http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033582/taglines
IMDb
The Face Behind the Mask (1941)
Taglines
What strange terror does this mask conceal?
"Space: Above And Beyond"
"Stardust"
19 April 1996
Episode 20 Season 1 DVD video:
00:28:43
US Marine Corps 1LT Cooper Hawkes: Now, I'm not trying to rag on you but have you ever had your wingman - a good buddy - blown out of the sky then have to drive on while g-forces are tearing you out of your seat?
US Marine Corps Colonel Klingman: I'm an engineer, Lieutenant.
US Marine Corps 1LT Cooper Hawkes: And then puke all over yourself when you came out of the roll?
US Marine Corps Colonel Klingman: Yes, but not in an airplane.
US Marine Corps 1LT Cooper Hawkes: Have you ever been shot at?
US Marine Corps Colonel Klingman: No. I've never been in a dogfight. But why must I have taken a life in order for you to trust me? This machine - these wires - will save millions of lives. This plan - my idea - is my part to bring everyone home soon. Safe. And I would think you could believe in and trust someone who's working to be able to spend a night with you back home rather than going out to look up your name on some war memorial wall.
http://www.excite.com/tv/prog.jsp?id=EP000191100035&s=201603292300&sid=53295&sn=KXLYDT2&st=201603292330&cn=304
excite tv
The Twilight Zone (Repeat)
304 KXLYDT2: Tuesday, March 29 11:30 PM [ 12:30 AM Wednesday 30 March 2016 Pacific Time USA ]
Anthology, Science fiction, Fantasy, Suspense
From Agnes, With Love
A computer expert is called in to work on the world's most advanced computer, which has the soul of a jealous woman.
Cast: Wally Cox, Sue Randall, Don Keefer, Nan Peterson, Ralph Taeger, Raymond Bailey, Byron Kane Director(s): Dick Donner Producer(s): William Froug
Original Air Date: Feb 14, 1964
http://www.tv.com/shows/the-twilight-zone/from-agnes-with-love-12725/
tv.com
The Twilight Zone Season 5 Episode 20
From Agnes - With Love
Aired Unknown Feb 14, 1964 on CBS
A computer technician must deal with the queen of all femme fatales: a computer named Agnes who wreaks havoc on his love life.
AIRED: 2/14/64
http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=the-twilight-zone-1959&episode=s05e20
Springfield! Springfield!
The Twilight Zone
s05e20
Walter, this is millie.
Millie, this is walter.
Elwood, you didn't tell me millie has the most incredible eyes.
Tell you? Thank you, walter.
Come on in, come on in.
I'll get the door.
Nectar for a goddess.
Looks just like an ordinary martini to me.
It is nectar.
All this time at superdata and we've never met.
Shall we make up for lost time? You bet.
Do you like sports car races? I've never been to one.
I'm driving my mustang 500 this weekend.
Sounds dangerous.
Danger adds spice to living and my car does 160.
Astronauts do 17,000 miles an hour.
From 2/14/1964 ( premiere US TV series episode "The Twilight Zone"::"From Agnes - With Love" ) To 5/7/1992 ( the first launch of the US space shuttle Endeavour orbiter vehicle mission STS-49 includes me Kerry Wayne Burgess the United States Marine Corps officer and United States STS-49 pilot astronaut ) is 10310 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 1/24/1994 is 10310 days
From 1/16/1941 ( premiere US film "The Face Behind the Mask" ) To 1/24/1994 is 19366 days
19366 = 9683 + 9683
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 5/7/1992 ( the first launch of the US space shuttle Endeavour orbiter vehicle mission STS-49 includes me Kerry Wayne Burgess the United States Marine Corps officer and United States STS-49 pilot astronaut ) is 9683 days
From 11/23/1935 ( premiere US film "The Fighting Marines" ) To 5/7/1992 ( the first launch of the US space shuttle Endeavour orbiter vehicle mission STS-49 includes me Kerry Wayne Burgess the United States Marine Corps officer and United States STS-49 pilot astronaut ) is 20620 days
20620 = 10310 + 10310
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 1/24/1994 is 10310 days
From 1/26/1960 ( premiere US TV series episode "M Squad"::"The Man Who Lost His Brain" ) To 4/18/1988 ( the United States Navy Operation Praying Mantis ) is 10310 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 1/24/1994 is 10310 days
From 8/24/1946 ( premiere US film "Spook Busters" ) To 1/24/1994 is 17320 days
17320 = 8660 + 8660
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 7/19/1989 ( Bill Gates-Microsoft-George Bush kills 111 passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 232 and destroys the United Airlines Flight 232 aircraft because I was a passenger of United Airlines Flight 232 as United States Navy Petty Officer Second Class Kerry Wayne Burgess and I was assigned to maintain custody of a non-violent offender military prisoner of the United States ) is 8660 days
From 4/27/1961 ( premiere US TV series episode "CBS Reports"::"Why Men in Space?" ) To 7/19/1989 ( Bill Gates-Microsoft-George Bush kills 111 passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 232 and destroys the United Airlines Flight 232 aircraft because I was a passenger of United Airlines Flight 232 as United States Navy Petty Officer Second Class Kerry Wayne Burgess and I was assigned to maintain custody of a non-violent offender military prisoner of the United States ) is 10310 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 1/24/1994 is 10310 days
From 5/12/1991 ( I was the winning race driver at the Formula One Monaco Grand Prix ) To 1/24/1994 is 988 days
988 = 494 + 494
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 3/11/1967 ( premiere US TV series episode "Get Smart"::"How to Succeed in the Spy Business Without Really Trying" ) is 494 days
From 1/8/1943 ( premiere US film "Margin for Error" ) To 1/24/1994 is 18644 days
18644 = 9322 + 9322
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 5/12/1991 ( I was the winning race driver at the Formula One Monaco Grand Prix ) is 9322 days
