trouble of reading this column. Radio was in its heyday and FDR its master. On almost any night that he was on the air, you could walk the quarter mile of Beals Street and not miss a beat. He was in office so long – twelve years –  through  the Great Depression and the Second World War – that it was hard to accept the fact that he was no more on April 12, 1945.

His successor, Harry Truman, was unpopular during most of his time in the White House. Hardly anyone expected him to win in 1948 when he faced New York governor Thomas E. Dewey. But he did win in an upset and has continued to grow in the esteem of historians and the public.

I didn’t vote for Eisenhower (Stevenson was my man) but Ike was an able supreme commander in World War Two and, in hindsight, a pretty good president.

Kennedy never lived long enough, and we’ll never know how he might have done. Johnson was a brilliant politician but he felt insecure following the glamorous Kennedy. Nixon was a brilliant fellow, too, but insecurity also made him his own worst enemy.

Most of you must be old enough to figure out the rest on your own.

But I do want to say that while I would like President Obama to show more spine on Wall Street, jobs and health care, it is remarkable enough that the country has matured to the point when it can elect a non-white president.

As for how old I am today, November 19, 2009, you do the math. I can’t deal with it.

This column first appeared on Nov. 19, 2009.

Mel Lavine was a television producer for many years with NBC News and CBS News in New York.



 
After the Deluge PDF  | Print |  E-mail
User Rating: / 2
PoorBest 
Thursday, 13 November 2014 15:42

NOTES OF A REPORTER AT LARGE

By Mel Lavine • Special to the Times

Stephen Colbert, the political satirist, published one of his occasional letters in the New York Times. This one came on the heels of last week’s election.

“In a slightly parallel universe,” he wrote, “it would be interesting to see how Democratic senators would have fared if instead of running from President Obama, they had embraced this leader who saved the country from another depression; saved the auto industry; brought unemployment down from 10 percent to below 6 percent; killed America’s greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden; passed health insurance reform; and put out constant fires.

“If instead of embracing the flawed media narration of a failed presidency,” Colbert added, “Democratic senatorial candidates had embraced Mr. Obama’s monumental accomplishments, I believe they would be returning to Washington next year as senators, not as lobbyists.”

In fact, five of the senatorial candidates Obama campaigned for in the last days of the election lost. Four others won, all in blue states.

From the beginning I thought Obama was too willing to compromise on reforming health care with Republicans whose goal was to cripple his presidency. Some days I wanted to see Obama take a punch and give one or two in return. But it wasn’t his style. The country may not have been up to it.

American democracy is still a work in progress. Sometimes Obama talked too long but it was in the tradition of some of his celebrated predecessors. The story is told about  a visitor who had an appointment to see Theodore Roosevelt at the White House.  He came out looking dazed. A friend asked what he’d told the president.  He never got the chance. “I told him my name,” he said. “And he talked for an hour.”

*   *   *

When Obama was elected president on November 7, 2008 it really did seem like morning in America. The headline in the New York Times the next day cried out: “Racial Barrier Falls in Decisive Victory.” The story from the Times’ Adam Nagourney’s said:

Obama’s election “swept away the last racial barrier in American politics with ease as the country chose him as its first black chief executive. The election of Mr. Obama amounted to a national catharsis – a repudiation of a historically unpopular Republican president (George W. Bush) and his economic and foreign policies and an embrace of Mr. Obama’s call for change and the direction and the tone of the county.”

It seems like a half-century ago when I read the piece, but it really was only yesterday.

Mel Lavine was a television producer for many years with NBC News and CBS News in New York. Contact him at his e-mail address: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .


 
The Fading Humanities PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Thursday, 06 November 2014 15:39

NOTES OF A REPORTER AT LARGE

By Mel Lavine • Special to the Times

It’s not Iran, nor health care, nor immigration, nor even the loss of liberty in the name of security – it’s  none of these – and yet,  it is as worrisome an issue as any of the others, maybe more so.

It’s the loss of interest in the humanities. The most popular major at Stanford, one of the country’s most prestigious colleges, is computer science. There are no longer any humanities programs among the school’s most popular five, according to a recent report in the New York Times.

