text:
Jack S. Futterman Oral History
Part XI- People
Hugh McKenna
Q: Let's talk about Hugh McKenna, because you and I went to McKenna funeral last week. So why don't you spend just a few minutes telling your memories of McKenna?
I will be glad to do that. Let me knock that off and then I will finish this other thing. Yeah I would rather do something that we are talking about right now and that is why we never end up where we planned. I meant to since I thought that you were going to bring that up. But unfortunately, I have been extremely busy. I just haven't had time to do all of the things that I need to do each day. But I'd like to talk about it.
But the first thing that I would like to do, and I have been doing this consistently, I think, tell me if I haven't. I realize that when I give you an opinion about a process or an event or who is important or who is not important etc., I am giving it from my point of view. I don't know how to report to you without that qualifier at the beginning.
I have to say about Hugh McKenna, we were not the closest of colleagues. Not because I found him unattractive, and didn't want to. I don't know, I can't speak on his side, I do know that his conduct with me was very correct and very formal. That didn't mean that he did not stop, you know, to do some small talk on occasion and that I didn't. Now I am describing what I took to be his attitude toward me. I believe there is reason to believe that to some degree he was in that respect very correct to a lot of people. That was just his either armor or personality or what have you. But I never felt that Hugh and I were great friends. Not enemies. I did feel that he often conveyed the appearance of not being in full agreement of what I might have been expounding on at the time. He played things very close to the vest. So the difference between when he was in full agreement and not in full agreement was maybe a little blink in the left eye. It was not much difference. So a lot of it could be just perception.
All of this is my disclaimer. That is I am surely not going to give you a rounded view of Hugh McKenna. Now I hope that it is an objective view, and I will not pull punches. I don't know what the proper conduct is with a historian, but I want to help the Historian understand and he has to work out how much to discount what I have to say. But above all, I just do not want to create an impression that I have my knives out for McKenna or anybody else. I don't want anybody to think that Bob Ball is a god because I would agree with so much of what he's done. I can assure you that at the Executive Conferences that we had where the Commissioner was there, and before I became Assistant Commissioner for Administration, and I was his Executive Officer, I spoke up more freely and frankly at these conferences than the Bureau heads.
Maybe I am talking about myself again. But it is important because I am the speaker and I'm going to give you some thoughts on McKenna. At these Executive Conferences, once a week or more, I approached a conference, whether it was with Ball or whether it was my staff with me, in the same way. When we had a conference the implicit policy is, everybody around that table is equal. I have never heard this explicitly from anybody else, but I don't think that it is exceptional. If you are trying to discuss what should be the right policy in a particular area, then I think everybody around that table is a full participant in this and each one's thoughts might not be entitled to equal weight, but each participant should be free to express them because we are asking, when we sit around the table, we are saying, "Now I want your best idea." Now obviously the one who makes the decision will make his decision on the basis of his judgement of how much weight to give to each. But you should not repress your true reactions. So Ball had more trouble with me on those discussions, not that he had trouble, but to get the debate rolling and so forth and to get their views on the table, and sometimes it was points that he would have to reconcile, he would get more from me than from the others. Not infrequently the others might sit back, you know, and play watch which way the wind was blowing.
The same thing happened years before when I was on Joe Fay's staff. I was down the line at the times that I was participating in the very early days in Joe Fay's executive conferences. A lot of people who had been with Joe Fay before he came to Social Security, before he came into the Division of Accounting Operations, they watched him, they knew him. They would watch indications from his demeanor whether they should say something or even try to modify whatever idea he was throwing out as his view. So the same thing happened with Joe Fay. Now I am bringing that out because I'm not one to say things that my superiors or colleagues want to hear. By that I don't mean that I'm deliberately unpleasant, but I don't hold back if I have a reaction to something and they are expecting a reaction, I am going to give them my reaction. I will do it as politely and as considerately as I know how, usually. But I don't spend over much time worrying about it.
So I've made my disclaimer for McKenna. Now the first thing that I will say is, and this comes from me a person who was not close to him, was not part of his staff --there were a lot of people who felt very close to him-- there is no doubt in mind that Hugh McKenna made a huge contribution to the establishment of the Social Security field organization. No question in my mind. And for that his place in the history of Social Security should be assured. In addition, it didn't come by accident that the field organization became the greatest source of recruiting for other jobs. Hugh McKenna should be given a substantial, if not major, part of the credit for that. It's a fact that a large proportion of SSA leaders came from the field organization. Scratch a Historian and you find he came from the field. Scratch an Office of Administration guy like Jack Futterman, he was not from the field, he was not the "rule." But there are a lot guys like the Historian around who came to Central Office from the field, because that is where most of the jobs were. And that is where the people with the best credentials were.
But the fact was that they did come on their own, because Hugh sought them out. They were not driven away and they decided to make their careers in the Social Security Administration. I don't know what attracted you, maybe just the money and an opportunity to go to work. And of course the very nature of the work, which Hugh McKenna can't claim credit for. But he did provide an intellectual climate I think. The organization in the field was deemed by non-SSAer's as a first rate one for very many, many years. I cannot speak to what it is today, but it was truly an organization that hung together, was dedicated to its work, and who treated its mission like most all of us in the early days, as almost a religion. Social Security was a cause and it wasn't the paycheck that was the dominant incentive, motivation, what have you.
I often recollected, from my college days, studying the psychology of education, that amongst the motivations that were important in the workplace, research found that money was at about the fourth or fifth level. Such things as identifying with a "cause" were at the highest levels, and that money, except in individual cases, usually occupied a lesser role.
So there was McKenna, he had really built a good organization. It endured, it persists today. The people that were attracted were not discouraged, because people like that could easily get discouraged, and be driven out of the organization, but they were not. They are still that way. They come to Central Office and man all kinds of roles, because the people that came in through the field positions had very satisfying work experiences, had established wishes to stay with the Social Security program and organization, had varied backgrounds, varied interests, and they could do many things besides the things that they did in the field.
For instance, I've asked myself this question before, but as I look at the Area Offices; is that their current title? What do you call them?
Q: Program Centers.
Why have not the Program Centers over the years noticeably produced proportionate numbers of people that moved up into other positions? Taken all together, the PC organization was not quite as large as the field, they were not as public oriented, they were much more isolated from the public, but why not, withstanding that, have they not done as well as I think they should have? Now I am sure that there are some, and some important ones, but I am talking in terms of overall. I'd say the strength of the organization in the Program Centers and their antecedent organizations were not nearly as program-oriented in purpose as was the field. There were well-known SSA people in those offices who had been there a long time and were considered "pillars" of the organization. But somehow or other, and here I am making a leap, and a judgement. The Program Centers, starting with Ewell Bartlett, who was a very shrewd and intelligent person, did not have that kind of atmosphere. They were more insular. The hierarchy of their loyalties were a little bit inverted. All employees of Social Security should first and above all have a common overarching aim: achieving the aims and objectives of the Social Security program. And a most important part of this is a recognition, notwithstanding great pride in one's own organization, that all the other parts of SSA play vital roles in the common task. I think field people were not exempt from the all-too-common fault of sometimes having primary loyalty to the "field" and somehow or other equating what's best for the field is best for the program, but were much less so. I use that not to denigrate the field, but to make the point about my impression of the Area Office people.
Q: Okay.
You see I still keep wandering. Make sure I come back each time when I do. I want to come back to McKenna. I am sure if you had given me some time to think about and organize my thoughts about McKenna I would not ramble so much. Or if there were some specific areas involving McKenna that you wished me to react to, it would come more easily. But in general, and I think this is my view, I can't identify McKenna with very many areas where his personal contribution was the dominant thing that drove it--the engine that drove it. Now that does not mean to say that he was not a real good administrator in most respects. I am not saying that he really did not develop ideas; I think that he sparked a lot of things, but I can't point them out. From the vantage point of many points in my career I was not in a good position to observe in any detail his personal contributions to administering the field organization. And undoubtedly I have, because of the years that have passed, less than a ready recall of many things that I was able to, and did, observe.
Another reason why I can't easily identify McKenna's personal contribution in the development and administration of the field organization is that I have little basis to separate his staff's contributions and the many able people in the field from his own. When you have x thousand people working for you, large numbers of whom are well educated and are bright, young ambitious people, you are going to get lots and lots of ideas burgeoning up. But the point is, an executive's job is not to personally develop all of the ideas. Whether or not McKenna was the driving force on it, you have got to give him credit for this bubbling up. There is a good word for it, but at 85 I have trouble digging up the good words, there is a good word for it. This bubbling up, this effervescence throughout the organization existed; he no doubt encouraged it and did not exterminate it. He must be given credit for the fact that the ground was fertile for this kind of thing. Otherwise it wouldn't have taken place. So there was a lot of credit there. There is an organization that cared. It was not unusual. Am I out of line?
Q: No, you're doing fine.
I'm thinking out loud, you know, and I am trying to make some points about him, and I'm not going to say just the good things, but in this particular case I think it's important because of all the top staff I've worked with, I felt less close to Hugh than I was to all of the others, although we had good relations. I never had an open debate with him or an open argument with him or anything like that, to my recollection. He never went and complained about me to my knowledge and I never went and complained about him. Bob Ball and I would have discussions about a lot of things. Sometimes what I said had to have some relationship to my impressions of McKenna. If he was to ask me, you know, who among the top staff would be best to do so and so, I would have to tell him what I thought in terms of the impressions I had of different people and why. That doesn't mean he would swallow what I had to say. He had his own views and an even better basis for evaluating some of these people. But sometimes he would get a deep insight into somebody he looked at from a different angle. Like I told you the other day when I suggested McKenna for the BRSI job.
Q: Yes.
And he said to me, indicating at one and the same time his approval of the suggestion and his surprise at the idea. "Do you think that he would take it?" He had not thought about it, basically, I believe because it did not occur to him that McKenna would take it. He had been thinking and thinking about who was the best qualified to do the kind of job he thought was needed and had come up dry. And I just came up just like that, as I did on a number of other occasions.
Q: This was for the Program Operations job that Ball offered McKenna?
BRSI, the head of it, the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance.
Q: Right.
Another indication of the strength of his organizational abilities was the high quality of the conferences that he ran. And the bringing into each of the regional conferences of central office people, top central office people like the Commissioner, like Alvin David, or the program people, other top staff. I would be there when I became Assistant Commissioner for Administration. I'd attend regional conferences and be on the program so that people in the field had an opportunity, a real opportunity, to know personally, or at least to hear them personally, so that they would not get the impression that they were working for the field organization and that they were isolated from and that their voice was not heard in the councils in Washington. It's a real builder. I don't know who started the regional conferences. I think they started before McKenna; I'm not sure, but they certainly went on throughout his stay with the organization and they were major, major things. I don't know whether you ever attended one, but they were major events. They were "morale builders" for the staff. They were also informative sessions. They heard from the horse's mouth. Bob Ball's greatest work, I think, was the speeches that he made at the Regional Conferences. They were highly motivational and inspiring. In terms of a Commissioner leading the flock and inspiring them and making them understand the realities and the problems that they were confronting and what was being done about it and all of that stuff, that was great, great stuff. Without it the SSA Field people would not have been as outstanding as they were.
Now they didn't always have a Bob Ball. They had Commissioners before who didn't do that kind of a job. I am not sure to what extent they attended the Regional Conferences, but I know that in the many years that Bob was around he attended every one that he could. So he had things like that going on, they flourished. If he didn't initiate it, they at least flourished. They were embraced widely by the staff and enjoyed.
Incidently, when they met in the regional conferences, it wasn't just the regional chief and some of his staff. I believe every manager, and assistant manager or whatever, and others down the line, were expected to attend or at least they were invited to attend. And for a week usually in a nice place, off-season, where it could be gotten dirt-cheap, like Florida in July or some place like that.
One other thing I think deserves mention. Again, Hugh McKenna was clearly in my view somebody who pushed training. Now I'm not sure how far down the line that went, but executive training, that was something of particular interest to him. From where I saw it, it appeared to be identified with the training of executives, of people coming up the line, you know, the Field Reps, the new hires, etc., that kind of thing. He was a strong trainer in terms of selecting people who he thought showed the most promise and putting them on a fast track. And that, of course, is a tradition that does Social Security proud.
Bill McDonald, whose name I couldn't remember the last session, it just came to me. In the earliest days when we were first hired, I was first hired as a clerk, I was given 2 or 3 days of training along with everybody else who came in with me. So it wasn't just me selected out and that was when we had college professors, especially, hired as members of the Social Security staff, as a part of the training staff and they provided this kind of training on all elements of Social Security, including the Grade 2's, of which I was a part. The lowest clerical was a Grade 1. It was given by college professors knowledgeable in the history of Social Security throughout the world and they gave us this feel about this program and they were very much, as I think about it, very much a part of the feeling that we developed early on that this was a religion almost. This was a purpose with which one could identify without strain.
All I am saying here is that Hugh McKenna certainly wasn't one of those guys that would save money and denigrate training. I think he was quite of the other camp, he saw a use and value in that. And obviously too, Hugh was especially well-read. When you talked to him, it was clear that he kept sort of abreast of writings in the area of organization and administration, that kind of thing. So he was not unfamiliar with the advanced thinking then current, and he was more responsive to that kind of thing than I personally was. But the fact was that training was very high on his agenda and that very important aspect of administering a very large and dispersed organization like the SSA field organization was in the hands of a guy of obvious high intellect and ability with a proven record of running a "quality" organization.
Now what is it that bothered me about Hugh's methods, his way of working? Really basically, it is one, just one. I'm going to use an analogy Larry, you may have some ability to understand. If you were a Marylander for longer than you have been, you would know about Mayor Schaffer, who became Governor Schaffer. Mayor Schaffer, I had met him once many years before he became Mayor, he was the Chairman of the Council, or the President, I forget what the title was, of the City Council. He was not the Mayor and I thought that when he talked to people at several affairs that I attended in those days before he became Mayor, I thought that the man was incoherent.
Now I was saying this in terms of what was my problem with McKenna. From the point of view of the ordinary tasks of running the city, which today a lot of people say are the city manager sort of tasks where, you know, you keep the garbage picked up and the roads fixed and the people happy and water flowing, whatever, you are managing the city. Schaffer was not all that scientific, Schaffer was an impulsive guy. But he had right impulses in terms of serving the people in their neighborhoods. He was very responsive to the complaints of the ordinary citizen. He would jump and he would usually land on somebody and say, "I want it fixed now." Meaning you had better come back tomorrow and tell him that it was done. But he had a characteristic that he couldn't tolerate the slightest criticism or difference of opinion, as it appeared to me. And so he would vent anger at his employees, at people who expressed themselves, like newspaper reporters, or whatever, or members of his staff, high members of his staff. He wouldn't talk to them. His definition of loyalty was so extreme he did not contemplate anybody differing with him. Loyalty was to do exactly as he told them. There was an element of instilling "fear" in the way he operated.
Now this is highly overdrawn as a way of highlighting the one aspect that I regard as the minus in McKenna's style of operation. I always had a feeling that he was greatly more disciplined than Schaffer in the overt responses too. But it is undemocratic, that is what I label it, undemocratic. My point was that there was an element in Schaffer's operation, although first rate, the people who had pot holes and wanted garbage collected on time were very, very happy with Schaffer. And I was too, in respect to his responsiveness. But from the other end, if I had true choice, I never would vote for a person like that, if I had a choice. Because, you know, a benevolent despot may be the best person to run the government, but he is a despot and what you have to give up is more important.
In an employment situation, I think what is involved is a more democratic approach. That means that you build on people's common urge to make their best contribution to the purpose for which you all are working. As employees of the Government of the United States you have a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the United States. That doesn't mean loyalty to the President, if he's wrong.
McKenna was rightly accorded high praise for building and running a strong, effective field organization, but to my taste, the performance was not unattended by some amount of fear. I am using a four letter word that isn't softened. You know what I'm talking about? It wasn't something that came wholly out of love to contribute to the program, some of it came out of fear. It seemed to get out of line to an extent--he got tight discipline and order out of fear. I am over-stating it obviously, it was a small element, but it is often a small part of the whole that changes the character, sometimes subtly, of a totality. You take oil, gasoline and put an additive in to remove the knocks and it becomes No-Nox, but the additive is only maybe half a percent. And when you have in that equation of ruling with a fear factor, intentionally or otherwise, you are having that kind of effect on people, intentionally or otherwise, and to a degree I get negative "vibes."
Now, as I've said, all this talk about this "minus" may be giving it much too much weight. My full judgement of McKenna's contribution, is that he made a very big contribution, and I did recommend him to take over the BRSI job, and I did it in full knowledge of that. I told Bob that one of the reasons that I would specifically recommend him in this particular situation was because it was my understanding, from a conversation that I had with him some months before, that his general plan was to retire in two years. And I thought that in two years he could do the kind of job that only he could do. He was the man best fitted to restore order, which was badly needed in the Program Centers.
Q: And he was successful at that.
Yes he was. Oh absolutely, no question. Sure I am saying that I made an excellent choice in recommending him, and I take credit for that. Were it not for my conversation with Bob, he would have never thought of it. So that's it in a nutshell.
I think now I want to say one other thing in that connection. Again to put this in perspective. I am the easiest guy, in my judgement, because of the way that I came up the line, the way I knew people from lower grades. I'm on a first-name basis, people four levels, five levels below me would call me Jack with no problem, and they would call their immediate supervisor four levels down Mr. Something or Miss Something. So here I felt easy and comfortable to talk to anybody. And there was one guy that I am thinking about. A bright young fellow whom I noticed had a lot to say when he was amongst his peers. But my habit was when I gave an assignment to tell the person that I was giving the assignment to that if he wasn't going to do the job himself personally, rather than having to repeat the guidance that I wanted to give him, bring in whomever was going to do it to get it first hand. You can do the supervising, but I want both of you to hear the same thing rather than just you, and then you can take him back to your office and you can elaborate more and give him more guidance. And I used to do that frequently and never thought that was any problem for anybody. Well this guy, who was effervescent and talking all the time amongst his peers, when he came to my office he just wouldn't say anything. Years later I find out talking to him one time he said, "I was scared stiff of you." And I thought I exude just easy bonhomie, comradery, and I never had any trouble with anybody because we were on a first name basis. Nobody, that I can recollect in all of the years that I worked, took advantage of that familiarity, they showed me respect, etc. Sure they might say some things to me that they would never say to somebody else, but they knew I took it the way it was intended.
So I use that example, that here I am describing my impression that Hugh worked a little too much through fear, consciously or unconsciously. I am not even sure that he had a chance to really thoughtfully weigh that factor, I think it was compulsive sort of with him, and that was the way that he worked. You have one or two other stories that are from other sources that are consistent with some of the things that I am saying. And incidently, that person I'm referring to now, that you have some information on, is one of the reasons why I, myself, formed over the years, this impression.
So here I am saying this is about McKenna, and here is my self-image of a jovial, friendly, nice-guy Futterman and I find out that some people were scared of me. So you never know.
This is not at all a comprehensive or many-sided view of McKenna. We worked together for many years, but my points of personal work with McKenna were not all that many. We both attended the regular meetings of the executive staff. We attended regional conferences together, I had a chance to observe him there. We attended other meetings together, but there were not many day-after-day things. We were not in overlapping areas except in the budget and training. And there was the characteristic that you yourself mentioned to me that Hugh would talk to the top but he wouldn't talk to "underlings." Not that I was an underling, but I found that, unlike most of the others of the top staff, when I was an Executive Assistant to Bob Ball, if Hugh had a problem he wouldn't take it up with me, he would only take it up with Bob Ball. So Bob had a lot of opportunity to know him intimately and they met quite frequently because of many reasons, one of which was obviously the field was a big part of the total organization. And that is where a Commissioner had to focus and a lot of the Commissioner's responsibilities of running the organization resided in the Field and he had to depend on McKenna for that. And McKenna, of course, was not afraid to ask for things. He sometimes sought more than his share of things, and he did it of course with the top man.
Q: And also a minute ago you were making a point about you being informal and people calling you Jack. We both heard Bob Bynum at McKenna's funeral say that when he started working for McKenna it was several years before he felt that he could call him Hugh instead of Mr. McKenna, even though he worked right on his staff. So he obviously, unquestionably, had a very formal approach.
I'll tell you another person that was the same, Joe Fay. I worked for Joe Fay for many years, while a lot of the people who had worked for him in pre-Social Security days, and there were a lot of them in the organization, who would sometimes call him Joe. I never called him Joe. I never felt that I had his permission to call him Joe. I didn't call him Joe until many years after I left, when I was unquestionably at his level.
Q: Now that formality, was that more common in the early days of SSA. Culturally I would say that was more common in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s?
Yes it was. Oh yeah, very much so.
Q: It would be more common at SSA in general beyond Hugh McKenna and his personality, or Joe Fay and his personality?
Oh yeah! Oh yeah! But that applied to a subordinate/superior relationship. I don't think it was all that usual even in the 1930s and 1940s and 1950s, for people working intimately at near the same level to be informal. Like in the early days in the Candler Building, I can't imagine that the people that worked on the ninth floor, in and around Joe Fay's office, would call him Mr. Fay, they frequently called him Joe. They were not his equals, but they often called him Joe, not Mr. Fay. And it went down to guys lower in line who had worked with him previously in Washington, they'd call him Joe, but not the new guys. At least, most people wouldn't, some people are brassy, you know. They would just call him Joe--not me. I mean I have to feel that there is a certain receptivity for it and the guy is entitled to be called what he wants to be called.
In other places that was not required, that was not the custom, it would be on a first name basis. Alvin David was called Alvin by everybody on his staff all of the way down. It was a small staff and it's conducive to that. My staff, the only ones that didn't call me Jack were the secretarial staff, of which there were four or five, and they felt comfortable doing that. I don't go around and say,"Call me Jack." Since I founded the Social Security Alumni Association people still call me, who never were close to me and on a personal basis, would talk to me as Mr. Futterman and still they call me Mr. Futterman. I just told one of people at the funeral, he sat in front of us with his wife, he was calling me Mr. Futterman. He had a high office in the Program Center, I think, when he came here, about the time when I left. He knew me coming up, so he was calling me Mr. Futterman, I said, "Call me Jack." My philosophy on that down to the lowest grade, people who occupied the lowest grades, who are now in the Alumni Association, we were all equals. I'm not a Mister, I'm an ex-employee. Now if you want to show as a sign of personal respect a difference, I'm one of the guys, but if you still feel more comfortable calling me Mr. Futterman, I'm not going to insist. But everybody in my office called me Jack, and way down the line, except the secretaries, they had their own code. It didn't issue from me, but then I can understand that. In those days it was just a little too informal for secretaries. They always tried to maintain the dignity of the office in which they worked.
So I guess I could talk more, but I was hoping to give you a little more, you are going to get facts on McKenna from other sources and I would hope that it would not be intemperate. There will be a lot of people, I'm sure, I can't name who they are, but there are a lot of people who stayed closely associated with McKenna over a long period of time and I think that they were his disciples and thought very highly of him. This factor didn't always hit him, but I think if you read between the lines of Hugh Jr.'s talk with me and a little bit of what he was saying in the little talk that he gave, you saw that element of augustness.
Q: Even from his own son who basically alluded to his father being kind of formal and aloof.
Well I hope you understand now, I try to be objective as I can, including my own biases, if I have any, and I try to exclude biases. To give you as balanced a view as I can give you. But you know, everybody has a bias and when you talk to others closer to him, like you've talked to Bynum, I am sure he gave you a lot of, more of strengths and probably the only thing that he talked about that was not of strength, you know, not pro, is the thing that I put my finger on. And he didn't dwell on it.
I would say also without having to tell you that, I think you'll do it, is that you have to talk to people who looked at him from a different angle. Who were on his immediate team and will give him a lot of credit for things that they know of, you know, things that they were trying to do, to get the Central Office to do, like getting the Commissioner to do, but the Commissioner wouldn't do it, and that kind of stuff. I don't know, but I put mine in the pot and I hope it carries more than equal weight, because I try to be balanced from the start and I have a basis for balancing it. Other people are not equipped that way. That's your problem. And that's why I don't believe in archaeologists very much when they find a single cheek bone and they can construct a whole society from it. I think the fragments of this history that you are going to be able to touch and put together, provide a very limited view.
That just occurred to me that, and this is relevant to Hugh McKenna, so this is a little side thing. It has no importance other than to help visualize the individual. I come over, in my view, on this tape as if I'm a basso profunda, whatever that means, deep voice.
Q: You do have a deep voice.
I sort of think that I have a tenor voice, and I am not very musical. I want to be a little clearer, this is gravely voice. But Hugh McKenna had the most, I think, the best voice, deep, it came from the chest, it carried a long distance, and the best speaking voice. And the trouble was with that magnificent instrument he was one of the most boring speakers.
Q: I've heard other people say that.
The problem was he didn't use that voice. He did a lot of, some people say today, "you know, you know, you know, you know." Not McKenna, he'd say, "err." So there would be numerous "errs" in this thing, and this guy standing up there and making this presentation, probably solid stuff, but it was just full of "errs." And it was universally recognized that he could put you to sleep. So that's a little side thing.
Q: That's funny.
So that's a little aside.
Bob Ball & Alvin David
Bob Ball and Alvin David were extremely close. But that didn't mean that David got anything special; not infrequently in difficult discussions, he got the short end. Because you know, being the closest, you were supposed to be the most understanding of not getting your full due. I inherited that kind of mantle, somewhat. Often the understanding was there; sometimes it did not go down all that well.
Q: When you became close to Ball.
I was never as close as Alvin David was. Nobody could be closer at work. You know, I was the inside man. And in all of this, I want to make sure that it's understood that I didn't operate at the same level as Bob. When I said we were a two-man team, I mean I complemented him in an extremely good way. I had a lot of talents, some of which he did not have to the degree that I had, but of course, he always operated at a higher level as a whole. I'm not comparing myself to him in any way as an intellectual or career equal.
Q: Tell me a little more about the relationship between Alvin David and Ball that you mentioned.
Well, they were extremely good friends, they saw each other socially. In the early years, prior to the time I went to Program Analysis, which was in 1955, even though they both had permanent positions in the organization, financially they were struggling. I don't mean they were poor or anything like that. I mean, they lived very, very modestly. They lived close by. Linda David, Alvin's wife, and Doris Ball were very good friends. And Alvin was a unique person. He had a complete measure of understanding of what Bob needed to do before he thought about it himself. So he would do the things that needed to be done before Bob became aware he needed it. Indeed, Alvin had a relationship with Bob on the other side, in the program area, where he had measures of competence and sensitivity that (I'm not imagining this) that Bob learned from. As indeed, in a certain sort of way, when Bob and I became associated with each other, he had no administrative experience, particularly about testifying, not testifying on everything, but testifying on the budget, things like that. And so, you know, we were extremely close, in that respect, for several years. And then he began to do, by himself, a large amount of testifying. Oh, I'd brief him, and all that stuff, but he didn't need, and indeed he didn't want, the Congressmen to see that he was being helped. So it became tricky sometimes to feed him information, data, etc., without doing it in a way that would clearly send a message that he was merely a spokesman. Bob liked to be fully informed, and he was without doubt one of the very best informed persons to testify regularly before the budget committees and the committee members, both sides, respected him for the way he worked with the committee and the Congress.
Q: Tell me about your relationship with Alvin David. Talk about that a little bit.
Extremely good. Alvin's a unique person. And chemistry is important to him. And he's very sensitive. So if he detects the kind of chemistry in a person that makes him feel squeaky, you know, uncomfortable, that would be a problem. And he gets uncomfortable with a lot of things, intellectual and emotional, etc. If people are saying things that are off-key--if something reveals the person as being of different values or ignorant, or whatever--he gets uncomfortable in their presence.
John Schwartz
John Schwartz was my Personnel Officer. I had a problem in getting him to be my Personnel Officer. The personnel office, with all the manuals and all that, they were sort of the most "unionized" type of thinking. The personnel office people, at least in those days, and I suppose to a degree still, thought of themselves as sort of a different, slightly different organization, that was working in kind of a unique field and that only prior experience could qualify individuals for advancement in that field. So that if you were a classifier, in order to be a higher classifier, you had to have more experience in classification. But equivalent experience in other fields, like direct operations which gave you knowledge of the substance of jobs, etc., was barely recognized, if at all.
John Schwartz had none of those experiences in specialized areas of personnel work such as classification. But I took on the Civil Service Commission or its representatives that handled it for us. I convinced them that as Assistant to the Director of Field Operations, or whatever the job was called, the occupant of such a job, who was John Schwartz, he dealt with personnel matters; he dealt directly with operational matters; he knew how to bridge between the two. And he couldn't do one or the other without being really knowledgeable. And that's the essence of the information that we wanted to have in personnel officers. A person who was knowledgeable both on the substance of the program that he was attached to sufficiently to enable him to optimize the kind of the spirit of civil service administration, and of the standards of merit protection, of the merit principle, and all of that. Well, that finally qualified him. But it was one of the rare occasions when that kind of a job was okayed by Civil Service without a fight.
Incidentally, a similar thing that I did--although it wasn't between Social Security and the Civil Service. It was a professional association of Government Accountants. And they wanted nominations for the accountant of the year from different agencies. And I nominated Millie Tyssowski, who was not an accountant.
Q: She was a budget officer.
I convinced them in a similar way. She became one of the 10 Government accountants of the year, and was honored in Washington and all that. My argument was that as the head of the Fiscal Management Office of Social Security, she needed to deal with the products of accountants. She knew how to do that. She knew how to use the accounting function to enhance program administration, and how to integrate that with the larger purpose of which financing is but a part. Accounting is not an end in itself; fiscal management is not an end in itself, nor is personnel management an end in itself. The people who should be sought, are the ones who are able to acquire that specialized expertise and use it in an optimum fashion.
So anyway, he is quoting somebody in the Department named John Cole praising Schwartz for his work in personnel and manpower development. In the area of equal employment opportunity, there was considerable recognition of SSA's accomplishments, there was also a lot of demand on us, going to help other people do as well.
Arthur Altmeyer
In 1967, I made a talk that we were greatly impacted by the recent amendments. This is the piece I wrote for that talk.
I particularly like this, Arthur Altmeyer wrote me this: it's that letter, did you read it? I gave you an Arthur Altmeyer letter; he wrote me.
Q: You did.
I think he said in that letter he liked the piece very much. He never wrote me before. I knew him; I met with him several times when I was head of Budget.
Q: What was he like as a personality? Can you describe him a little bit for me?
I didn't know him that well. But he had a presence; he must have seen himself in a historical perspective. So sometimes he would pontificate on budget; he was not just an expert on the operational budget.
Incidentally, Arthur Altmeyer, he was retired at the time, wrote a letter, which I think I showed you. He was a guy that was always seriously interested in the program; he didn't seem to go very far from it. When he talked about anything, he was talking about Social Security. Many years after, that paper was written in the 1960's, he was still watching over Social Security and writing letters. Obviously, he didn't have any staff; maybe he had some typist available to write me a letter. He had never done that before. I wasn't even sure that he remembered me, he didn't show any evidence in that letter. But that reveals his kind of close and sincere interest in the program. He was kind of relieved that there were people who were carrying on in the way that he fully approved. I think that speaks a lot for him and for the program itself.
Q: Can you tell me more about him?
As I said, I never met him one on one. I was in small budget conferences with Wynkoop, Bill Mitchell, and Altmeyer, so there were three layers there in SSA. I don't know who else was in those meetings, maybe two or three others, like either Bob Ball or (not Roy Touchet alone ever), but I'm sure Bob Ball would be there and myself. In effect, we were discussing strategy, overall approach, and I was low man on that totem pole. I wouldn't have talked. There wasn't anything that I needed to say.
Roy Wynkoop
Roy Wynkoop was an ex-SSAer, and he was very well versed in budget matters. He was a very good, able, career person. Knowledge was important because his job was largely in helping the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner oversee all the Social Security units. He was a very able guy, and they put him on loan to the Federal Government to settle the Cubans in Florida when they flooded the country. He did a spectacular job. Sometime you might want to get somebody to write up that period; the Cubans were coming over in thousands, and he ran that program. He ran it for Uncle Sam, and he was spectacular in the way he'd pull together agencies that had no direct function on that and got them to do things that were necessary. He had no funds to operate on. He had a begging operation and he was spectacular. He was a very bright guy. He knew Social Security very well because he worked for the Social Security central field organization in a fairly good position before he went to the Office of the Commissioner.
Q: So you wrote this article and Altmeyer sent you a letter praising you.
Oh yes, and I will take several copies of this. We've got a lot of copies here.
Q: Okay.
It was more than just about a good article. He said, in effect, that: "You guys are doing a great job in improving the program, service to the public and all of that." So he was blessing a lot more because this article really shows the program developments. As I recall, this was in several versions. This is the Social Security program.
Q: This is interesting.
This is 1969. This has never been done before or since I guess.
Roy Touchet
Q: Okay, what about Roy Touchet?
He and Oscar Pogge were close social friends, with their wives. And then there was, I think, a falling-out.
I always want to qualify what I say about other people. My views are frequently not foursquare with the consensus on them. But I usually think a lot more about what I've said, not while I'm talking, but before.
I've thought about what made Roy what he was. He was not the most effective management person. I told you that he was out with Oscar Pogge. When I got to know him, he commanded little authority. In fact, Bartlett often made him the butt of jokes. Because he was on the "outs" with Oscar Pogge, I think that interfered with their relationship. But, as I said when I was invited to talk at his memorial service, I said it in front of his wife, that Roy was not one whose fate in life was to be evaluated as a person who had a lot of great ideas, all of which, or the majority of which, were good. The way I said it was: "Many people walk through the sands of life and don't leave an imprint. There are mighty few who leave imprints; they're not always the people who do a steady good job day in and day out who leave the imprint, although they may leave a different kind of imprint. Some guys do not have high batting averages, or are impractical; but do come up now and then with very good ideas and the good idea may become a milepost." Roy, I thought was that kind of a person. As a day in and day out leader, he was erratic, and had his faults. And I was up front, and knew that. But yet, he had these flashes. And he had, before I came under his supervision, he had established an organization-wide employee program, that solicited suggestions from all over the Social Security organization. It generated a great many ideas that were considered, and a substantial number which were implemented. It was well thought of by all as a very worthwhile program. And it was his program, he conceived it and carried it out. It was back in 1950, it was called the "Why Survey."
Q: That's all right, we'll find it somehow.
But it preceded me. And this was an idea he pursued for a long, long time. The name of it was, "Mind Your Business." The level of government, and this was his thesis, which is best equipped to deal with a particular action is the level at which all the unique information resides. Roy's thesis, and in many ways a perceptive one, was that the decision power should be exercised at the lowest level at which all the necessary information was available for the decision to be made.
Q: Okay.
That was his theory. And I helped him.
Q: So he wrote an article?
Not an article. He printed it up. And I never read this all the way through. But there were other pieces that he wrote, condensations of this. This will probably give you a lot more full development of the idea than I ever obtained.
Q: So this wasn't specifically about SSA particularly?
Well, it was. He wanted to apply it to SSA, but it was also his thought that this was a principle of general applicability to most, if not all organizations. He did apply it in his theoretical evaluations of actions that he had to pass on. Like he was responsible, technically, for organization. He was the head of budget, which was the function I took over when he was my supervisor. He attended the budget hearings, but he didn't have sufficient command of the facts, and soon became not useful in the process. He would stay back and let us deal with the Commissioner's office. He called it "the theory of exclusively possessed information" being the location for the decision.
Q: Okay.
And it was pretty good, in a way. I don't subscribe to it completely. But it is helpful at least in getting some idea where the decision making power ought to reside.
One of the things he did, he wanted to develop a profile of an executive. I helped him refine his ideas all along, I was part of his staff, this was a personal effort on his part, but he would ask occasionally for my help or to review or comment. He wanted to see whether they were decisive or imaginative or creative or whatever, you know? And he made appointments throughout the country with textbook writers. John Simon was one of the foremost thinkers on public administration, in those days, and he talked with him, and others. He would visit universities, and I went along. He invited me to go along with him. I was part of his team, his effort of helping him rationalize what he was getting at. But the effort led to nowhere. It was sort of an interesting thing. It led to nowhere but we learned quite a bit about leadership qualities from the people who studied the matter. However, it was clear to me that there was not, nor could there be, a set of characteristics that constituted executive leadership. It is a far more complex matter involving a great many variables and if one looked around at the best known leaders of organizations their profiles would vary greatly and often the elements in one might be opposites of those in another. I don't know whether he ever came to this conclusion, but I did, is that it was an imponderable subject; it was an art form. But he was approaching it as if there was a definite answer.
Roy had a reputation of being very erratic. I used to have to defend him, and I still defend him. Some people go through the sands of time and don't even leave a footprint on life. Roy left a lot of footprints. Some of them were in the wrong direction. But occasionally he would have one in the right direction, and they were important ones. So while you want a guy who steers a steady course and is consistent and all that, you can't overlook the value of one who may call more than his share of just ordinary, or even bad ones, and then call a good one. There is something to be said for people like that.
He was not a dependable, daily, shoulder-to-the wheel sort of guy. There was a great deal of strain which came about because of his reputed outside actions. I think it put a very great strain on him. He developed dermatitis. He had separated from his wife. He was not influential in SSA. I helped him a lot, well I did help him personally; I loaned him some money, got him on his feet, that's an aside thing. I also gave him my shoulder, and I listened to him, and he felt he had a friend.
I had a lot of ideas, and they had to go through him. And, you know, they took his name. I suppose some of the more insightful staff assumed they were not coming from him. But, I think, for the most part, it was evidence that he was doing his job. And so, he and I became close.
Then what happened, somehow or other, he went to the War Production Board, or one of those agencies--all of a sudden. Now this is "Dr. Futterman" explaining, you know, what's happening to the mind set of Roy Touchet. He became a big man in that agency, or at least he felt he was a big man. People were listening to him on his own and all that--he flowered.
Various People
Now I'm going to give you some names.
Q: All right.
Bob Brown was the guy who at the Department level in the Financial Office handled all the budgets including Social Security. Marion Stevens was the Assistant Secretary. Marion Stevens, he was Assistant Secretary for Budget and Finance, and their names came up with Wynkoop. You remember that story I told you about how I got sort of hooked into going to "beard-the-lion," Herman Downey.
Q: Okay, right.
I'm filling that out for you.
Q: Right, okay, good.
Jim Kelly later succeeded Marion Stevens. I haven't talked about him yet, but you might earmark him. He had very considerable influence on the paths that Social Security took. Sometimes he was helpful, other times he saw SSA as a way to help solve or ease DHEW appropriation problems and that created some problems for SSA. He was not one of the easy friends we made. He was of course at the Department level.
Q: Do you have some more names there?
Yes, I've got more names. Bruce Cardwell was Jim Kelly's successor later. Then Roy Wynkoop of the Commissioner's Office when we were the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, one of the bureaus along with Public Assistance, the Children's Bureau, etc. Now going to DAO in the old days, there was Leo Synder. When we set up Region II, within the Division of Accounting Operations, he was the head and I was his assistant. The two of us started out organizing the first regional internal organization at the Candler Building of the Division of Accounting Operations. We set up the first and the largest region, Region II, which was New York. As I said, Leo was a fine guy, I loved him, and I was a very good friend of his. Somehow Leo had damaged his health, and he seemed to be quite lackadaisical about things and not able to focus on what needed to be done. Here was I, this young character from New York, who had never worked for the Government. I just went out and did everything that seemed to me to make good sense and it seemed to work well.
Anyway, we set up that region and it was some time before the other regions followed. We were the pace setter and worked out a lot of problems beforehand. Joe Fay was the head of the Division of Accounting Operations, and Tom McDonald was his assistant. Tom McDonald was a very charming person. Everybody loved Tom; that is, everybody who worked with him. He had a classical Irish outgoing personality that attracted people. He didn't tell jokes and things like that. And he wasn't witty. He was a very good people person and he spoke of and used his Irishness to deal with people. I became intimate with Tom. He used his people talent very well and I regard him as a major force in holding the organization together.
I will give you one example. It might be reflected in what he said in the quote that I'm going to give you. I felt he was not especially equipped in any other respect that I could observe other than that, but I think his ability to make people like him and want to do a good job was very highly advanced. His typical thing would be that he would put his arm around me and ask me to do something not related to my job, or whatever, or maybe related. He would say: "Jack old buddy, I got a job for you. You are the guy that can do this job. I can't even begin to tell you how to handle it, but I know you will, and I have a lot of confidence in you, etc." He would deprecate his own ability. He wouldn't give you any other input except that confidence. Then you would break your back, I did, to retain his good will. I think he had a real affection for me. Of all the people above me, when I went into the Service, to my recollection, Tom was the only one who sent me letters. It was more than just a style that he found to be effective, and I'd often spend Sundays with his family. He had a big yard and lived out in the suburbs. I was alone, single, and I would drop by. I was always made to feel very much at home. That was the kind of guy he was, and I was not unique in feeling that way.
I mentioned Warren Irons as head of the Methods Branch, and I told you about Louis J. Baker. Then there was a bright guy who did not seem a part of, but yet was connected with this group that had come over. He was not part of the McDonald/Fay group that came from the Agriculturial Adjustment agency, or whatever that give-away program was in the 1930's, his name was James Harrison. He was a procedures writer at one point--front office procedures stuff. They were establishing what to do and the policy at the same time. He was the one guy that I had confidence that you could talk to. I mean he was very rational, and not only very rational, but thoughtful and so forth. He became chief of Region I; that was Boston.
When the regions were combined, in that setup there was a fellow by the name of Stanley Rotta. He was an assistant to John Harrison at some point, and Glen Dewey was in one of the regions. And George Moriarity and Barney Nolan (you notice the Gaelic names). Charlie Taylor was the subordinate and J. J. O'Beirne. Have you come across him?
Q: I've heard the name.
He was about at the rank that I had while Acting Assistant Regional Chief under Leo Synder.
Jimmy Haggerty was a procedures writer for machines. He was supposed to be the very knowledgeable punch card procedure writer. I mentioned Jimmy Grey, who was sort of an esthetic type, very nervous guy. Obviously, he couldn't work under stress, he worked best in an isolated room or something like that. He was the sort of technician's technician. In looking back, not that wiring a board for a punch card machine was all that difficult, but very few knew much about it then. He was the technical guy who was entrusted to see that was done correctly.
There was Lou Carrico, who was a favorite of mine, who was my immediate boss for a while and who selected me out of the crowd of people unknown to him, for a group leader job three days after I had reported. He headed the branch that had these five or six groups. When he moved up, I took his place. So those are some of the names that I recall. I will now pick up and talk about whatever you want.
Q: All right.