From 2/18/1963 ( John Kennedy - Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House Transmitting a Proposed Urban Mass Transportation Act ) To 5/12/1991 ( I was the winning race driver at the Formula One Monaco Grand Prix ) is 10310 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 1/24/1994 is 10310 days
From 2/18/1963 ( John Kennedy - Remarks Upon Presenting the National Medal of Science to Theodore von Karman ) To 5/12/1991 ( I was the winning race driver at the Formula One Monaco Grand Prix ) is 10310 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 1/24/1994 is 10310 days
From 5/2/1943 ( the funeral for Glyndwr Michael at Nuestra Señora cemetery in Huelva Spain ) To 1/24/1994 is 18530 days
18530 = 9265 + 9265
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 3/16/1991 ( my first successful major test of my ultraspace matter transportation device as Kerry Wayne Burgess the successful Ph.D. graduate Columbia South Carolina ) is 9265 days
From 12/19/1984 ( as Kerry Wayne Burgess the E-3 Seaman United States Navy I reported aboard the USS Taylor FFG 50 ) To 1/24/1994 is 3323 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 12/8/1974 ( premiere US TV series episode "Nova"::"The Men Who Painted Caves" ) is 3323 days
From 10/3/1963 ( premiere US film "The Face of War" ) To 12/25/1991 ( as United States Marine Corps chief warrant officer Kerry Wayne Burgess I was prisoner of war in Croatia ) is 10310 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 1/24/1994 is 10310 days
From 2/8/1968 ( premiere US film "Planet of the Apes" ) To 1/24/1994 is 9482 days
9482 = 4741 + 4741
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 10/26/1978 ( Jimmy Carter - Ethics in Government Act of 1978 Remarks on Signing S. 555 Into Law ) is 4741 days
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=50365
The American Presidency Project
William J. Clinton
XLII President of the United States: 1993-2001
Remarks Announcing the Nomination of William Perry To Be Secretary of Defense and an Exchange With Reporters
January 24, 1994
The President. Thank you very much, and good afternoon. I want to welcome all of you here, especially the distinguished Members of Congress who are here and the members of Secretary Perry's family, whom he will introduce later.
One year ago I selected Dr. Bill Perry to serve as my Deputy Secretary of Defense. Today, based on his lifetime of accomplishment and his solid leadership at the Pentagon, I'm proud to announce my intention to nominate him as the next Secretary of Defense.
He has the right skills and management experience for the job. He has the right vision for the job. He has served with real distinction as both Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. For years and throughout his service this past year he has been at the cutting edge on defense issues.
Years ago he had a vision of the power of Stealth technology, technology that helped the United States to win the Persian Gulf war and helped save American lives. He's been a leader in reforming the Pentagon's procurement process and improving financial accountability. And I expect he'll have more to say about that today and in the weeks and months ahead.
He's been instrumental in developing a defense budget for the coming fiscal year that protects the readiness of our forces and promotes our aggressive efforts at defense conversion and the development of dual-use technologies and the creation and the preservation of American jobs. And he played an important role in the recent breakthrough to eliminate Ukraine's nuclear weapons.
He brings a broad and valuable background to this job. He has proven experience in the private sector, is chairman, director, and founder of several successful defense-related corporations. He's served in the United States Army. His academic career as a professor of mathematics and engineering has also contributed to our Nation's security. And in every aspect of his work, Bill Perry has earned high respect from members of both parties, in the Congress, in the military, among those who study military strategy, and in the business community.
He's demonstrated leadership, integrity, and a mastery of his field. Time and again, we heard about him what I have come to know personally: Bill Perry is a real pro. You can depend on him. That's why Secretary Aspin and many others recommended that I select Dr. Perry for this post.
Let me note with appreciation that Secretary Aspin has agreed to stay, as he said he would, until his successor is confirmed.
Now we have a lot of work ahead of us. We need to continue reshaping our forces for this new era so that they remain the best trained, the best equipped, the best prepared, and the most strongly motivated in the world. We must implement the recommendations of the bottom-up review. We must continue to deal with the new threats of weapons proliferation and terrorism. We must continue our aggressive work at defense conversion to save and create American jobs and to maintain our industrial base that is so critical for our national defense. And we must reform the procurement process.
Bill Perry comes extraordinarily well-prepared to meet these challenges. I hope and I trust that Congress will quickly confirm him. And I look forward to working closely with him as an integral part of the national security team. I think he will do a remarkable job.
Dr. Perry.
[At this point, Defense Secretary-designate Perry made brief remarks.]
Secretary of Defense Nominee
Q. Did you have to be persuaded to take this job, and what do you think will be the toughest part of it?
Deputy Secretary Perry. No, I did not have to be persuaded to take the job. I met with the President to discuss this job Friday morning, and I left that meeting fully prepared to take on the job. I had a meeting with my family that evening, because it's not just me that's getting into this job. I put them under considerable strains when I do it, too. And we had a follow-up meeting on Saturday morning with the White House where I told them that if I had to accept the job at that time, my answer would have to be no.