The economy has a great deal to do with it. The recession has helped turn college into vocational training. Students, like most of us, have cause to worry where their future is coming from. Only 15 percent of Stanford students are enrolled in the humanities.”  At the same time nearly half of the faculty teaches literature, philosophy, art, etc.

How representative is Stanford? Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, a public institution, said in September it was closing degree programs in German, philosophy, and languages and culture because of scant interest. Over the last decade, Harvard had a 20 percent drop in humanities majors and, “most students who say they intend to major in humanities end up in other fields,” noted the Times.

A big part of the picture has to do with the push from the White House to build up scientific productivity. Every other day, or so it seems, the president calls for more money for science and technology. No surprise that the American Academy of Arts and Sciences is complaining that it is being taken for a stepchild. Its federal funding is decreasing.

While interest has been fading in the humanities at elite schools like Stanford, its professors, we learn, are producing important scholarship. They are “generously” paid, work in “stunning surroundings” and have “access to the latest technology and techniques of scholarship,” the Times said, adding, “The only thing they lack is students.”

Pauline Yu is president of the American Council of Learned Societies. She complains, “College is increasingly being defined narrowly as job preparation, not as something designed to educate the whole person.”

Mark Edmundson, an English professor at the University of Virginia, also complains about hearing academics talking about the necessity of preparing students for jobs. “I think that’s conceding too quickly,” he said to the paper. “We’re not a feeder for law school; our job is to help students learn to question.”

Although the University of Virginia was down to 394 English majors last year from 501 when he came to the school in 1984, Edmundson  does not fear for the future. “In the end, we can’t lose,” he said. “We have William Shakespeare.”

Maybe. But if interest in the humanities continues to fade at places like Stanford and Harvard, and elsewhere, a nation of techies may well ask, “Shakespeare Who?”

This column originally appeared on Nov. 28, 2013. Mel Lavine was a television producer for many years with NBC News and CBS News in New York. Contact him at his e-mail address: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .


 
What do the People Want? PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Thursday, 30 October 2014 14:55

NOTES OF A REPORTER AT LARGE

By Mel Lavine • Special to the Times

What do the people want? What would they have? Is the country in such straits, so impoverished in intellect and innovation, imagination and talent, as to be ready to deliver the presidency to yet another family dynasty? Did the wrong side win the Revolutionary War? As Patrick Henry, the orator and a major figure of the American Revolution, might have said: Is this the way for a democratic society to go? Perish the thought!

In Monday’s New York Times we are informed that the Bushes are rallying to make brother Jeb the 45th president. The family believes it’s  Jeb’s turn.

He was a two-term Florida governor who made way for George W., an older brother, to be president when George W. gave up drinking, and was elected governor of Texas. The White House was his reward. After serving two terms as president, George W. left the White House quietly in the wake of the mess in Iraq he left for the rest of us.

George Herbert Walker Bush, the founder of the family dynasty, is 90. He was the 41st president, after being Ronald Reagan’s vice president in the 1980s. He’d lasted only one-term as president. Elected in 1988, he was defeated by Bill Clinton in ’92 – in large part with the help of  Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire who ran as an independent. Perot may have helped elect Clinton. He  made it clear he was no fan of George H.W. Bush.

The Clintons, Bill and Hillary, are hard at work making their Democratic dynasty. If Hillary does decide to run and if she is the nominee of her party  and if she is elected  (lots of “ifs”) you might be able to say that the Clintons might  be  the first since the Roosevelts to be in residence at the White House for  more than 12  years. Speaking of dynasties!

*    *    *

We learned last weekend of the death of the astrologer Joan Quigley on Tuesday, October 21, at her home in San Francisco. She was 87, according to her sister Ruth Quigley, and only survivor.

Joan Quigley  was an astrologer who had access to Nancy Reagan with advice for President Reagan on “summit meetings presidential debates, Reagan’s 1985 cancer surgery and much more,” according to the Times, quoting from an 1988 memoir by Donald T. Regan, a former Reagan chief of staff.

Regan, the ex-chief of staff, did not know the astrologer’s name when he wrote the book, but he said the Vassar-educated Quigley – made her celestial recommendations  in phone calls to the first lady, sometimes as often as two or three a day. Regan had also been Reagan’s Treasury secretary and the chief executive of Merrill Lynch.