text:
Reviewed by Hunter M. (age 11)
My favorite part is when Leven obliterated Sabine with the bomb his grandma made. I like this part because I like explosions and the bomb goes BOOOOOOM! Also, I think that somewhat destroying the bad guy is a good thing, because everyone in the story wouldn't have to look over their shoulders anymore. My favorite character is Geth because he has great leading skills. Also, he is a talking toothpick. Talking toothpicks are awesome! Another reason I like Geth is that he can take more pain than anyone can imagine, and he takes on more than a toothpick can handle.
I would recommend this book to all ages because it's great in every single way possible because it has action, adventure, and excitement.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Hosni Mubarak
Hosni Mubarak was the longtime president of Egypt from 1981-2011, and the fourth man to hold the office. He assumed office in October 1981 after the assassination of Anwar Sadat and maintained the peace with Israel established under his predecessor at the Camp David Accords. The Muslim terrorist organization CAIR actively lobbied against Mubarak.[1]
2011 Protests
In January 25, 2011, protests began against Mubarak's rule. Liberals claim that Mohammed ElBaradei, one of the protest leaders, is a moderate, but many experts fear that the rebellion aims to install Sharia law and a government opposed to Israel and the United States. Although the Brotherhood's terrorist military wing, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, took part in the protests, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave speeches supporting the protests.[2]
George Soros' International Crisis Group and Barack Obama may have had a hand in the beginning of the protests. Obama's unwillingness to support a U.S. ally, the Mubarak's government, may show that in private Obama supports the radical Islamist protestors. In fact, Obama and Soros may even be attempting to install pro-Iran Muslim regimes in the Middle East and destabilize Israel, "[ceding] the power of the Judaeo-Christian west to Islamic tyrants."[3]
The ICG, which also supports dialogue with the terrorist organization Hamas, in 2008 urged Mubarak to allow the radicals in the Muslim Brotherhood to establish a political party.[4] Clearly, it is likely that Soros' goal is to legitimize radical Islam and make it the main political force in the Middle East, destabilizing the region and removing Western influence.
On February 10, 2011, the protesters succeeded in toppling Mubarak. As a result, Egypt was ruled for two years by the Muslim Brotherhood under the leadership of Mohammed Morsi, until he was overthrown in 2013.
See also
- ↑ https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=259409
- ↑ https://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261069
- ↑ http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/files/filesSavage/Savage-ObamaGivingMiddleEastToIslamistRadicals-Rev03.pdf"
- ↑ https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=261337