I met then with the Vice President. And he told me I could take my time, take some more time on the decision, meet with my family further. I took advantage of that, and on Sunday afternoon I called the Vice President back and said if you still want me for your Secretary of Defense I'm eager to serve.
Q. Dr. Perry, why did you have second thoughts?
Deputy Secretary Perry. The second question here——
Q. Sir, why didn't you say yes immediately? What made you have to think about it?
Deputy Secretary Perry. I tried to explain that. It was because I did not want to drive my family into my decision without their support. And so I wanted to wait until I had the full support for it.
Q. Mr. President, why was this job so hard to fill?
The President. It wasn't easy to fill—it wasn't hard to fill, I mean. We had an abundance of talented people to consider, but I asked Secretary Perry, and he said yes. It wasn't difficult at all. I mean, I can't say any more than you already know about what happened in the previous example. But we didn't go on a big search here. We had a very short list, and I quickly narrowed it to one. I had an interview with one person. I asked him if he'd take the job, and he did. I don't think that qualifies as difficult. Now, I have had some difficult positions to fill, this one wasn't.
Q. Well, what do you think he brings to the job that your current Defense Secretary did not?
The President. I don't think the two things are related. Secretary Aspin made his statement last month; we had our press conference on that, we answered your questions. It's got nothing to do with what we said here today.
Women in the Military
Q. Mr. Perry, are you going to go along with Secretary Aspin's views on military women in planes and ships and——
Deputy Secretary Perry. Yes.
The President. Good for you, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service].
Deputy Secretary Perry. Secretary Aspin created many important legacies in his year. I mentioned the bottom-up review, his work on all of the social aspects in the military. In particular, his advancement of the women in combat is one which I enthusiastically support.
Secretary of Defense Nominee
Q. Dr. Perry, is there anything at all in your background that's come up over this past weekend of vetting that could conceivably cause you or the administration any problems during the Senate confirmation process? In that regard, I'm specifically also referring to the so-called "nanny problem."
Deputy Secretary Perry. Nothing has come up that I believe would cause me any problems in the confirmation process.
Russia
Q. Dr. Perry, do you think that with the return to conservative government in Moscow, that there's a possibility there may be a new cold war starting? I mean, it's early, but are there trends?
Deputy Secretary Perry. I would observe that we cannot control the events in other countries, including Russia, but we can influence them. And I believe the President has adopted a program to assist not just the Russians but many of the nations in the former Soviet Union to help stabilize their economy, and this is the most constructive thing we can do to minimize the chance of that unfortunate disaster occurring.
Defense Budget
Q. Was your answer categorical about the nanny question, Dr. Perry?
Q. What about the current budgetary crunch, sir, that the Pentagon faces and the possible difficulty you may have in actually carrying out the blueprint that the President has laid out?
Deputy Secretary Perry. In order to carry out the bottom-up review with the funds that are posed for it, we will have to manage the Pentagon very well. We will have to have real acquisition reform. We will have to have careful planning and management of our programs. We have to do all of this while we're maintaining a very high level of readiness and a level of morale and cohesion in the military forces. It is a difficult management job, and I believe it's doable, and that's what I'm undertaking to do.
Thank you.
The President. Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:08 p.m. on the State Floor at the White House.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033582/releaseinfo
IMDb
The Face Behind the Mask (1941)
Release Info
USA 16 January 1941
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033582/plotsummary
IMDb
The Face Behind the Mask (1941)
Plot Summary
A disfigured watchmaker with a grudge against society embarks on a life of crime.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=8092
The American Presidency Project
John F. Kennedy
XXXV President of the United States: 1961 - 1963
152 - Special Message to the Congress on Conflict-of-Interest Legislation and on Problems of Ethics in Government.
April 27, 1961
To the Congress of the United States:
No responsibility of government is more fundamental than the responsibility of maintaining the highest standards of ethical behavior by those who conduct the public business. There can be no dissent from the principle that all officials must act with unwavering integrity, absolute impartiality and complete devotion to the public interest. This principle must be followed not only in reality but in appearance. For the basis of effective government is public confidence, and that confidence is endangered when ethical standards falter or appear to falter.
I have firm confidence in the integrity and dedication of those who work for our government. Venal conduct by public officials in this country has been comparatively rare--and the few instances of official impropriety that have been uncovered have usually not suggested any widespread departure from high standards of ethics and moral conduct.
Nevertheless, in the past two decades, incidents have occurred to remind us that the laws and regulations governing ethics in government are not adequate to the changed role of the Federal Government, or to the changing conditions of our society. In addition, many of the ethical problems confronting our public servants have become so complex as to defy easy common sense solutions on the part of men of good will seeking to observe the highest standards of conduct, and solutions have been hindered by lack of general regulatory guidelines. As a result many thoughtful observers have expressed concern about the moral tone of government, and about the need to restate basic principles in their application to contemporary facts.
Of course, public officials are not a group apart. They inevitably reflect the moral tone of the society in which they live. And if that moral tone is injured--by fixed athletic contests or television quiz shows--by widespread business conspiracies to fix prices--by the collusion of businessmen and unions with organized crime--by cheating on expense accounts, by the ignoring of traffic laws, or by petty tax evasion--then the conduct of our government must be affected. Inevitably, the moral standards of a society influence the conduct of all who live within it--the governed and those who govern.