In an interview with CBS News in 1989, after Reagan left office, Miss Quigley said that after reading the horoscope of the Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev, she decided he was open to compromise and new ideas and persuaded Mrs. Reagan to urge her husband to abandon his view of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” There’s no evidence to support her claim but arms reduction treaties did follow.

In his memoir, “For the Record, from Wall Street to Washington,’  Regan discusses his disagreements with Nancy Reagan, including the claim that Nancy’s personal astrologer, Joan Quigley, helped steer the president’s decisions to some degree.

Mel Lavine was a television producer for many years with NBC News and CBS News in New York. Contact him at his e-mail address: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .


 
Still Going Strong at 90 PDF  | Print |  E-mail
User Rating: / 2
PoorBest 
Thursday, 23 October 2014 14:56

NOTES OF A REPORTER AT LARGE

By Mel Lavine • Special to the Times

This may be something for the Guiness Book of Records. A colleague of long-ago is still chasing the news at 90. I’m sure there are a dwindling few who are still at it at 90 or older but probably not at Gabe’s pace.

I  knew the indefatigable Gabe Pressman, New York’s premier street reporter. He, along with Mike Wallace, and some others when the medium was young, more or less invented the “gotcha” or surprise interview. With cameras rolling they barged in on  key figures, asking questions; fearlessly sometimes but often boorishly and foolishly.

A dark, short, frenetic man with darting, coal-black eyes he was one of the first to venture forth with a camera crew and a microphone to interview the man/woman on the street concerning the latest natural disaster, or crime wave, or political heist. Street reporters like Gabe had to press fast to keep up with the competition from  rival stations. All day, if not every hour,  bulletins or flashes  gave people something new to worry about. Journalists like Gabe had need to keep up with every twist and turn of the story.

For a few years I produced his late night news show at WNBC in New York. It’s hard to know when Gabe slept. If the story were big enough he was up at all hours. He must have slept with his clothes on, another way of saying this newsman had only to spring out of bed, jump in his car (the station hired a car and driver for him) and raced off into the night to get the story.

During those years my phone at home would start ringing at 7 ayem. My wife and I knew only one early caller. It was always Gabe, wanting to be reassured. Did he get the story? Was he too tough or not tough enough? Honestly, how did he come across? I always said that his was a bravo performance. And so would began another day in local news.

Thanks to an e-mail from a New York friend, I caught a reference to Gabe in a story about New York’s Mayor Bill de Blasio. Gabe’s name was in the first sentence: “For a moment, the newsman Gabe Pressman caught Mayor Bill de Blasio’s eye on Fifth Avenue during the Columbus Day parade this week. Mr. Pressman, 90, has about 60 years of experience flagging down politicians during parades and public events. ‘I thought I saw an invitation in his eyes to ask a question,’ said Mr. Pressman, who reports for WNBC-TV. ‘But then there was a scrum, a lot of pushing and shoving.’”

The mayor and his wife, Chirlane McCray, “were swept along by security and for the next 25 blocks, reporters – not including Mr. Pressman – pursued, but were kept away.” Gabe knew better than to waste his time in vain.

The first time I met Gabe I was a journalism student at Columbia. It was

November 22, 1963, the day President Kennedy was shot. “How do you feel?” he said, importuning homeward bound commuters. “You’ve heard the news. The president’s been assassinated. How do you feel?’

How do you feel?

I was appalled, thinking that’s not digging for a story, that’s child’s stuff.

Looking back fifty years later I can see where Gabe’s approach made sense. He instinctively knew that TV, at its core, was theatre, an ideal conduit for conveying emotions, as well as information.

It was good to know that Gabe was still going strong.

Mel Lavine was a television producer for many years with NBC News and CBS News in New York. Contact him at his e-mail address: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .


 
‘Pay Any Price’ PDF  | Print |  E-mail
User Rating: / 2
PoorBest 
Thursday, 16 October 2014 15:16

NOTES OF A REPORTER AT LARGE

By Mel Lavine • Special to the Times

In his new book, “Pay Any Price: Greed, Power and Endless War,” James Risen, a Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter for the New York Times, makes a case that the untold story behind the war on terror during the past 13 years has been about greed, costing billions in taxpayer dollars. Risen traces the long-range consequences to  American leaders run amuck after the  9/11attacks.