text:
We focus on what will make your web pages perform better in Google and be seen by more relevant audiences for more relevant searches.
Increase traffic to your website that converts
We produce websites designed and developed to work and function on mobiles, tablets and computers providing flawless experiences for your potential customers.
Responsive website design & development
Build brand exposure via social channels and drive more traffic to your website and generate more leads in social media.
Social Media Optimisation
Full Service Digital Marketing & Creative Agency
Website Design/Development, Search Engine & eCommerce Experts
Maximise your presence on local search engine results pages and be found first ahead of your local competition.
Optimising your business on Google Maps forms part of our local search marketing strategy and ensures that your customers can find you in your local area.
Link building is and will continue to be a tremendously important component of Search Engine Optimization (SEO).
Paid listings on Google AdWords and Microsoft AdCenter can help you reach new customers.
Custom email templates that speak to your customers and resonate with your brand.
Georgina Nicholls
Executive Director
"Having many years of SEO experience ourselves, we know how hard it is to come up with a successful SEO strategy and an effectively integrate it within our work-frame. As our business continues to grow year after year, keeping track of our SEO strategy became very time-consuming and reduced our ability to focus on our core business."
Matthew Lee
IT department
"My company's Google rankings and overall site traffic improved dramatically after just a few months of working with this agency. The service we've received from their team has consistently been above and beyond our expectations."
Alan Marshall
Founding Director
"This incredible team managed to not only get us top positions on Google for all of our top keywords, but they kept us there, as well! I would highly recommend this company to anyone."
Jeffery Polk
CEO & Founder
"We have a constant flow of new leads thanks to this amazing SEO company. They gave us all the tools to convert leads into customers."
Emily Davies
CEO & Founder
"We've looked at a lot of SEO solutions but these guys were always the clear favourite. They have the right strategy and they've been awesome to work with."
Ryan Abstract
Managing Director
"The guys at Clubnet really know their stuff and were able to help me market my services to the relevant audiences across social media which in-turn, generated a lot of leads. Will come back to them again!"


