General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThey hate(d) FDR because he was right. Until America gets back to these principles, it is screwed.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Or even the MSM it's not going to change.
If poverty affect more and it will, then maybe.
Of course the laws have changed from F. Roosevelt's time. Now protestors face arrest and fines with the additional thrill of tear gas and being shot.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)(and that even tried to oust him through a coup) have done their level best since his death to make certain there will never be another FDR-style presidency.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
freebrew
(1,917 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)FlatStanley
(327 posts)dotymed
(5,610 posts)IF we elect Bernie Sanders, we may have ours...
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Moostache
(9,895 posts)The power structure of the Two Party inaction system will ensure that he NEVER becomes our president. Bernie is a man of principle and has great passion and ideas for what would make America a better place to live and a better world citizen...so naturally he is going to be marginalized and shouted down by the idiot brigades of the Democratic and Republican party noise machines.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Even while they pray that Bernie becomes a Democrat . Because that is his only (albeit a snowball's) chance....yet they don't aknowledge the hypocrisy of that at all ..
dotymed
(5,610 posts)I am an idealist and I do not tow the party line like your posts seem to.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I have the firm grip on reality....nor am I hypocritical.
protect our future
(1,156 posts)If the media will start talking about him and he is able to reach people with his beliefs and ideas, I think many people will begin to learn what is happening in our country. Bernie has no chance to win, but he can change many minds. In this way he will provide a great service.
world wide wally
(21,740 posts)The sad part is that they are chipping away at it with the help of the people it was designed to help because of their "allegiance" to Fox News.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)were insane:
President Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote these words to his brother on November 8, 1954:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm PROGRAMS, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid ."
26 years later along came Raygun to dredge up the anti-New Deal cabal again and it hasn't stopped since. Sorry, Ike, it's the American people who are stupid. REALLY stupid.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)You get a "stupid" nation, and that I would argue is BY design, by the fascist a-holes form ALEC and their like! They want the stupid masses to bow to them the oligarchs and not have the sense of what used to be taught in civics classes, etc. to understand what a real democracy is all about. "Free enterprise" is NOT democracy and is NOT good governance, no matter how much so many (the press and politicians) are being paid to try and warp people's brains to feel otherwise!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)was put into effect the day Raygun was inaugurated and has only been gaining momentum ever since. It was planned in careful detail, see The Powell Memorandum, and the interests of the oligarchs conveniently lined up with the desires of the religulously insane.
world wide wally
(21,740 posts)I Absolutely agree with your point about the people being stupid.
NCarolinawoman
(2,825 posts)
One of the reasons Ike was accused of being a communist by the far- right loony loud mouths. Ted Cruz would have hated Ike.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
brewens
(13,574 posts)bunch of taxes that supposedly used to not exist and went on to say that 100 years ago America had a strong middle class and mothers could stay home and take care of the kids and so forth. The whole thing was bullshit. I fired back at the person that sent it to me a whole bunch of annoying facts.
Actually many of those taxes had existed 100 years before or the equivalent at the time. There really was no middle class and I linked to web page showing miner deaths 100 years before. We killed something like 3000 miners that year and many of them were kids. The kids were not at home being cared for by mom.
It's amazing what some of these people will fall for.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
srican69
(1,426 posts)other country.
If you are not strong enough, fast enough, smart enough - you are mincemeat.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)40 years ago...hell, 30 years ago, large ticket durable goods were made to be repaired NOT replaced.
Business has evolved into a anti-humanity practice of resource stripping, wealth hoarding and worker exploiting force of evil.
Strong enough? As in strong enough to build de facto Chinese prison factories to build "stuff"?
Fast enough? As in housing the slave labor on-site to enable full-factory set-up revisions in 24 hours?
Smart enough? As in changing the science and history curricula to ensure students are receiving propaganda instead of facts?
There is simply no truth whatsoever in the argument that "competition" is beating the American worker...the corporate greed convulsions are what is killing EVERYTHING - the American worker, the American middle class, the freaking PLANET....