In a Times review by Thomas E. Ricks, a former reporter at the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, and an adviser on national security at the new America Foundation, “Pay Any Price” takes us “into an unsettled noirish world in which scam artists and thieves swarm government agencies, peddling phony software and other novel tools for the war against terror.”

According to Ricks, the Times reviewer, Risen claims the Bush White House was “throwing money at the terrorist problem, and plenty of people were willing to catch bundles.”

Risen told Judy Woodruff on the News Hour on Monday, that he took the title of his book from John Kennedy’s Inaugural delivered in the time of the Cold War. In the speech, on January 20, 1962, Kennedy declared, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” The rhetoric has served the purposes of presidents ever since.

I haven’t gotten around to Risen’s new book yet, but I have long been following his  reporting for the Times. He comes across as mild-mannered on the air, but in print he is one of the toughest investigative reporters around. His last book was “State of War”  published in 2006. The government reportedly tried to suppress it, but the author made it to “60 Minutes.”

“If we...had only had information that was officially authorized from the U.S. government,” he has said, “we would know virtually nothing about the war on terror.”

On the News Hour, Risen was asked if there was a parallel in history to our own time when the national security agency looks into our private lives in defiance of the U.S. Constitution? Risen said yes, referring to the  days of  Senator Joseph McCarthy. In the early 1950s, McCarthy made sensational but unproved charges of communist subversion in high government circles.

I was a young reporter in those times up in Eureka and I can say he was a frightening figure. Friends of mine believed McCarthy’s lies about a communist conspiracy inside the Eisenhower White House, State Department and Army. It seemed as if the world had gone to the dogs, howling outside the door.

Mel Lavine was a television producer for many years with NBC News and CBS News in New York. Contact him at his e-mail address: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .



 
The More the World Changes PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Thursday, 09 October 2014 14:25

NOTES OF A REPORTER AT LARGE

By Mel Lavine • Special to the Times

California and Jerry Brown are planning for a high-speed rail connecting Los Angeles with San Francisco one day and future connections to San Diego and Sacramento. But getting there isn’t everything. In a recent New York Times (Sunday, Sept.21) we learn the maximum speed of a popular old cruise ship in Norway is around 15 knots or about the speed of “a brisk bicycle ride.” The point here is to think slow.

The view of  Norway’s glacial landscape is very slow. In earlier times the boat, the Hurtigruten, was billed  the coastal express. It delivered mail and goods to the coastal residents. Nowadays the old ship is an escape for people weary of the pace at which the world runs. Passengers really have time to dwell on every small rocky island, every sand bar, every little red farmhouse.

The more leisurely pace has extended its image to Norwegian public television. In 2009,  it went on the air with a broadcast of nearly six and a half hours uninterrupted train ride from Bergen to Oslo. The transition was made by putting a camera on the front of the locomotive. We’re told the producers had modest expectations for ratings but the show was a hit – surveys found about 20 percent of all Norwegians tuned in to the panorama at some point during the broadcast.

The writer of the Times piece Reif Larsen, is an American novelist, one-quarter Norwegian. He writes that a 76-year-old man forgot he was not a passenger when the train arrived in Oslo. When he got up to get his overhead luggage he crashed into the living-room curtains.

Two years later the station NRK came up with  an even slower program – a coastal journey lasting 134 hours. It began without much fanfare from Bergen, but viewers began gathering. In several days marching bands welcomed the boat’s arrivals and departures; one politician announced her candidacy. On the last day the queen of Norway waved to the ship from her royal yacht.

“The program,” said Larsen, “became a bona fide national event – half the country watched the voyage at some point.”

In search of an explanation for the popularity of Slow TV, Larsen asked around.  “Oil  reserves,” he said “were discovered off Norway’s coast in 1969 and everything changed. The youngest child had suddenly became rich.”

Twenty years ago Oslo was a provincial town, today Europe’s fastest growing capital anywhere. Skyscrapers and   metal and glass buildings are on the rise. The pace of life has quickened.

“In a relatively short amount of tine, many Norwegians seem to be suffering from a kind of cultural whiplash, leaving them apprehensive for the future and nostalgic for a past that was barely the past.”

On the other hand, as Larsen points out, “Norway, with only five million people, is still small enough (and homogeneous enough) to allow a story or program to become a national event.”