The ultimate answer to ethical problems in government is honest people in a good ethical environment. No web of statute or regulation, however intricately conceived, can hope to deal with the myriad possible challenges to a man's integrity or his devotion to the public interest. Nevertheless formal regulation is required--regulation which can lay down clear guidelines of policy, punish venality and double-dealing, and set a general ethical tone for the conduct of public business.
Such regulation--while setting the highest moral standards--must not impair the ability of the government to recruit personnel of the highest quality and capacity. Today's government needs men and women with a broad range of experience, knowledge and ability. It needs increasing numbers of people with top-flight executive talent. It needs hundreds of occasional and intermittent consultants and part-time experts to help deal with problems of increasing complexity and technical difficulty. In short, we need to draw upon America's entire reservoir of talent and skill to help conduct our generation's most important business--the public business.
This need to tap America's human resources for public purposes has blurred the distinctions between public and private life. It has led to a constant flow of people in and out of business, academic life and government. It has required us to contract with private institutions and call upon part-time consultants for important public work. It has resulted in a rapid rate of turnover among career government employees--as high as twenty per cent a year. And, as a result, it has gravely multiplied the risk of conflicts of interest while seriously complicating the problem of maintaining ethical standards.
These new difficulties and old problems led me to appoint, immediately after my inauguration, three distinguished lawyers to review our existing conflict of interest laws and regulations. This panel was composed of Judge Calvert Magruder, retired chief judge of the First Judicial Circuit; Dean Jefferson B. Fordham of the University of Pennsylvania Law School; and Professor Bayless Manning of the Yale Law School. The proposals put forward in this message are in large measure based upon their work and that of others who have considered the problems in recent years.
The recommendations of this panel were arrived at after careful study and review of the work of other groups, particularly the 1958 staff report of the Anti-Trust Sub-committee of the House Judiciary Committee under Congressman Celler; the pioneering study in 1951 by a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare under Senator Douglas; the recent report of the staff of the Senate subcommittee on National Policy Machinery of the Committee on Government Operations headed by Senator Jackson; and valuable appraisals conducted during the last administration by the executive branch, and by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.
All of these studies have emphasized the seriousness of the problem encountered. All have recommended that our outmoded and hodge-podge collection of statutes and regulations be amended, revised and strengthened to take account of new problems. If the proposals have varied in their details, all have underscored the need for legislative and executive action in a commonly agreed direction.
I. STATUTORY REFORM
There are seven statutes of general application termed "conflict-of-interest" statutes. Many others deal with particular offices or very limited categories of employees. These latter usually exempt officials from some or all of the general restrictions. Occasionally they impose additional obligations.
The seven statutes cover four basic problems:
--The Government employee who acts on behalf of the Government in a business transaction with an entity in which he has a personal economic stake. (18 U.S.C. 434)
--The Government employee who acts for an outside interest in certain dealings with the Government. (18 U.S.C. 216, 281, 283)
--The Government employee who receives compensation from a private source for his government work. (18 U.S.C. 1914)
--The former Government employee who acts in a representative capacity in certain transactions with the Government during a two-year period after the termination of his Government service. (18 U.S.C. 284, 5 u.s.c. 99)
Five of these statutes were enacted before 1873. Each was enacted without coordination with any of the others. No two of them use uniform terminology. All but one impose criminal penalties. There is both overlap and inconsistency. Every study of these laws has concluded that, while sound in principle, they are grossly deficient in form and substance.
The fundamental defect of these statutes as presently written is that: On the one hand, they permit an astonishing range of private interests and activities by public officials which are wholly incompatible with the duties of public office; on the other hand, they create wholly unnecessary obstacles to recruiting qualified people for government service. This latter deficiency is particularly serious in the case of consultants and other temporary employees, and has been repeatedly recognized by Congress in its enactment of special exemption statutes.
Insofar as these statutes lay down the basic law restricting the private economic activities of public officers and employees they constitute a sound and necessary standard of conduct. The principle which they embody in varying form--that a public servant owes undivided loyalty to the government--is as important today as when the first of these statutes was enacted more than a century ago. However, the statutory execution of this principle in the seven statutes of general application was often directed to specific existing evils which at the time of their enactment were important political issues. As a result large areas of potential conflict of interest were left uncovered.
For example, where some of these conflict-of-interest statutes are restricted to "claims of money and property"--as the courts have said--they do not protect the government against the use of official position, influence or inside information to aid private individuals or organizations in government proceedings which involve no claims for money or property. Yet the danger of abuses of government position exist to an equal if not greater degree in proceedings such as license applications for TV or radio stations, airline routes, electric power sites, and similar requests for government aid, assistance or approval.
Thus, literally read, it would be a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment under these statutes for a postal clerk to assist his mother in filing a routine claim for a tax refund, but it would be permissible for a Cabinet officer to seek to influence an independent agency to award a license for a valuable TV station to a business associate in a venture where he shared the profits.
There are many other technical inadequacies and statutory gaps. Section 434 of title 18, born of the Civil War procurement scandals, prohibits a Government official interested in the pecuniary profits of a business entity from acting as an officer or agent of the United States for the transaction of business with that business entity. By limiting its scope to "business entities" the statute does not cover the many other organizations which deal with the Government. In addition, the concept of "transacting business," if narrowly construed--as would be likely in a criminal prosecution-would exclude many dealings with the government, such as the clearance or rejection of license applications in the executive branch or before an independent agency.