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)The FDR quote is completely appropriate to refute your falsehood. If you only pay your workers slave wages, who will buy your products? It's fucking simple arithmetic. Not every company makes luxury goods. Fairly soon the only two categories who will be able to purchase: the rich and the military. This global economy trope is pure bullshit. They are trying to open up markets in India and China, but great swaths of those countries can't afford iphones or True Religion Jeans. The US is a consumer economy; so what happens when you starve all the consumers?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)[blockquThe right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
ote]
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and say what you said there, as well as other things like these things he said then too.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and it should be an OP! 
whathehell
(29,067 posts)and in 2009, national historians ranked him 3rd Greatest President in American History,
coming only after Washington and Lincoln, with some ranking him higher than Lincoln,
over all.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)too busy trying to strike a deal with the looney tunes Republicans.
All on purpose.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Taxes don't mean SQUAT when you have no customers bringing in the money to be taxed.
turbinetree
(24,695 posts)FDR said this " Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings
Definition of DE FACTO
1
: actual; especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized <a de facto state of war>
2
: exercising power as if legally constituted <a de facto government>
3
: resulting from economic or social factors rather than from laws or actions of the state <de facto segregation>
See de facto defined for English-language learners »
Examples of DE FACTO
<with the death of his father, he became the de facto head of the family>
We now have a judge in Detroit saying that the poor are not entitled to water, my answer to this right hypocrite turn off his water.
We now have a right majority supreme court of these united states rolling back more voting for "WE THE PEOPLE"
These judges are turning this country into a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY and "WE THE PEOPLE" had better figure this out really quick, it is time to Impeach the right wing Roberts court.
It is time as Bernie Sanders said time for a revolution at the polls this year.
It is time as Elizabeth Warren said time to find out what the New York Fed was doing behind closed doors with the DOJ
WE THE PEOPLE had better get our act together or we are screwed
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)behind only Washington and Lincoln, and some actually thought that,
overall, he ranked higher than Lincoln.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)during that critical time in our history? Would anyone else have had the guts to do for the working class and the elderly, what he did. Perhaps, but considering all the opposition he had to deal with, I know the latest talking point is that FDR 'had a supportive Dem majority so everything was easy for him', not to mention the War, I can't think of anyone who would have had the energy and strength to just get done what he did.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)different America -- Thank God we did have him.
As to those who say he "had no opposition", they are clearly ignorant of the facts.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Democrats look bad. Facts are facts, no matter how inconvenient. And ANY democrat who goes along with the decades long attempt to take appear FDR's New Deal programs, is a Dem in name only and I for one have zero respect for them. They have a party we don't need them in ours.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)and I have no respect for them either.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)1896 is one of the pivoted elections in his history. The Democratic Party went into full progressive mode. At the convention they REJECTED the position of the sitting DEMOCRATIC President and selected as the Democratic Candidate William Jennings Bryan and his embracing the concept of the Income Tax, inflation (through the minting of silver dollar coins), internal improvements (i.e., paved roads for the farmers) and banning the use of Order Orders in Strike (a big issue among unions at that time, for Court Orders were used to JAIL strikers), etc. In 1908 Bryan would even embrace voting for women, even through the greatest resistance to that was in the American South, an area of the COuntry HE had to win to win the Presidency.
Bryan was attacked in 1896, some people calling him "loony" for even THINKING silver dollars should be minted.
Do to the Civil War, the US started to print paper money in 1861, silver and gold coins soon disappeared. The US even PRINTED Three cent paper money for people had started to use stamps as currency do to the shortage of silver coins. The Nickel was introduced to provide a non-silver coin (and to replace the unpopular half dime, a coin half the size of the dime and thus easy to lose).
After the end of the Silver War, Congress wanted the US dollar to return to its traditional value of $20 to an ounce of gold. In 1864 it had reached $200 an ounce of gold and Congress had ruled paper money equal gold coins at face value for any and all debts. Thus Congress attempted to pay off the Civil War Debt so Congress could then use Federal Funds to buy dollars till the Dollar Returned to $20 to an ounce of gold. This caused a huge deflationary surge. People who borrowed $100 in 1864 had to pay the equivalent of $1000 to pay off that debt in 1874 (The year the debt was paid off, and the Civil War Income Tax was abolished). Deflation is WORSE then inflation for it makes debtors even further behind for this very reason. i.e. what they could sell in 1864 at $100, they could sell in 1874 for $10, but any PAPER debt was still $100. This lead to what is now called the "Long Depression" of 1874-1898 (Dates actually varies, these are the "Best fit" dates).