text:
With New Orleans trailing the Atlanta Falcons 17-7 in the closing stages of the first half Thursday night, the Saints blew a ripe opportunity to score points after driving inside the Falcons 5-yard line.
With 45 seconds left to play in the half and no timeouts remaining, Saints quarterback Drew Brees connected with running back Darren Sproles for 12 yards to get down to the Atlanta 5-yard line. Brees took the next snap with just 12 seconds left in the half and hit Sproles again over the middle for three yards as the clock continued to tick away. The Saints were unable to stop the clock before the half expired as New Orleans left at least three points on the field for failing to handle the clock correctly.
Brees took the blame after the game for losing track of how much time was left on the clock.
"Honestly I thought we had more time than we did," Brees said. "Last time I looked up at the clock I saw 17 seconds so I thought we had time to throw one underneath and get up there and clock it. Unfortunately the clock was down to seven by the time I looked back up at it after getting the completion and it wasn't enough time to get a spike."
"That's my mistake. That can't happen," Brees said. "We've got points, at least three, and definitely another shot at the end zone so that was on me. That can't happen."
The Saints took over with 2:13 left in the half at their own 29-yard line. Brees hit Lance Moore for 29 yards before the two-minute warning and Marques Colston for another 21 yards to move down to the Falcons 21-yard line. A touchdown pass to Sproles was called back due to an offensive pass interference penalty, but the Saints still had a chance to put points on the board before time expired.
"I felt like we managed the clock excellently all the way down," Brees said. "Then, unfortunately, once we got inside the 10, just lost track of it there for a second. Thought I had more time than we did."