Mel Lavine was a television producer for many years with NBC News and CBS News in New York. Contact him at his e-mail address: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .


 
Looking Back at ‘The Roosevelts’ PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Thursday, 02 October 2014 18:23

NOTES OF A REPORTER AT LARGE

By Mel Lavine • Special to the Times

The recent Ken Burns documentary on the Roosevelts reaped very good ratings. If I read them correctly, nearly good enough to rank in broadcast television’s top ten for the week. I wondered if the portrayal of Theodore Roosevelt, his distant cousin, Franklin, and TR’s niece and FDR’s wife, Eleanor, were intended to show us that there was a time, and not so very long, when extraordinary people led the country, and we followed.

The film was  the work of a company of actors, writers, and producers, notably Geoffrey C. Ward, an author of books on Franklin, and, though it was never mentioned, a polio survivor. He was the right person to narrate Roosevelt’s great trial.

The year before he was stricken, Franklin Roosevelt (1882-1945) had been nominated for vice president on the Democratic ticket in 1920. The Democrats were soundly defeated but Roosevelt came out of the debacle unscathed and a favorite in the party to run for the top job one day. But because of polio that day would not come for many years.

FDR’s enemies – and there are many still around – who have accused him of  encouraging the Japanese to attack our naval base at Pearl Harbor. But, as the film makes plain, much of the Pacific fleet was anchored at Pearl Harbor – sitting ducks for an enemy’s surprise assault.

It was all too successful, destroying ships and killing thousands. Grace Tully,  a long-time secretary to FDR, told me when I was researching a piece for FDR’s centennial for the Sunday Morning show that the only time she remembered  seeing him shaken was when he learned of the attack at Pearl Harbor.

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) comes across as the larger than life character he was. Cowboy, rancher, scholar, historian, famous for his charge up San Juan Hill in Cuba in the Spanish American War, he was one of the most popular of presidents. Early in his climb he took on corruption and the party bosses of his day.

As president, he made his name as an enemy of the trusts, a conservationist, won passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act and stricter regulations of the railroads. But he also practiced politics as the art of the possible. And when he forgot he lived to regret it, as when he promised not to run for a third term.

His niece, Eleanor, is by no means overshadowed by her illustrious husband and uncle. Eleanor (Anna) Roosevelt (1884-1962), survived a miserable childhood and the indifference of her husband to become not only the most important first lady in American history but  the first lady of  her world. She was a humanist, which my dictionary describes as “a person who has a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values and dignity.”

Franklin is the star of the film, and rightly so. Elected president four times, he led the country successfully through the Great Depression and the Second World War. His legacy lives, beginning with the New Deal and liberal landmarks like Social Security. As one historian put it, in depression and war, the theme of FDR’s presidency was freedom from fear.

Nice job, Ken Burns and company.

Mel Lavine was a television producer for many years with NBC News and CBS News in New York. Contact him at his e-mail address: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .


 
Just in Case PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Thursday, 25 September 2014 22:00

NOTES OF A REPORTER AT LARGE

By Mel Lavine • Special to the Times

An Op/Ed piece in last Sunday’s New York Times about old people caught the attention of the Lady Friend and me. Written by Jason Karlawish, a professor of medicine and medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, it asked: “When should we set aside a life lived for the future and, instead, embrace the pleasures of the present? Or, putting it another way: When do you start enjoying the pleasures of the present when you still can?

The professor points out that at the start of the 20th century, only one-half of 1 percent of the U.S. population was over the age of 80. “Today,” he writes,  “3.6 percent of the population is over 80, and life is heavily prescribed...More than  half of adults 65 and older are taking five or more prescription medicines, over the counter medications or dietary supplements...(and) the list is long and getting longer.

Getting old in this century, he says, “is all about risk and its reduction.” (I once interviewed a surgeon in the 1980s who predicted that drugs would one day all but replace the need for the branch of medicine he practiced.)

Nowadays, writes Dr. Karlawish, “physicians are warned by pharmaceutical companies that even after they have prescribed drugs to reduce their patients’ risk of heart disease, a ‘residual risk’ remains – more drugs are often prescribed. The tagline for one fitness product declares: “Your health account is your wealth account! Long live living long!’”