By the 1880s farmers had had enough and wanted inflation, and seeing that Silver had dropped in price compared to Gold demanded minting of Silver Dollars (do to the inflation of the Civil War, paper money was "disfavored" at that time period EXCEPT if expressed in terms of gold, thus "Gold Certificates" were viewed as "Gold" not paper money). The Farmers combined with the Silver miners demanded "Free Silver" the minting of silver coins independent of their effect on the price of dollars in gold.
In 1896 the Democratic Party embraced this concept. William Jennings Bryan wanted the Free minting of Silver to kick the economy to help the farmers (the Majority of People still lived on the farm in 1896, the first census that showed more people living in urban areas then in rural areas was the 1920 census, and to get that what are now called "urban Clusters" were included in people living in Urban areas. A Urban cluster is a location where at least 2000 people live in some sort urban area, in an otherwise rural county. Such Urban clusters also make many rural areas "urban" for more people live in such "Urban Clusters" in many rural counties then actually live in the country and thus are called "Urban Counties" . This is best seen in California.
https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html
https://www.census.gov/history/www/programs/geography/urban_and_rural_areas.html
Thus the "Free Silver" Movement of the 1880s and 1890s was a demand for inflation, which was something Wall Street OPPOSED. Free Silver died out after 1896 for in 1898 you had three gold strikes, Australia, South African and Alaska. This produced what is called "Gold Inflation" i.e. what you could buy with a set amount of gold went down for as more gold entered the gold market, the demand for other items stayed constant. Thus what you could buy with gold in 1896 was more then you could buy with gold in 1900. This "Gold Inflation" was the inflation the Democrats had called for when they endorsed "Free Silver", thus "Free Silver" died out as an issue for you had finally had the inflation that the country had needed since the 1870s.
Now, the Democratic Party thus embraced the concept of what we now call progressive economics. Bryan was the leader of the movement and thus was attacked, even after he was dead. My favorite attack was Herbert Hoover's attack on the New Deal "Bryanism without Bryan". In simple terms it was Bryan's wing of the party that demanded economic reforms and finally achieved it with the New Deal.
Anyway, Bryan and his progressives stayed in control of the Democratic Party for the 1900 election, but lost out to what we would call the DLC in 1904. In 1908 Bryan won the nomination again. All four time the Democrats lost and I remember reading in my history book that Bryan won less votes in each election. Those same books did not mention, that the GOP candidate ALSO received less votes and Bryan's percentage was higher (The 1904 was the lowest votes for Democratic Candidates for it was a what we would call a DLCer).
In 1912 Wilson won the nomination and picked Bryan as his Secretary of State. Bryan resigned in 1915 for he said Wilson's refusal to reign in the New York City Banks would FORCE the US into WWI just to protect their investments. In 1920 FDR was picked as the VP candidate but lost the election. It should be noted that Bryan was lukewarm in that election for neither stood for economic reforms that were needed. Bryan died in 1925, and in 1928 the Democratic Party decided to run his long time nemesis, Al Smith of New York. Bryan had long opposed Al Smith, not for Smith being Catholic, but that Smith represented Tammy Hall AND was a known month piece of Wall Street. Al Smith lost badly. The Bryanites (as they were often called) were back in charge in 1932. While FDR was NOT a Bryanite, he was willing to work with them.
Thus the short history of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party from 1896 to 1932. From 1932 to 1945 FDR was President, from 1945 to 1952 Truman. Truman was of the big city bosses wing of the Democratic Party for they had selected him to be the next President when they forced FDR to replace Henry Wallace with Truman in the 1944 Campaign. Wallace had been of Bryanite wing of the party, but that wing also wanted clean government AND the end of patronage. The big city bosses had no problem with clean government but patronage was important to them and Wallace's opposition to patronage had been a problem when Wallace was Vice President, but with FDR's health deteriorating in 1944, the Big City bosses wanted someone to be the next President who understood they problems and that was Truman.
Truman had a hard time switching from a War Economy to a peach economy. Truman did NOT want another Post War Depression that had cost him his store in 1921. Thus Truman refused to release people from the Military except at a pace the civilian market place could take them in. Thus for the ONLY time in American History they was NO POST WAR DEPRESSION caused by the sudden release of soldiers into the civilian Market place. For this he was ATTACKED by the GOP. The GOP said he was DENYING those soldiers the RIGHT to live as free men. Truman retort, basically was, all he was doing was preventing them from going jobless after fighting. The GOP used HOW Truman handle the economy to get control of the House in 1946, but then lost control of the house in 1948 for Truman showed HE knew how to keep the economy going.