text:
Former "Grey's Anatomy" star Isaiah Washington, who has three projects in the 22nd annual Pan African Film Festival running through this weekend, says the fatherly thread in his latest projects is no coincidence.
The actor portrays a small-town father who guides a son struggling with his sexuality in "Blackbird," based on the novel by Larry Duplechan. That screening, on Sunday, follows an earlier showing of Washington's star turn in "Blue Caprice," which portrays a twisted father-son-like relationship between John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, the men behind the 2002 Beltway sniper attacks around Washington, D.C.
For Washington's third project in the festival, he served as co-producer on Stacey Muhammad's Web series, "For Colored Boys," a spin on the popular 1975 poem-turned-film "For Colored Girls…" The series, screening at the festival Friday night, follows a father's yearning to reunite with his family after a lengthy incarceration.
The string of roles connect back to his own childhood, says Washington, 50, sipping Scotch at Hal's Bar & Grill in Venice. He talked about the contradiction of not having a close relationship with his father yet still loving him — a man who, Washington says, was murdered when Washington was just 13. Later, a stepfather instilled a hard work ethic that the actor appreciates to this day, although the two failed to form much of a bond, he says.
"I found myself early on as an actor looking for that. It's part of my through-line," Washington says, adding that he's interested in the complexities of playing different types of fathers on-screen. "I'm very interested in looking at how to be the worst father on the planet and be one of the most supportive."
It's a through-line that includes the role in Spike Lee's "Clockers" as Victor Dunham, the clean-cut husband and father who has aspirations for a better life but falls under police suspicion. It also includes the hit TV drama "New York Undercover," in which Washington played a father looking to reconnect with his son amid a grisly murder.
The coming-of-age story "Blackbird," the festival's closing-night gala screening, follows church choir singer Randy (Julian Walker), who's helped by his father (Washington) in navigating the path to manhood. Oscar winner Mo'Nique ("Precious") returns to the screen as Claire Rousseau, a role that Washington says "won't win her a mother-of-the-year award."
"Blackbird" is about more than family dynamics, says Washington, father of an 11-year-old son and 8-year-old daughter. The film touches on religion as well as interracial and same-sex relationships, subjects that Washington acknowledged can be taboo within the black community — and beyond, as the actor knows from his run on "Grey's Anatomy," when he apolgized for using a gay slur but was dismissed from the show in 2007. The film's director, Patrik-Ian Polk, has won praise for his previous work on TV's "Noah's Arc" and the film "The Skinny."
Washington remained tight-lipped about details of "Blackbird."
"I'm not going to cheat," Washington says. "Some people are going to come out of that movie with their hair on fire. Some people will be standing and cheering. I want to be there and see them get so passionate and so moved."
Washington's other acting showcase in the festival, "Blue Caprice," showed at the Sundance Film Festival last year and earned Washington a best actor nomination at the Gotham Independent Film Awards. Washington says he agreed to that project without seeing a script; he signed on simply off the vision of Alexander Moors, shooting the film in less than a month.
"People thought we were making a movie about the D.C. snipers," Washington says, adding that, really, "We were making a movie about what happens when you have corrupt leadership. What happens when you have a naive youth following a toxic leader?"
But films represent more than acting opportunities for Washington, who has been producing — first on "Blue Caprice" and now on "For Colored Boys."
"I'm taking an immeasurable amount of wisdom and experience as a producer," he says. Among his takeaways: "It's not all about me."
What: Based on the novel by Larry Duplechan, starring Isaiah Washington and Mo'Nique and directed by Patrik-Ian Polk. Screening as part of the Pan African Film Festival
When: 6 p.m. Sunday; festival runs through Monday.
Where: Rave Cinemas 15, Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza, 4020 Marlton Ave., Los Angeles
Cost: $100 closing night "Blackbird" gala; $6 to $12 for other screenings
Info: (310) 337-4737, https://www.paff.org