Similar defects exist in the case of government officials who have left government service. Clearly such an official should be prohibited from resigning his position and "switching sides" in a matter which was fore him in his official capacity. But for technical reasons the statutes aimed at this situation do not always hit the mark. There is nothing in the criminal statutes which would prevent the General Counsel of the Federal Power Commission from resigning. to represent an unsuccessful license applicant who is contesting the Commission's decision in the courts (although such conduct might be grounds for disbarment). And, a Commission employee who was not a lawyer could, in the present state of the law, unscrupulously benefit in such a case from his "inside information" without fear of sanctions.
But if the statutes often leave important areas unregulated, they also often serve as a bar to securing important personal services for the government through excessive regulation when no ethical problem really exists. Fundamentally, this is because the statutes fail to take into account the role in our government of the part-time or intermittent adviser whose counsel has become essential but who cannot afford to be deprived of private benefits, or reasonably requested to deprive themselves, in the way now required by these laws. Wherever the government seeks the assistance of a highly skilled technician, be he scientist, accountant, lawyer, or economist, such problems are encountered.
In general, these difficulties stem from the fact that even occasional consultants can technically be regarded as either "officers or employees" of the government, whether or not compensated. If so, they are all within the prohibitions applicable to regular full-time personnel.
A few examples illustrate some of the difficulties:
Section 281 of the Criminal Code forbids public employees from providing services to outsiders for compensation in connection with any matter in which the United States is interested and which is before a department, agency or commission.
This section makes it almost impossible for a practicing lawyer to accept a part-time position with the Government. He would be in violation of Section 281 if he continued to receive compensation for cases before government agencies, or even if his law partnership receives such compensation, though he personally has no connection with any case. It is usually impractical for the law firm to withdraw from all transactions involving the government. And almost all law firms have some tax matters, for example, as part of their normal business. The same prohibition unfairly affects accountants.
In addition, the two existing post-employment statutes raise serious problems in terms of recruiting non-career personnel (particularly lawyers). Enacted at different times, they employ different terms and are totally uncoordinated in language or in policy.
The criminal statute (18 U.S.C. 284) forbids a former employee for two years after his government employment ceases to prosecute in a representative capacity any claim against the government involving a "subject matter" directly connected with his government job. The civil statute (5 U.S.C. 99) forbids employees of an executive department for two years after the end of their government service from prosecuting in a representative capacity any claim against the United States if the claim was pending before "any department" while he was an employee.
These prohibitions are unnecessarily broad. They should be confined to "switching sides." For example, they now prohibit a lawyer who worked for the Department of Labor from subsequently representing a client in a wholly unrelated tax matter which had been before the Treasury during his government service.
These restrictions prove an even more formidable barrier to the part-time consultant who works in a partnership since he and his partners would be excluded from participation in many if not all claims against the Government--a severe and unnecessary penalty for contributing to public service. It is possible to cite many other examples of excessive restrictions which serve no ethical purpose, but effectively bar government from using available talent.
It is true that a large number of statutory exemptions passed at various times over the years have mitigated some of the adverse effects of these statutes upon certain specific individuals and certain categories of employees. However, no uniform standard of exemption has ever been adopted by the Congress in enacting these exemptions. Many of the exemptions are inconsistent. Some exemptions are subject to so many limitations as practically to nullify them. Some statutes unqualifiedly exempt categories of employees from all of the conflict statutes. Others exempt them from some but not all of the restrictions. The resulting hodge-podge of exemptions seriously weakens the integrity of the Government personnel system.
To meet this need for statutory reform, I am transmitting to the Congress a proposed Executive Employees' Standards Act--a comprehensive revision of existing conflict-of-interest statutes. I believe that this bill maintains the highest possible standards of conduct, eliminates the technical deficiencies and anachronisms of existing laws, and makes it possible for the government to mobilize a wide range of talent and skill.
First, the bill closes gaps in regulation of the type discussed above, and eliminates many of the pointless differences in treatment. For example, no longer will some former government employees be subject to more severe restrictions simply because they once worked for one of the ten executive "departments" rather than in an agency which is not technically a department.
Secondly, the bill overrules existing judicial interpretation that only when a claim for money or property is involved is a former government employee prohibited from working for a private interest in a matter for which he once had governmental responsibility. The basic issue of integrity is the same if the matter relates to government regulation rather than to a property or money claim.
Third, the bill establishes special standards for skilled individuals whose primary activity is in private professional or business life, but whose skills are used by the government on a part-time or advisory basis. By permitting such individuals to carry on private business, even business with the government, as long as there is no direct conflict between their private and public work, ethical principles are maintained and a wide range of abilities are made available to government.
Fourth, this bill adds to the traditional criminal sanctions by permitting agency heads to adopt implementing regulations and impose disciplinary measures. Most of the existing laws are criminal statutes. As such they have been strictly construed and, because of their harshness, infrequently invoked. By granting this added flexibility we help to ensure more effective enforcement. In addition, the regulations which are adopted will permit more specific adaptation of the general prohibitions tailored to the activities of particular agencies.
Fifth, the bill deals only with employees involved in executive, administrative and regulatory functions. It does not apply to either the judicial or legislative branch of government. Existing laws relating to the judiciary are deemed adequate. The adequacy and effectiveness of laws regulating the conduct of Members of Congress and Congressional employees should be left to strictly congressional determination.
Sixth, the proposed bill covers the District of Columbia and its employees. However the District-essentially a municipal government-has its own distinctive problems. I will submit legislation dealing with these problems in the near future.