Jack Kennedy was of the DLC wing of the Democratic Party (as had his father been). Thus JFK's effort as to desegregation was no better then had been Eisenhower's. LBJ was of the Bryanite wing of the Democratic Party and thus was able to push through Civil Rights (at the cost of going to war in Vietnam, yes the two ARE connected). Carter was of the Bryanite Wing of the party, but the DLCers could get what the Progressive wing could not get, financing.
In 1896 Bryan was outspent 3.5 million to .650 million dollars, and still won 42% of the vote (One of Bryan's enemy, H.L. Mencken, would later said the only reason Bryan lost was do to ELECTION FRAUD (1896 was the first ballot in Presidential Elections that ALL ballots were Secret, prior to 1896 you marked you ballot and the vote was counted AS YOU VOTED, thus everyone knew who you voted for, Secret ballots had long been opposed for it was easier to rig such ballots AND it was impossible to show who cast what ballot so even if the ballot HAD been changed there was no way to determine that). Bryan's problem was a lack of cash.
Anyway, FDR and HIS PARTY, was the product of what Bryan AND his followers had started in 1894 (Two years BEFORE the election of 1896). They wanted progressive political movement and started that ball. It was a long haul, but any REFORM takes time.
Bryan was so popular that the GOP attacked him all the time. Many of what you hear of him in the Scoop's Monkey Trial are the results of those attack NOT what happened at that Trial. Darrow and Bryan were both good Democrats, they had campaign together many a time. Darrow even went to Bryan's Funeral and his comment was the US lost a good man (Darrow and Bryan disagreed over teaching of Human evolution when that was the decision of the local school board, but on most other items they were in agreement).
Sidenote: Darrow had long attack fundamentalism and when he heard Bryan had agreed to participate in the Scoops Monkey Trial, for the only time in his career Darrow agreed to serve as an attorney for free. From what I have read this was more to show the world who was the better speaker then anything else. Darrow had long been active on what is called the "Rubber Chicken" Circuit given speeches for paid. Bryan had preferred the Chautauqua Circuit where his more progressive messages were better received. Radio and the Great Depression killed off the Chautauqua Circuit, but that was long after Bryan was dead. Bryan was the #1 draw in that circuit, till replaced by Helen Keller after his death.
Bryan even in 1896 supported labor and did all he could to help labor. At that time period the use of Court Orders to suppress strikes was widespread and the single most effective tool against unions. Bryan supported restriction on the issuance of such court orders, a big thing for labor in 1896. Thus the New Deal is the product of almost 40 years of effort, most of it seem ineffective between 1896 and 1928, but it prevailed after 1932.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)but people cannot give up. Interesting about Darrow and Bryan. Thanks again for a very interesting post.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 1, 2014, 09:15 PM - Edit history (2)
The head of the Defense team, paid by the ACLU, had been Bryan's lieutenant when Bryan had been Secretary of State (The ACLU HATED how Darrow did the defense kept on sending him Telegraph to FIRE Darrow for his attack on Fundamentalism was NOT the Defense the ACLU wanted to present).
Now, Dayton Tennessee was then a solid GOP county in Tennessee. The Judge was a Republican, but the Attorney General of Tennessee was a Democrat (The Attorney General was in charge of the Prosecution NOT Bryan he was brought in just to provide the closing argument). The sides were NOT that hostile to each other, in fact one of Bryan's son AND the Defense team actually went to a nearby pond to cool down during a lunch break (It was in the Middle of Summer AND this is pre Air Conditioning, thus much of the trial occurred outdoors do to it being cooler then in the courthouse).
In the movie "Inherit the wind" they have the prosecutor giving a HUGE speech at the end of the case demanding jail time. The problem with this is several:
1. Bryan had actually lobbied the Tennessee Legislature NOT to impose a penalty on the proposed law. Bryan had written the proposed law but with NO PENALTY for any violation. Bryan's position was clear, Teachers were professionals and they would obey the law even i there was no punishment for violating it.