text:
Bushwhackers photo gallery, Bushwhackers audio interview and history of Bushwhackers
If you are searching for any of the following topics:
Look No further. You'll find it at Bushwhackers online!
Bushwhackers Luke Williams and Butch Miller say, "G'day Mates," to their fans.
Enjoy the photo gallery from their years as both Bushwhackers and Sheepherders. Get a complete list of the championships they have won as both Bushwhackers and Sheepherders.
Listen to an audio interview with Bushwhackers where they discuss their career as both Bushwhackers and Sheepherders.
Take a look at the great merchandise you can get online, including personally autographed photos of Bushwhackers.
At Bushwhackers online, you'll discover an easy to use, information packed web site. Click Here to visit the Bushwhackers.


text:
Ballooning as a Sport
Major Baden-Powell
AbeBooks Seller Since July 3, 2001
Association Member: ABAAQuantity Available: 1
AbeBooks Seller Since July 3, 2001
Association Member: ABAAQuantity Available: 1
About this Item
Bibliographic Details
Title: Ballooning as a Sport
Publisher: William Blackwood and Sons
Publication Date: 1907
Binding: Decorative Cloth
Book Condition: Near Fine
Signed: Presentation By Author
Edition: First Edition
Store Description
Cash With order.checks credit cards and pay pal.
Jeff Bergman Books ABAA/ILAB
2185 Lemoine Avenue Apt 4M
Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024 USA
email@example.com 201-647-1055
Shipping costs are based on books weighing 2.2 LB, or 1 KG. If your book order is heavy or oversized, we may contact you to let you know extra shipping is required.
Payment Methods
accepted by seller
Check Cash PayPal


text:
Why is it so hard for some executives to understand that systems require maintenance in order to run properly? No, the technology does not magically work day after day all by itself. In fact, employees on the back end toil around the clock to make it so. But as in this story, IT's arguments are often ignored -- until, of course, something breaks.
One day, the people a bit higher up in the line of command at my company told us that we were going to outsource our website to save on upkeep and labor costs. Rather than have IT manage it in-house, they wanted to hire two third parties: a Web hosting service and a Web developer. The only part managed in-house would be the website's content, which would be updated by a marketing employee.
[ More about the IT job on InfoWorld: "11 signs your IT project is doomed." | Get your weekly dose of workplace shenanigans by following Off the Record on Twitter and subscribing to the Off the Record newsletter. ]
They said they wanted IT to be out of managing the website so that we could focus on more business-oriented initiatives. Less work for us and more involvement in the business side? That sounded good. Even so, we were reluctant to give up control and had many questions about security and maintenance. Our questions were waved away with, "Oh don't worry, it's all taken care of." Nor were the higher-ups definitely interested in hearing about possible disadvantages. This change made sense to them from a fiscal standpoint -- end of story.
They proceeded to outsource our site to a Web hosting service that charged a very low monthly rate. They also contracted a Web developer to create and set up the new website on the Web host. We were told all this in passing, again with the ominous words of "it's all taken care of."
What could possibly go wrong?
This arrangement worked well for a couple of years, and the suits were quite proud of themselves. But one day we found out that our site had been blacklisted by Google and was now classified as an attack site. The marketing person who had been maintaining the content asked me to find out what was going on.
Based on quick investigation, it appeared that our site had been hacked. I thought the hack might be from an unpatched hole in the CMS software, because I noticed that the CMS was an old version that was no longer supported. But I wondered why the CMS hadn't been updated.
I asked the execs and found out they hadn't been in touch with the Web developer since he first created and set up the website. I tried to contact the developer, but no luck. I don't know if he was on vacation, moved, or whatever, but he was definitely not available.
There was some good news: The developer had given the passwords to the marketing person, who even knew where they were and passed them on to me. At this point, the higher-ups were begging IT to rectify the issue, given that nobody could really access our site without getting infected with Trojans.
Upon logging in, I was horrified when I verified that even though the marketing person had kept the content current, the back end hadn't received even one update in two years!