When is it time, Dr. Karlawish asks, “to stop saving and spend some of our principal? If you thought you were going to die soon, you just might light up, as well as stop taking your daily aspirin, statin and blood pressure pill. You would spend more time and money on present pleasures, like a dinner out with friends, than on future anxieties.” When it comes to prevention, “there can be too much of a good thing.”

He cites the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association for setting 79 as the upper limit for calculating the10-year risk of developing or dying from heart attack, stroke or heart disease. These institutions also suggest that after 75 it may not be beneficial for a person without heart disease to start taking statins. But that doesn’t mean everyone follows this advice.”

The Lady Friend, a healthy, hearty 81, and I  decided that neither of us (I am 86 in OK health and hearty enough) would start relaxing our ban on cheese, butter, ice cream, pastries, and the like, but with restraint – just in case.

Mel Lavine was a television producer for many years with NBC News and CBS News in New York. Contact him at his e-mail address: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .


 
The Amazing Roosevelts PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Thursday, 18 September 2014 14:12

NOTES OF A REPORTER AT LARGE

By Mel Lavine • Special to the Times

The first two hours of Ken Burns’ story on the three Roosevelts – Theodore, Franklin and Eleanor – began on Sunday at 8 on PBS. It is running two hours a night over seven nights this week.

The first two hours sagged a little under the celebrity tone and chorus of talking heads. But it is good history. (I wonder how much of TR is taught in schools these days.) The series starts with Theodore who was born in 1858 and ends with Eleanor’s death in 1962. (She was a favorite neice.)

Teddy, as he was affectionately called,  lived an energetic, colorful, controversial life. I have long thought of him as our Churchill, a fluent writer and scholar, an orator and actor, a bold and cunning politician, and something of a con. I remember Churchill’s speeches on the radio when I was growing up in Brookline, Mass. His brave words when Britain stood alone in World War II helped save his country and maybe the rest of us as well. My father, who saw TR on the stump, took pleasure in mimicking the great man, recalling such expressions as “DEE-lighted!”

The Roosevelts are described by the makers of the documentary as an American dynasty. To my mind dynasty implies a closely-knit family like the Windsors of Great Britain or the Romanovs of pre-Communist Russia. The Theodore and Franklin branches were fifth cousins and lived in separate worlds: the Teddy Republicans, on Oyster Bay, Long Island, New York; the Franklin clan on the Hudson River at Hyde Park, New York. They were  Democrats.

 The film picked up  pace on Monday as we followed the rise of young Theodore  from a pampered, sickly childhood to the champion of the strenuous life. We  followed his transformation from patrician to boxer,  hunter, and sportsman. When he was president he was a progressive who battled for the poor, and fought the trusts. He also helped make the U.S. a world power in the early 1900s.

I’m looking forward to the rest of the documentary about the amazing three Roosevelts. We learned, almost as an ad lib on Monday night, that TR suffered from asthma all his life, even through the White House years.

Mel Lavine was a television producer for many years with NBC News and CBS News in New York. Contact him at his e-mail address: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .


 
Ken Burns Takes on an American Dynasty PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Thursday, 11 September 2014 11:47

NOTES OF A REPORTER AT LARGE

By Mel Lavine • Special to the Times

Ken Burns, the relentless producer of TV documentaries, has a new, ambitious film for the multitudes. It is “The Roosevelts, An Intimate History,” chronicling the lives of Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Eleanor Roosevelt “3 members of the most prominent and influential family in American politics.” It’s to run in seven parts (for a total of 14 hours over seven weeks) on Sundays on PBS.

Burns and his team follow the Roosevelts for more than a century beginning with Theodore’s birth in 1858 to Eleanor’s death in 1962.

According to one reviewer, the saga “touches on social movements, technological changes, and not least on methods of warfare.” A tall order even for 14 hours spread over two hours over seven weeks. To say nothing of the “infidelities, gossip, the mother-in-law issues, how media gave FDR a pass on his polio.” We’re told we see a few glimpses of FDR standing to walk, “sadly illuminating.”

In my own reading and talks with people close to Franklin, I would say that the most important crises he faced in his 62 years was when he was stricken with polio at 39 and when Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941. Roosevelt was 59.

A critic for the Denver Post sounded a sour note when he said that, in part. the story is  “overly celebratory, almost worshipful of this American dynasty...not critical enough.”