2. When Bryan came to Dayton he was the Guest of Honor at a dinner. Scoopes was also invited (unlike the Movie, in real life Scoopes NEVER spent a day in Jail). At the end of the Dinner, Bryan approached Scoopes and asked if he had the money to pay the fine, and if he did not Bryan would pay the fine. Scoopes then told Bryan the town had already to agreed to pay the fine when they asked him to say he, Scoopes, taught Human evolution (Scoopes would later say he never did, he was the WINNING Football Coach, Dayton talked Scoopes into saying he taught Human Evolution when Scoopes reviewed the Biology Class before Finals. The Biology teacher was sick the week of the review before the final so Scoopes did the review).
3. When Scoopes was talked into NOT denying he taught Human Evolution (The law are narrow, teaching of evolution was PERMITTED, it was the teaching of HUMAN EVOLUTION that was outlawed) the town of Dayton agreed to pay any costs in may incurred (in fact, contrary to the Movie, his job as Football Coach was RENEWED after the trial, he had been offered a Scholarship to go back to Collage so he declined the Renewal). Scoopes was popular before AND after the trial.
4. Darrow had refused to give a closing speech and under the rules of court of Tennesee of that time period, the Prosecution was also banned from giving such a closing argument. The speech in the play and Movie is suppose to be Bryan's last words to the Court. The problem is he never SPOKE any of the words of that speech, for Bryan NEVER was given a chance to give his closing argument. Now, after Scoopes was convicted, both sides were given an opporuntity to make a comments. The actual words Bryan spoke at that time I posted below and it is a call for further debate on the issue NOT a call for jail time.
Thus, Bryan COULD NOT HAVE ASKED FOR JAIL TIME for the simple reason the law ONLY imposed a fine, worse Bryan had offered to pay it. The issue was NEVER the actual punishment but the underlying issue of Majority Rule vs Science. Which should give in when they come into conflict? Before you say Science, remember the rationale for dictatorship is that it "can" be scientifically proved people are to stupid to rule themselves and thus only the elite should rule. Thus it is an ongoing conflict that is more then teaching of evolution.
Some more on that trial:
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness3.html#pww
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm
Here is the Speech Bryan NEVER was permitted to make
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/bs.htm
I always like Bryan final comment in the Trial, it sums up what we in DU are doing and hopefully will continue to do:
Bryan--I don't know that there is any special reason why I should add to what has been said, and yet the subject has been presented from so many viewpoints that I hope the court will pardon me if I mention a viewpoint that has not been referred to. Dayton is the center and the seat of this trial largely by circumstance. We are told that more words have been sent across the ocean by cable to Europe and Australia about this trial than has ever been sent by cable in regard to anything else happening in the United States. That isn't because the trial is held in Dayton. It isn't because a schoolteacher has been subjected to the danger of a fine $100.00 to $500.00, but I think illustrate how people can be drawn into prominence by attaching themselves to a great cause. Causes stir the world. It is because it goes deep. It is because it extends wide, and because it reaches into a future beyond the power of man to see. Here has been fought out a little case of little consequence as a case, but the world is interested because it raises an issue, and that issue will some day be settled right, whether it is settled on our side or the other side. It is going to be settled right. There can be no settlement of a great cause without discussion, and people will not discuss a cause until their attention is drawn to it, and the value of this trial is not in any incident of the trial, it is not because of anybody who is attached to it, either in an official way or as counsel on either side. Human beings are mighty small, your honor. We are apt to magnify the personal element and we sometimes become inflated with our importance, but the world little cares for man as an individual. He is born, he works, he dies, but causes go on forever, and we who participated in this case may congratulate ourselves that we have attached ourselves to a mighty issue.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I agree about Bryan's words at the end of the trial. Especially his references to mankind being insignificant as individuals and only significant when they 'attach themselves to a cause'. Reminds me of Shakespeare take on the same subject:
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
So there never was any chance of jail time. I didn't know that. Too bad movies don't stick to facts which are just as interesting as the embellisments.
Thanks again for all the information and the links, which I will read.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 2, 2014, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)
As an attack on McCarthyism, the play and the Movie are excellent, but it is BAD HISTORY as to the Scopes Monkey Trial.
When "Inherit the Wind" comes up I do go into defensive mood as to William Jennings Bryan for he is the inventor of the Modern Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party. That wing has long forgotten him, for they tend to be more concerned about the FUTURE then the PAST and defend Bryan often gets in the way of doing what Bryan wanted the Democratic Party to do, i.e. work for the common man.