text:
Browse more products:
Drag the square at the left to choose the part of your image you want to use. Tips: Click and drag any corner to resize; click and drag from the inside to move.
Crop Preview:
Click done if you're happy with the way it looks.
Visit OtterTail Lab Art to purchase original artwork by Amy Reges including paintings, silk scarves, and wood items or commission custom work and portrait paintings. click here for original Labrador Retriever Art


text:
The 2013 Mazda CX-5 is, without doubt, the best looking Compact Utility Vehicle on the market today, blessed with good proportions, a stout front end and smartly creased lines. Unfortunately, the powertrain is not at the same top of its game.
Had Mazda installed a diesel engine in the CX-5 as they hinted they might, the company might have established a new benchmark in the CUV category because not only is the styling strong, the CX-5 has many other pleasing attributes. A diesel, or even a turbo, would have meant some real torque to go with those smart good looks.
As it is, the CX-5 is forced to work hard under most normal driving situations, provided with only 155 horsepower from a 2.0-litre 4 cylinder. Maximum torque is a mere 150 lb.-ft., and it doesn't arrive until nearly 4,000 rpm, so the engine has to be pushed for all its got to make it hustle. It's a little like looking and listening to Carrie Underwood sing, and then discovering she's boring in an interview.
The direct-injection SkyActiv high-compression engine is also loud and wheezy for the first 30 or so seconds before calming down and feeling as smooth as it should; and if the CX-5 is placed into reverse during those cold-start seconds, there's an obvious shudder in the cabin. The shudder is felt at no other time and the engine runs quietly when warmed.
While the six-speed manual will prevent any of that interior vibration, and will most definitely help extract what available power there is, the automatic doesn't seem entirely interested in performance, instead focusing on fuel efficiency, upshifting early and delaying downshifts as late as possible when more throttle is applied, again not helping the CX-5 feel motivated.
The set up certainly helps deliver good fuel economy, and I was able to attain as good or better than 9.0L/100 km in city driving, and an even more impressive 6 to 7L/100 km at highway speeds of 110 km/h — even though the engine turns at a relatively high 2,500 r.p.m. at 120 km/h. The automatic does have a manual shift mode that helped the CX-5 seem somewhat livelier, but it also seemed backward for me — with upshifts requiring a pull back, downshifts a push forward.
The transmission, while responding to those manual inputs appropriately, just doesn't help the CX-5 feel alive — despite the CUV displaying decent handling characteristics and weighing 1,555 kilograms in all-wheel-drive form. There's also an especially good view out front and to the sides, aided by nice big mirrors that, in our $32,495 GT tester, came with a handy blind-spot monitoring system. The electronically assisted steering seemed well weighted, not entirely absent of feedback, and with a sporty 2.7 turns lock to lock.
The interior, while verging on an over-abundance of plastics and too much small type on various controls, is spacious enough to fit five, with good rear-seat legroom, flexible options to accommodate cargo with a 40/20/40 rear seat, and 966-litres of cargo space behind the rear seats. The Bluetooth audio system and iPod connection deliver outstanding sound, and I had no issues with the Bluetooth phone set up.
Really, the only issue I had in a week of driving was with the lethargic engine and transmission. The horsepower and torque numbers simply don't do this attractive CUV justice.


text:
Over two decades of major investment in sewer and stormwater infrastructure and maintenance has had a significant, positive impact on improving the water quality of discharges to the Alewife Brook and Charles River and on improving sewer and stormwater service.
The City of Cambridge actively promotes a broad range of Best Management Practices to counter stormwater pollution. Significant investments in catch basin cleaning, street sweeping, and urban forestry programs are just a few examples of the City's approach to improving water quality.
Studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have demonstrated that stormwater runoff is one of the most significant sources of water pollution, which is why DPW continues to implement an aggressive sewer separation program. See our catchment area map to see location of outfalls and combined sewer areas.
Cambridge citizen requests, now online & on the go! Report issues here.
Have a question?Find the answer in our extensiveFrequently Asked Questions
147 Hampshire StreetCambridge
02139Phone:617.349.4800TDD:617.349.4800Email Us
Monday: 8:30am-8pm
Tuesday-Thursday: 8:30am-5pm
Friday: 8:30am-12pm
Learn more


text:
rbejar necesitaba un nuevo diseño de logotipo y lanzó un concurso de diseño en 99designs.
Un ganador ha sido elegido entre 83 diseños de 16 diseñadores freelance.
Launched by a renown International player in the travel industry field. AIRSAVINGS, is a World renown player in the airline industry. we provide our services to famous airlines around the World. We are launching a new service towards the traveler. This site is bringing a "Weather Guarantee"to the traveler. This means ,t hat for a fee, anyone could have its trip reimbursed if it rains too much or there is not enough sunshine. This is as creative and attractive as all the other services we have launched , so far.
Our audience are the 30 - 50 years old Male/Female, travelling mostly for leisure reasons. Travelling often with their families. They are looking to be compensated if their vacations are ruined because of weather.
This is a new market. The audience is Internet savvy.
We need to show the value for the money side of the service.
For this logo, we are looking for a Web 2.0 style, modern, very sleek, with an institutional look. It needs to transmit a feeling of security and comfort. The values of "weather", insurance, and security, are the ones we are willing to transmit.
Letter and icon based logos are welcome.
The logo will need to be suitable for web and print.
There are no pre-existing ideas for the logo as this is a new service and brand, so we are open to all ideas you may have !
No cartoon, we want it to be standing out of the crowd, visible, readable, glossy, I would say.
An Illutrator file and JPEG format file will be required.
Descubre cómo funciona un concurso de diseño u obtén más información sobre nuestros servicios de diseño de logo.


text:
Meet our Team
MORTGAGE ONE, where YOU come 1st!
The Mortgage One Team is committed to YOU by:
~Finding the RIGHT product to meet your needs~
~Providing the SERVICE that you deserve~
We do loans the right way, right away!
Call 850-796-2100
At Mortgage One, we are driven to exceed our client's expectations. Our #1 goal is to facilitate the "American Dream" of homeownership. Our local and friendly team prides itself on providing a professional, seamless transaction with the utmost integrity and knowledge. Mortgage One is not just our name, it is the way we do business.
Mortgage One of the South, Inc.
Ph: 850-796-2100Privacy Policy


text:
Belted Long Down-filled Puffer Coat
€1,190.00 €1,190.00
All orders will be fulfilled by Burberry Limited and shipped from the UK. When you place your order, you accept Burberry's Terms and Conditions and confirm that you have read our Privacy Policy.
Size Guide
Use the Size Guide to choose the best fit for your measurements.
In this window, you can find out the shipping and returns options for the selected item.
In this window, you can contact customer service for further assistance.
- A longline, down-filled puffer coat. Designed with an extra-long belt to cinch the waist.
- Coat length: 112cm/44.1in. This is based on a size UK S as proportions change slightly according to size.
- Model's height: 173cm/5ft 8in
- Outer: 100% polyester
- Trims: 100% calf leather; 90% wool, 7% polyamide, 3% elastane
- Undercollar: 100% cotton
- Lining: 100% cotton
- Filling: 80% goose down, 20% goose feathers; 100% goose down
- Wadding: 100% polyester
- Buttons: buffalo horn
- Buckles: calf leather
- Single-breasted closure
- Button-through welt pockets
- Machine wash
- Imported
Item 80035401


text:
If you came here from Petaloo's blog, then you are on the right track. If not, go back to Swirlydoos' blog and start from there. We have some amazing projects for you to see today and as a bonus we have 2 manufacturer blogs that are joining in the fun and a 3rd manufacturer offering a prize!! There are 4 prize packs up for grabs so make sure to follow along and have fun!!
1: Visit all of the blogs and leave a comment on each. This way we know you were there. Become a follower if you're not already. Take your time. There are beautiful things to see along the way.
2: Before you leave each blog, look for the "special" words and write it down.
Once you have visited all the blogs and collected all the special words, they will create a sentence.
3: Finally, go back to the Swirlydoos blog and leave a comment letting us know how much fun you had AND tell us the sentence that was created with all of the special words you collected.


text:
As the Whos in Whoville awake to find their stash of floofloovers, tartookas, whohoopers, gardookas, trumtookas, slooslunkas, blumbloopas, and whowankas (unless their stuff gets stolen and then returned all broken and bashed and bent by a green thief who'll be heralded as a hero for returning to the scene of the crime), some of the the older members of the clan will be getting new electronic gadgets that can access the Internet or download apps, like NBC SportsTalk.
And then they'll be using those new toys to visit various websites. (Presumably, websites that are suited for the spirit of the holiday.)
And they'll come here, to see what's new in the world of the NFL, where there's always something new, even on Christmas Day.
One thing that's new is our Week 16 power rankings. And they'll all just click here, if for no reason other to make sure that the new device works properly.
And then they'll keep using those devices to keep tabs on the NFL, which will continue to dominate the American sports landscape until the rise of zoozittacarzay, a roller-skate type of lacrosse and croquet.


text:
Massage Connection Therapy and Spa is the best place to relax your body and mind after a long day at work, school or after any other activity you did in your day.
All our Therapists are Professionals and Licensed by the State of Florida.
Open 7 days A Week: 10:00 am - 10:00 pm Walk Ins Welcome or By Appointment. All Major Credit Cards Accepted.407-823-7878
697 North Semoran Blvd. Suite E. Orlando, FL 32807 Location: Orlando, East OrlandoMM29737
© 2019 AdsInUSA.com - All Rights Reserved.