II. EX-PARTE CONTACTS WITH OFFICIALS OF INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Some of the most spectacular examples of official misconduct have involved ex parte communication--undisclosed, informal contact between an agency official and a party interested in a matter before that official. Such covert influence on agency action often does basic injury to the fairness of agency proceedings, particularly when those proceedings are judicial in nature.
This problem is one of the most complex in the entire field of government regulation. It involves the elimination of ex parte contacts when those contacts are unjust to other parties, while preserving the capacity of an agency to avail itself of information necessary to decision. Much of the difficulty stems from the broad range of agency activities-ranging from judicial type adjudication to wide-ranging regulation of entire industries. This is a problem which can best be resolved in the context of the particular responsibilities and activities of each agency.
I therefore recommend that the Congress enact legislation requiring each agency, within 120 days, to promulgate a code of behavior governing ex parte contacts within the agency specifying the particular standard to be applied in each type of agency proceeding, and containing an absolute prohibition against ex parte contact in all proceedings between private parties in which law or agency regulation requires that a decision be made solely on the record of a formal hearing. Only in this manner can we assure fairness in quasi-judicial proceedings between private parties. The statute should make clear that such codes when approved by Congress will have the force of law, and be subject to appropriate sanctions.
III. EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND PRESIDENTIAL ACTION
There are several problems of ethics in government which can be dealt with directly by Presidential Order, Memoranda or other form of action.
First, I intend to prohibit gifts to government personnel whenever (a) the employee has reason to believe that the gift would not have been made except for his official position; or (b) whenever a regular government employee has reason to believe that the donor's private interests are likely to be affected by actions of the employee or his agency. When it is impossible or inappropriate to refuse the gift it will be turned over to an appropriate public or charitable institution.
Such an order will embody the general principle that any gift which is, or appears to be, designed to influence official conduct is objectionable. Government employees are constantly bothered by offers of favors or gratuities and have been without any general regulation to guide their conduct. This order will attempt to supply such guidelines, while leaving special problems including problems created by gifts from foreign governments, to agency regulation.
Secondly, I intend to prohibit government employees from using for private gain official information which is not available to the public. This regulation will be drawn with due regard for the public's right to proper access to public information. A government employee should not be able to transform official status into private gain, as is done, for example, if a government employee speculates in the stock market on the basis of advance knowledge of official action.
Third, I am directing that no government employee shall use the authority of his position to induce another to provide him with anything of economic value whenever the employee has reason to believe that the other person's private interests may be affected by the actions of the employee or his agency.
This regulation is an effort to deal with the subtler forms of extortion; where an employee acquiesces in the gift of an economic benefit, or gives a delicate indication of receptivity. The criminal law deals with outright extortion. Beyond this the problem is too elusive for the criminal law and must be dealt with by administrative regulation, and by the sound judgment of the administrator.
Fourth, I am directing that no government employee should engage in outside employment which is "incompatible" with his government employment.
The outside employment of government employees is one of the most complex and difficult of all ethical problems. It is clear that some forms of employment may have benefits to the government or society (e.g. teaching in universities); or be beneficial to the employee and not inconsistent with his government work. On the other hand, some types of outside work may involve exploitation of official position or be incompatible with the best interests of the agency to which the employee owes his first allegiance.
Since "incompatibility" of employment will depend on many varied factors, its definition will be left to agency and department regulation and case-by-case rulings.
Fifth, I will shortly issue an Executive Order regulating in more detail the conduct of those officials who are appointed by the President. These high level officials owe a special responsibility to the government and to the employees of their departments to set a high standard of ethical and moral behavior. Therefore the Executive Order (a) prohibits outside employment or activity of any sort incompatible with the proper discharge of official responsibility; (b) prohibits outside compensation for any activity within the scope of official duty; (c) prohibits the receipt of compensation for any lecture, article, public appearance, etc., devoted to the work of the department or based on official information not yet a matter of general knowledge.
Sixth, In carrying out the provisions of law, I will apply government-wide standards to the continuance of property holdings by appointees to the Executive branch. The law prohibits any conflict of the public and private interests of employees of the government. The Senate, in the exercise of its power of confirmation, has taken the lead in requiring that Presidential appointees sell their property holdings in cases where retention of property might result in such a conflict of interest. The problem of property ownership by executive appointees is properly a matter of continuing congressional concern, and I welcome the initiative taken by the Jackson Subcommittee on Conflict of Interest. At the same time, the Executive Branch has an obligation to ensure that its appointees live up to the highest standard of behavior. It is to carry out this responsibility that I will apply general standards governing the ownership of property by Presidential appointees--standards which will ensure that no conflict of interest can exist. It is my hope that these regulations will aid the Senate in the uniform exercise of its own responsibility.
IV. THE ADMINISTRATION OF ETHICAL STANDARDS
Criminal statutes and Presidential orders, no matter how carefully conceived or meticulously drafted, cannot hope to deal effectively with every problem of ethical behavior or conflict of interest. Problems arise in infinite variation. They often involve subtle and difficult judgments, judgments which are not suited to generalization or government-wide application. And even the best of statutes or regulations will fail of their purpose if they are not vigorously and wisely administered.
Therefore I am instructing each Cabinet Member and Agency Head to issue regulations designed to maintain high moral and ethical standards within his own department. These regulations will adapt general principles to the particular problems and activity of each agency. To aid in the administration of these regulations each agency will establish an ad hoc committee to serve in an advisory capacity on ethical problems as they arise.