On the other hand, we progressives should NOT ignore him and understand why he is attacked in our own history books, for it is an attack on anything "Progressive", it is attack on anyone who favored Unions, Economic equality, or just plan justice (Bryan believe it what Jesus taught, to love your enemy as yourself). Thus why he shows up in the Scopes Monkey Trial and why he OFFERED to pay the fine, but still wanted the trial to be held. Bryan show the Trial as a way to bring to the American people the issue of Evolution AND the problem it brings when it comes to getting people to accept each other as equal citizens who should work for the common good NOT for one's own interests. That is the opposite of McCarthyism and why changes in the trial had to be made to make the trial to be used as an attack on McCarthyism.
Bryan AND the Scopes Monkey Trial was 20 years before McCarthy AND 25 years BEFORE the play was written (and 30 years before the Movie). The play was an attack on McCarthy, using the Scopes Monkey Trial as a means to do so. The problem was the Bryan was NOT McCarthy, but by the 1950s the GOP attacks on Bryan had been so continuous that Byran, as portrayed by the GOP, was McCarthy. With a little tweaking here and they, the Trial could be made to be an attack on McCarthyism.
As an attack on McCarthyism several changes had to be made:
1. Adding the prosecutors DEMAND for jail time, model after a speech by McCarthy, NOT anything Bryan ever said,
2. Showing Scoopes being arrested AND Jailed, ignoring the fact Scoopes HAD agreed to be prosecuted).
3. Ignoring the fact that TWO dinners were held, one for the lawyers on EACH SIDE.
4. Adding a comment why Bryan was referred to as "Colonel" while Darrow was not (and ignoring the transcript that the only time "Colonel" was used was to Darrow NOT Bryan and that the term "Colonel" was a term used for ALL attorneys in Tennessee at that time EXCEPT the Attorney General who was referred to a General (Thus it was PROPER to referred to Darrow as "Colonel" as what was done in the Trial).
5. Changing the transcript to better fit the author's agenda. Now the Script of the Play and Movie mostly followed the Transcript but often with key words added or subtracted that changed the tone of the whole question or answer, see the first cite I mention to see how this was done.
6. Ignoring the ACLU efforts to get Darrow Fired from the jop.
7. Ignore Bryan's statements as to the Theory of Relatively when being question how something physically impossible could occur in the old Testament i.e. when it was prayed for God to Stop the Sun from Raising so the Israelis could completely destroy their enemies, Darrow pointed out that meant the earth stopped going around the Sun and that would have destroyed the whole planet. Bryan said the Bible said the Sun stopped raising, that is how it appeared to the Israelis. It could have been just a local incident or even one of relatively given that theory (The better answer, one Bryan may have given if he had KNOWN he was going to be called as a witness is that all that occurred was the shift in the wind in Israel that occurs do to the heat of the day and all the "Stopping of the Sun" was, was a delay in that shift in wind, that is the opinion of Two Israeli Generals when they reviewed that battle).
8. That Darrow said he tried to read the Darwin, but gave up reading it after 50 pages for he did not understand it. Bryan had read Darwin and even wrote commentary on Darwin. Bryan, while anti-Evolution actually understood the theory, something it appears no one else at the trial did.
9. Bryan, under cross examination, made a comment about Nietzsche and Darrow defense in the Leopold and Loeb Murder trial the year before. Darrow took affront of this for Bryan used Darrow's own words (paraphrase) "It is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university." Is it WRONG to punish someone, who was taught something in School, when he takes what he was taught out of school and apply it in a way that does harm to someone else? In many ways that was Bryan's argument against teaching Human evolution AND its related concept of "survival of the fittest". Given the nature of High Schools teaching of evolution brings with it the concept of "survival of the fittest" as a way of life as to Human interaction. i.e. Lowe and Leopard justified their murder on the grounds they were "Super men", a concept they picked up in School. This line of Bryan was hated by Darrow and the Transcript clearly shows it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb#Adolescence.2C_Nietzsche.2C_and_early_crimes
10. When Bryan agree to be called as a Witness he did so ONLY if he could call the Defense Team as Witnesses. That was AGREED to by the Judge and the Defense team. The Judge later ruled the whole line of questioning was irrelevant so only Bryan testified under earth. At the end of the Trial, Darrow and Bryan agreed to do such a cross examination of Darrow by Bryan. It was held in the courtyard but I have NEVER seen a transcript of what was said, or even comments for only the reporters were present. I mention it to show there were NO hard feelings at the trial between the two men.