text:
Ezra the Collector
February 06, 2013
This post is sponsored by Citrus Lane.
First of all, I would like to establish OUT LOUD that this is a safe space, and more specifically, this is a safe space where we can open up and admit that yeah, our kids are weirdos.
Even more specifically, Ezra is a weirdo. Like kind of a weird-y weird level weirdo.
I don't know how to describe this one particular behavior he exhibits (and has exhibited for YEARS) without referring to the name of a popular yet distastefully horrifying reality show on A&E, so maybe this picture will give you an idea of what I'm dancing around:
Hey, Ezra! What have you got in your pocketses today?
20 minutes later, I think the pile ended up being 27 tiny Lego bricks, studs, berries, croissants, mugs, chalices, various non-Lego thingamajobs and two lint-backed pumpkin stickers that he got around Halloween.
And every single item is a treasure. His preciousesss. And every single item must be checked and accounted for several times a day, until he forgets about the entire collection completely. Which usually happens right around the time he tosses his five-pocket cargo pants into the laundry hamper. Because by that point, he's moved on to a collection of slightly larger plastic sundries inside a coin purse, empty tissue box, or Ike's talking plastic picnic basket that no longer contains any of the plastic picnic items, because Ezra has filled it to the brim with even more tiny Legos, three rubber scoops of play ice cream, a spatula, seven toy cars and a handful of broken crayons that he deliberately fished out of the trash when I wasn't looking and is now guarding with his very life.
Jason just up and flat-out calls him a hoarder. (Affectionately! I swear. It's not like we're finding cat carcasses in his bed. Just all the baby books from Ike's room, a bunch of Smurf figurines and maybe a Happy Meal box.)
I just think the kid likes…containers. Containers full of things. He's like a pirate with a very DIY aesthetic and original take on the boring-and-done treasure chest. Gold coins? Whatever. Check out these extra stomp rockets and this roll of packing tape! WE'RE GOING TO BE RICH.
(Ezra, pictured here in Oversized Container Full of Tiny Things & Also Ezra Heaven.)
Over Christmas break, he stumbled across a backpack that I'd bought for him to take on long car trips. I guess he thought I'd thrown it out or something (LIKE I DO WITH BROKEN CRAYONS AND PROBABLY EVERYTHING ELSE HE LOVES), and was so, so happy to see it again that he insisted on wearing it nonstop for three days straight. At the dinner table. While playing outside. To restaurants. To bed.
So I wasn't too surprised when school started back up, he insisted on carrying the backpack. Now, Ezra does not NEED a backpack at his preschool — in fact, backpacks are explicitly listed as something the children are to leave at home. But Ezra really, REALLY wanted to take that backpack to school, like his big brother.
So I let him take the backpack to school. Because I have better things to do in the morning than get locked in a battle of wills over a backpack with a four year old. Like, say, NOT getting locked in a battle of wills over a backback with a four year old.
Over time, the backpack went from being empty to…well, becoming yet another one of Ezra's containers of weird. He added a notebook and some pencils...and then some finger puppets, a sandwich cookie cutter and the instruction booklet from our microwave.
So I realized we maybe needed to curb the backpack habit, especially since I learned he was refusing to take it off once he got to school. And while his teacher was completely understanding and accommodating of the backpack, he was a little less excited about the daily show-and-tell of broken pencils, Legos, empty DVD cases and talking Elmo phones.
It was right around this time that I agreed to do a sponsored blog post for Citrus Lane, which sends out age-appropriate, monthly curated boxes of eco-friendly baby and kid gear, toys, bath products, you name it. They sent me a couple sample boxes. One for Ezra and one for Ike, IN THEORY. In reality, once I opened the boxes, they were both Ezra's. All his. Because they were...containers. Full of…things. Bath toys! Books! Fruit snacks! Monkey dishware! Lotions and bath soaps and AHHHHHH!!!!
As I watched him paw through the assortment of surprises, I suddenly realized that I should have boxed and wrapped all his Christmas presents into a similar single box o' wonder.
Among the bonanza of items in our boxes was…a Skip Hop elephant lunch bag. Ezra just about passed out. A small…Ezra-sized…container…with a handle…for carrying…for which to put things inside…lunch-y things…omg…
Now, again: Ezra does not need a lunch bag. He eats a school-provided snack mid-morning, then comes home at noon and eats lunch here.
But some kids in his class stay all day. And these kids do indeed bring lunch bags/boxes, which they deposit into a classroom fridge each morning as they arrive. And it turns out that more than anything — even more than a backpack full of Monopoly pieces, miniature rubber tires and plastic teacups — Ezra wanted to join them. To be like them.
He didn't actually care about the actually eating lunch at school part, but just the morning ritual of putting lunchboxes inside the refrigerator. This is what makes you "cool," apparently, in today's modern trend-setting with-it-happening Montessori classroom. He even tried to put his backpack in the fridge on several occasions, and then tried to talk his teacher into letting him at least put some random pieces of toy fruit in there instead.
In other words, this lunch bag from Citrus Lane was the greatest gift that never would have occurred to me to buy for him, but there it is.
(So long, Play-Doh carrying case! We are moving. On. Up.)
Ezra still doesn't stay at school for lunch, but every morning he packs up his lunch bag. He gets real sippy cup and fills it with water and shovels some Cheerios into a baggie. Then he adds two ice packs and a few extra essentials.
(Essentials like: Toy milk, wooden donut w/back-up icing slab, Lego construction worker, plastic pepperoni slices, felt tomato, some kind of stuffed lettuce pillow thing, sandwich roll and an entire Thanksgiving turkey.)
He takes it to school and puts it in the refrigerator, where it sits untouched (and non-distracting-like) all day. I arrive at noon to collect him and his lunch bag (which before I took these photos had just emerged from a vigorous cleaning after being sent down the playground slide into a mud puddle, because it and Ezra are best pals). Then we go home, where he dutifully unpacks everything and puts it all back in its proper place.
He's never been happier, the goof.
Want your own box of random inspiration and handy essentials for your own little weirdo? Leave a comment between now and next Wednesday and I will select a random winner for a FREE box of awesome from Citrus Lane.
"BUT I NEVER WIN." Dude, I know! Me neither! But for us, here's a coupon for 50% off your first box — that's only $12.50! TWELVE FIFTY. After that, monthly boxes of baby-, kid- and mom-approved products and toys start at just $21. Head over to citruslane.com and use coupon code AMALAH50 from now until March 6th.
Fine print: Coupon applies to monthly subscriptions only. Offer valid for new customers only. Subscriptions automatically renew to full retail price.


text:
Mahāmudrā, or "Great Seal," is a main meditative tradition in the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism. Already being sealed with buddhahood, the mahāmudrā teachings emphasize relying on the ordinary mind, as it is.
Prayer for the Definite Meaning, the Mahāmudrā
Attachment to good and fixation on experiences is spontaneously liberated.
Bad thoughts and illusion are naturally purified in the element.
The ordinary mind has no rejection and adoption, no elimination and no attainment.
May we realize the truth of the true nature, free from conceptual elaborations.
The nature of beings is always buddhahood,
but not realizing that, they wander in endless samsara.
May I have overwhelming compassion
for beings in limitless, endless suffering.
When there is love with the unceasing power of overwhelming compassion,
the meaning of the empty essence appears nakedly.
May I meditate inseparably, day and night,
on the union, the supreme path, which is free from error.
-The Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje, in The Mind of Mahamudra, translated by Peter Alan Roberts


text:
How to Use the Context
Inquiry Question
More than 3.2 million soldiers are estimated to have served in the Civil War: 2.2 million Union soldiers and approximately 1 million Confederates. Of these, the death toll reached approximately 364,000 Union soldiers and 133,821 Confederate soldiers.¹ When the war ended, the graves of the nearly a half million Union and Confederate soldiers who died in action, or of wounds and disease lacked official recognition. Meanwhile, approximately 2.7 million veterans began to return home.
The U.S. Government had never before faced such a situation. What level of care and attention should be provided to the returning Union veterans or their survivors? The federal government responded quickly through the creation of a network of regionally dispersed "Soldiers' Homes" and national cemeteries or soldiers' lots.
Between the war's end and 1870, U.S. Army troops scoured battlefields and other areas of fighting in search of the graves of only Union dead, which were typically shallow and unmarked. The graves were located and used to determine appropriate locations for national cemeteries. The earliest national cemeteries were small, at less than 10 acres, and were located near significant battlegrounds, hospitals, Prisoner of War (POW) camps, or convenient railroad connections. In 1862, 14 national cemeteries were created; 10 years later, another 62 were established. The soldiers' homes also had affiliated cemeteries to serve veterans who died in residence or were delivered to the facility. These would eventually become national cemeteries, and graves were initially marked with temporary wooden headboards painted white.
The task of providing Union graves with a permanent headstone took longer than was expected, stretching into the mid-1870s when the Secretary of War selected an upright slab with a gently rounded top for known dead, and a small, low block for unknowns. The policy of accommodating only Union soldiers was shaped by wartime practice. Since the Union won the war, the Union would only take responsibility for burying its own soldiers in national cemeteries. Confederate burials fell to local communities. After the turn of the century, peacetime policies led to the inclusion of Confederate dead in military cemeteries. Memorials honoring groups of soldiers or military achievements were erected in national cemeteries, as well as in other community settings. Veteran organizations and the federal government erected these memorials to preserve the legacy of military accomplishment and the sacrifices made by America's soldiers throughout our history. Today, the 131 national cemeteries are managed by different agencies of the federal government, depending in part upon their history and activity: the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) within the Department of Veteran Affairs manages 120 and builds new ones; the National Park Service manages 14 affiliated with historic battlefields; and the U.S. Army operates two, including Arlington National Cemetery.¹ America's Wars (Washington, D.C.: Veteran's Administration Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, 1985).