Although such agency regulation is essential, it cannot be allowed to dissolve into a welter of conflicting and haphazard rules and principles throughout the government. Regulation of ethical conduct must be coordinated in order to ensure that all employees are held to the same general standards of conduct.
Therefore I intend to designate, in the Executive Office of the President, a single officer charged with responsibility for coordinating ethics administration and reporting directly to the President. This officer will:
--prepare, for Presidential proclamation, general regulations as needed;
--develop methods of informing government personnel about ethical standards;
--conduct studies and accumulate experience leading to more effective regulation of ethical conduct, including the formulation of rules in areas which are not yet regulated, such as government use of outside advisers and the contracting of government services to private institutions or firms; and
--clear and coordinate agency regulations to assure consistent executive policy.
Such an officer will not only provide central responsibility for coherent regulation, but will be a means through which the influence of the Presidency can be exerted in this vital field.
V. CONCLUSION
Ultimately, high ethical standards can be maintained only if the leaders of government provide a personal example of dedication to the public service--and exercise their leadership to develop in all government employees an increasing sensitivity to the ethical and moral conditions imposed by public service. Their own conduct must be above reproach. And they must go beyond the imposition of general regulations to deal with individual problems as they arise--offering informal advice and personal consideration. It will often be difficult to assess the propriety of particular actions. In such subtle cases honest disclosure will often be the surest solution, for the public will understand good faith efforts to avoid improper use of public office when they are kept informed.
I realize, too, that perhaps the gravest responsibility of all rests upon the office of President. No President can excuse or pardon the slightest deviation from irreproachable standards of behavior on the part of any member of the executive branch. For his firmness and determination is the ultimate source of public confidence in the government of the United States. And there is no consideration that can justify the undermining of that confidence.
JOHN F. KENNEDY
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0956527/releaseinfo
IMDb
CBS Reports (TV Series)
Why Men in Space? (1961)
Release Info
USA 27 April 1961
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0956527/
IMDb
Why Men in Space?
1h Documentary, News Episode aired 27 April 1961
Season 2 Episode 13
Release Date: 27 April 1961 (USA)
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=8093
The American Presidency Project
John F. Kennedy
XXXV President of the United States: 1961 - 1963
153 - Address "The President and the Press" Before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, New York City.
April 27, 1961
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 t. he New York Herald Tribune, under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and Managing Editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one-party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man. My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
I.
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security-and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the Nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said-and your newspapers have constantly said-that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America-unions and businessmen and public officials at every level--will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to this same exacting test.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
II.
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I .am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for, as a wise man once said: "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment--the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
III.
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
Note: The President spoke at the annual dinner of the Association's Bureau of Advertising held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City.
"Space: Above And Beyond"
"Stardust"
19 April 1996
Episode 20 Season 1 DVD video:
US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel T.C. McQueen: Operation Naye'i. Naye'i is a Navajo word for "alien gods." During the war we used Native Americans as radio operators. Navajo was the only native language the enemy couldn't crack. I assume any disinformation regarding the location of Operation Roundhammer would be written in code, to make it appear to the enemy to be top secret information.
US Navy commodore Ross: We are not at liberty to discuss this.
US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel T.C. McQueen: I have no problem with the mission - if that's what it is. But there is something that bothers me, Commodore. For disinformation to be effective, we would want the Chigs to crack the code. Why would the code be written in a language that even other people on Earth couldn't crack? Unless we knew the enemy was familiar with the language.
http://www.tv.com/shows/nova/men-who-painted-caves-the-448672/
tv.com
NOVA Season 2 Episode 6
Men Who Painted Caves (The)
Aired Wednesday 9:00 PM Dec 08, 1974 on PBS
Just why did Cro-Magnon man living in France's Dordogne Valley some 15,000 years ago take time out from the desperate business of survival to paint pictures in inaccessible corners of his cave dwellings? NOVA joins French and American archeologists as they piece together the lifestyle of these hunters of the last great Ice Age, and try to interpret the meaning of their cave art.
AIRED: 12/8/74
http://credo.library.umass.edu/images/resize/350/muph051-s01c-i00159-001.png
http://www.tv.com/shows/m-squad/the-man-who-lost-his-brain-260178/
tv.com
M Squad Season 3 Episode 19
The Man Who Lost His Brain
Aired Friday 9:00 PM Jan 26, 1960 on NBC
AIRED: 1/26/60
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/2413/products/n_rte_e_6_red_blue_serge_fc_fire_control_81176_4a71afb8-0e0a-4154-bc09-f6b092c84c8a_grande.jpeg?v=1423544450
"Space: Above And Beyond"
"Stardust"
19 April 1996
Episode 20 Season 1 DVD video:
US Navy Commodore Ross: Whoa! Son, I don't know if you'll understand what I am about to say. This is "Rosalyn." You damage her you damage me. And I will make you walk all 12.6 light-years back to Fat Anthony's Guitar Parlor in Shreveport, Louisiana, to repair a single nick.
US Marine Corps General Oliver Radford: We wouldn't want that, now, because I'd have to make him walk all the way to Country Dick's Guitar Shop in Austin, Texas.
US Navy Ensign Sangers: We're all secured here, sir!
US Navy Commodore Ross: Country Dick's! Oh, man. It's been a long time!