Burns is faulted for not “exploring  FDR’s inaction that cost so many lives during the Holocaust,” which my Webster’s describes as “the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War 2.” I was a kid when World War Two was raging. Roosevelt was a hero to me and fellow Jews for facing up to Hitler. Nonetheless and though I have read widely in the period, the lack of action to do something important during Hitler’s reign of terror remains a sore spot, an open wound, in the affection I otherwise feel towards Franklin Roosevelt.

A point made in the documentary – one that speaks to our own day – is that Teddy, Franklin and Eleanor, patricians all,  “devoted much of their lives to improving the lot of the masses.” Asked the Denver critic.”Why would these privileged, wealthy people devote themselves to public service, sometimes  pushing agendas like the New Deal?”

Burns’ answer is: “What we do is sort of engage mystery. We don’t solve it.”

He sounds reasonable enough, but for my money he’s burying his own story.

That said, I plan to watch Sunday and see for myself.

Mel Lavine was a television producer for many years with NBC News and CBS News in New York. Contact him at his e-mail address: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .


 
Equal Rights Is Still a Work in Progress PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Thursday, 04 September 2014 12:06

GUEST COMMENTARY

By Congresswoman Barbara Lee • Special to the Times

“I never doubted that equal rights was the right direction. Most reforms, most problems are complicated. But to me there is nothing complicated about ordinary equality.” – Alice Paul

It took 144 years for American women to win the right to vote; it was another step on the road to a more perfect union.

The passage of the 19th Amendment was a hard-won victory and this week we commemorated the anniversary as Women’s Equality Day.

Yet, women know all too well that our nation’s promise of gender equality and equality continues to remain elusive.

The 19th amendment didn’t protect women from workplace discrimination, ensure equal pay for equal work or permit women to make their own healthcare decisions. Other laws at the time also excluded many women of color from the right to vote.

Only days after the 19th amendment was ratified, Alice Paul told an interviewer, “It is incredible to me that any woman should consider the fight for full equality won. It has just begun. There is hardly a field, economic or political, in which the natural and unaccustomed policy is not to ignore women.”

In the ninety-four years since ratification, women have increasingly made their voices heard and slowly glass ceilings have been broken.

We have appointed four women to the Supreme Court and sworn in my friend Leader Nancy Pelosi as the first female Speaker of the House.

Thanks to the leadership of Congresswoman Patsy Mink, we have Title IX so women can access educational opportunities, and Title VII to prevent workplace discrimination.

Starting in 2002, California became the first state in the country to guarantee paid family leave. Sadly, only twelve percent of women across the country have access to this benefit.

Yet, the challenges remain.

Women are more likely to live in poverty.

Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women.

On average, women earn seventy-seven cents for every dollar earned by a man. For women of color, the wage gap is even worse. African American women earn sixty-four cents for every dollar a white man makes; for Latina women, it is fifty-three cents. For Asian American women, the wage gap is eighty-seven cents and for Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, it is sixty-six cents for every dollar a white man makes.

When women earn less, they take home smaller paychecks and that hurts their families and our economy. It is a fact that when women succeed, American succeeds.

As we have seen over the last ninety-four years, women’s equality demands more than just ‘one person, one vote.’

In order to achieve true equality, we need to provide real pathways for women into the middle class, create more opportunities for women in the workplace and embrace programs that help working women juggle their many competing responsibilities.

This is why I am a proud co-sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 377) which will provide remedies for discrimination against women in their paychecks.  With the average woman only earned a fraction of a man’s wage and women of color earning less than that, it is time to take action and create mechanisms to prevent and address discrimination.

Similarly, I am also a co-sponsor of the Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1286) which will require paid family leave, something California has lead the nation in providing to working women.

These are small but important steps on the road to true equality between women and men; a road that leads to a more perfect union.

Congresswoman Lee is a member of the House Appropriations and Budget Committees.


 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Classifieds

Weekly specialty items listings, garage sales, and much more!

 

Current Ads

 

If you would like to place a Classified Ad, call Patrick at 510-614-1558.

Biz Spotlight

Tell us about your local business, events, and special offerings. Where you make the news!

 

Submission form

Real Estate

Get the latest in housing news and services delivered to you in full color PDF.

 

Browse this weeks gallery