11. In the movie they show Bryan old and being taken care of by his long suffering wife. The problem with this was First she was an attorney herself, Second, she was the one suffering from severe arthritis AND Bryan took care of her even while attending the trial (and it was do to her arthritis he had moved to Florida in the 1920s, away from his home in Nebraska).
12. In the movie Bryan dies in the Court. In real life he gets hit by a car two days latter (survives that accident) and then three days later after eating a large meal, he took a nap and never woke up. Darrow was hiking Smokey Mountains when he heard of Bryan's death. One of the reporters comment "Bryan died of a broken heart" do to Darrow Cross examination of Bryan the week before, but Darrow comment was "Bryan died of a full Stomach" (Implying that Bryan had no long term "problems" do to cross examination) and then added "And America has lost a Great Man". Darrow went to the Funeral.
I bring this up for much of what we "know" of Bryan is the result of the massive GOP attacks against him all of his life. Bryan's position on Evolution evolved itself, but was a reaction to Social Darwinism, thus his attacks was on teaching Human Evolution NOT evolution itself. In the years before WWI, Social Darwinism gained strength, and was one of the reasons the German High Command justified its actions during WWI. Bryan saw this trend as a danger to America for it put human life and interaction as secondary to "surviving" and that the rich were the "Most Fit". These were concepts Bryan rejected for it meant reject democracy as the best form of Government AND that people should HELP each other not fight each other. Thus Bryan opposed teaching Human Evolution do to these problems related to such teachings.
In many ways it is still an issue, how much and what type of "Values" should be taught in schools? If you said none, that is NOT an option, for then the values taught will be derived from what else it taught. Teaching of anything is NOT in isolation and thus any teaching teaches some Value, the real issue what values should be taught.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)China.
More mouths, more profits.
Snarkoleptic
(5,997 posts)put 3 kids through college, has always paid cash for new vehicles every 6-7 years, and retired with a major nest egg at 58 years of age.
The TV they recently replaced had the Faux Newz logo cube thing burned into the lower left corner of the screen.
Last week I mentioned how I'd DVR'd the Ken Burns/PBS "Roosevelts" and couldn't wait to begin watching. His comment was "Roosevelt was a monster who caused massive economic suffering", the rationale was that if he'd left the economy alone, it would have recovered in 18-months....you know...magically on it's own.
Faux Newz is not misinformation, it's malinformation.
Triana
(22,666 posts)...just wow!
whathehell
(29,067 posts)tuhaybey
(76 posts)FDR totally dominates the top 20 years for GDP growth since 1930.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)n/t
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)The real problem is getting businesses to volunteer higher pay for the greater good of the country/community. Which is why we have minimum wage and unions.
rock
(13,218 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 2, 2014, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)
MBA's want more and more profit while grinding the worker into the dirt.
"You don't like MBA's much do you Rock?"
"I don't like 'em at all!"
On the other hand I should point out that the quote is right down Edwards Deming's alley. Deming is often referred to as "the man who taught quality to the Japanese!"
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Thus if you want to improve quality the first thing you do is address your worse input. The problem with many America Companies is their ignore the worse inputs for often they are the most expensive to correct.
The best example is education. The best way to cut drop out rate is to look at those people skipping school and doing poorly in school and trying to improve their education. Often this requires interaction with the Student Parents (often just Parent) and trying to make the Student's home life "Stable". All of which costs MONEY,
On the other hand, if the school provides advance placement classes, students who have stable homes will sign up for them and use them to improve they education. Thus providing such advance classes ARE CHEAP compared to improving the education of students doing poorly.
Deming would say go after the poor inputs (the students with unstable homes) and work on them to improve the schools. On the other hand it is cheaper to provide advance placement classes and often the parents who show up in School Board Meetings are the ones pushing for such classes NOT the parents of the poor students.
Deming policy works, but no one likes it for his aim was always at improving the lower end of any business, the end the top people care less of.
rock
(13,218 posts)And a nice quote. What the MBA fails to understand is another Deming quote: "Quality is free." Of course, Deming is thinking long term (as short term quality doesn't mean much). Your example illustrates long-term thinking.