US Marine Corps General Oliver Radford: That night in Galveston. We were bombed.
US Navy Commodore Ross: I drove those women away singing "The Ballad of Ira Hayes."
US Marine Corps General Oliver Radford: You would have driven anybody away, after six times in a row. Speaking of which: I was driving through Arizona a few years ago. I was with my people, the Navajo, and... I bought this off a guy on the Pima reservation. Claims it's an old letter signed by Ira Hayes, that he wrote at Iwo Jima. I doubt if it is, but I thought about you, and - Hell, I'd like to think it is. I've been wondering about Hayes a lot. First Pima Indian to become a Marine paratrooper. Helped raise the flag at Iwo Jima. Became a hero for a country that... had massacred Native Americans. They say he drowned in a mud puddle. Drunk. Did he ever feel he had been used? That he'd done the right thing? Would he have done it the same way again, if he had a chance?
US Navy Commodore Ross: Too bad the dead don't get a chance to redeem themselves. Is there something that's troubling you because of your new appointment? You are now the highest-ranking Native American officer in the world. Although it's hard for me to imagine you in charge of anything... called "intelligence."
http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/FFG50.htm
NVR
Naval Vessel Register
TAYLOR (FFG 50)
GUIDED MISSILE FRIGATE
Class: FFG 7
Status: Stricken, to be disposed of
Award Date: 05/22/1981
Keel Date: 05/05/1983
Launch Date: 11/05/1983
Commission Date: 12/01/1984
Decommission Date: 05/08/2015
Years from Commission to Decommission: 30.4
From 12/1/1984 ( the United States Navy warship USS Taylor FFG 50 commissioned into United States Navy battle force fleet active service - departing 11 February 1986 as Kerry Wayne Burgess the United States Navy Fire Controlman Petty Officer 3rd Class my first United States Navy fleet assignment beginning 19 December 1984 ) To 5/7/1992 is 2714 days
2714 = 1357 + 1357
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 7/21/1969 ( my biological brother Thomas Reagan the United States Navy Commander circa 1969 was United States Apollo 11 Eagle spacecraft United States Navy astronaut landing and walking on the planet Earth's moon ) is 1357 days
[ See also: http://hvom.blogspot.com/2016/01/heres-your-proof-dumbass.html ]
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-08/news/mn-1910_1_space-station-assembly
Los Angeles Times
Shuttle Endeavour Blasts Off on Difficult Maiden Flight : Science: The mission includes three spacewalks, practice for space station assembly and rescue of a communications satellite.
May 08, 1992 ROBERT W. STEWART TIMES STAFF WRITER
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. — Dodging gusty winds and threatening thunderstorms, the shuttle Endeavour, the nation's newest orbiter, found a hole in the clouds Thursday and blasted off on its maiden voyage.
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-04-26/local/me-522_1_space-shuttle-endeavour
Los Angeles Times
New 'Jewel' of Shuttle Fleet Debuts : Space: Endeavour, the replacement for Challenger, comes off the production line in Palmdale. It is more advanced than earlier craft.
April 26, 1991 THOMAS H. MAUGH II TIMES SCIENCE WRITER
PALMDALE — The $1.8-billion space shuttle Endeavour officially rolled off the Rockwell production line in Palmdale on Thursday, replacing the ill-fated Challenger and bringing NASA's space fleet back to its full complement of four vehicles.
To the majestic strains of "Thus Spake Zarathustra"--the theme from the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" and the unofficial anthem of the space generation--the five-story tall, gleaming white craft made its official debut before a crowd of 3,000 employees and well-wishers at Air Force Plant 42. NASA will not officially take delivery, however, until Endeavour is flown piggyback on a 747 to the Kennedy Space Flight Center in Florida this weekend.
Although the orbiter will not actually be completed until after it reaches Florida, NASA officials and astronauts waxed poetic over it.
"Endeavour, the jewel of the fleet! Isn't it beautiful?" remarked astronaut Daniel Brandenstein, who will command the shuttle on its maiden voyage in March, 1992, a mission to bolt a new rocket motor onto a failed communications satellite. "I tell you, if that doesn't put a lump in your throat, I don't think you're human."
"Endeavour is a beauty," said NASA Administrator Richard Truly, "but in this case beauty is more than skin deep. This orbiter's not like the others. It's equipped with the latest avionics (navigation equipment), the finest mechanical systems, a new drag chute and equipment for longer duration flights."
Endeavour incorporates all the improvements that have been made on the other three shuttles, and some that won't appear on those shuttles until later. The most obvious is a drag parachute that will be deployed on landing to slow the orbiter, thereby easing the pressures on the brakes and landing gear.
The parachute and a newly beefed-up nose wheel will also increase control of the shuttle when it is forced to land on the concrete runway at the Kennedy center rather than the longer and wider dry lake bed at Edwards Air Force Base.
Endeavour also contains more fuel cells, which generate electricity, to allow it to stay in orbit for as long as 28 days, twice as long as the existing craft. NASA plans to make longer flights in the future to study the effects of microgravity on astronauts.
At the ceremony, Brandenstein was presented with part of the sternpost recovered from the first Endeavour, a research ship commanded by British explorer Capt. James Cook between 1768 and 1771. The centuries-old memento will be carried into space on Endeavour's first mission.
- posted by H.V.O.M - Kerry Wayne Burgess 9:49 PM Pacific Time Spokane Valley Washington USA Wednesday 30 March 2016
