text:
The United States Government's Anti-Gay Lavender Scare, Explained
OG History is a Teen Vogue series where we unearth history not told through a white, cisheteropatriarchal lens.
By Lucy Diavolo
Gay rights protest outside the White House in 1965Bettmann/Getty Images
On April 27, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower formally banned gay and lesbian people from serving in the federal government or working with any private contractors doing government work.
An offshoot of the ongoing anti-communist "Red Scare" that seized the government and the country starting in the 1940s, the so-called "Lavender Scare" was driven by concerns that gay people working for the government were a national security threat because their lifestyles could be exploited by foreign agents eager for blackmail material — or they could be communists.
"[Homosexuality and communism are] both seen as subcultures with bonds of loyalty within that subculture that are stronger than nationalism or patriotism," David K. Johnson, who literally wrote the book on the Lavender Scare, tells Teen Vogue. "The Cold War is being fought against atheistic communism, right? So both are seen as immoral and anti-religious."
Homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1973, and societal attitudes toward gay people in the 1940s and '50s weren't exactly progressive. Anti-gay policing tactics were in common use and bars where LGBTQ people might congregate were subjected to frequent police raids, like the one that sparked the famous Stonewall Riot in 1969. There was very little in the way of organized LGBTQ activism.
"The Lavender Scare was a backlash against an earlier time of more openness and visibility for gay people, particularly during World War II," Johnson says, "when gay bars were flourishing and there's a gay subculture that's flourishing in American port cities."
It was in this context, between the late 1940s and early 1960s, that thousands of gay employees were fired or forced to resign from their jobs. A potent combination of homophobia and anti-communism coalesced, resulting in a loss of livelihood for many gay people. Eisenhower's 1953 executive order was really part of a decades-long government assault on homosexuality.
Congress had already targeted gays with legislation in 1948. Two years after that, Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI), the architect of the Red Scare, intensified the Lavender Scare with an infamous February 1950 speech on the Senate floor about supposed communists working at the U.S. State Department, which included examples that tied employees' homosexuality to mental illness. A little over a week later, a State Department official confirmed that the agency had fired dozens of employees for being gay, using as a cover the claim that these gay employees were "security risks."
Senator Joseph McCarthy at a Senate committee hearing in March 1950.
Bettmann/Getty Images
Taken together, the National Archives says, McCarthy's speech and the confirmation that State Department employees were fired for being gay set off a new wave of homophobic, anti-communist sentiment.
"A lot of politicians and commentators in the '50s imagined that gay people had joined the federal government en masse, that they were hiring each other, that there were these kinds of cabals of homosexuals working in the government, and some even imagined that it was under the direction of the Soviet Union," Johnson says. "There was a tabloid that said homosexuals were 'Stalin's atom bomb to destroy America' — which is kind of crazy because he actually had atom bombs."
Just a month after McCarthy's speech, senators Kenneth Wherry (R-NE) and J. Lister Hill (D-AL) opened the first investigation into homosexuality in the federal government. Their investigation spawned conversations that cast gay and lesbian people, government employees or otherwise, as "moral weaklings" and "moral perverts." Meanwhile, connections between homosexuality and communism were highlighted, as a special investigator told the two-man committee that gays were a common sight at communist meetings monitored by the Washington, D.C., police. By June, the Senate was convinced that a larger investigation was necessary.
A seven-senator group — known as the Hoey committee for its leader, Senator Clyde Hoey (D-NC) — took up the cause. The committee sought information from federal agencies on gays and lesbians who had been fired or official policies or unofficial stances on the issue. There was talk of a database of identified homosexuals and of a special agency to deal with the problem; the Hoey committee sought insight from doctors on how to spot or cure gay people, and input from police departments nationwide on how they dealt with arrests and charges stemming from cruising spots, where gay people would congregate in secret because they couldn't be openly gay.
"One homosexual can pollute a government office," the Hoey committee warned in a 1950 report on its findings, which encouraged federal agencies to strictly enforce morality standards in their codes of conduct.
Still, Johnson tells Teen Vogue, the Hoey committee at least offered a glimpse of a more nuanced truth than the one offered by Cold War paranoia.
"Almost every news story that appeared about the issue of gays in the federal government in the '50s had a line that gay people are subject to blackmail and they're a threat to national security and that was accepted as a truism," Johnson says. "And that's why the Hoey committee was important, because they, as a good congressional investigation can, looked into that question and they wanted to see if it was actually true."
Johnson says that many who were called to testify agreed with those concerns, but the Hoey committee also sought evidence, and couldn't find "a single example of a gay or lesbian person who had betrayed secrets because of blackmail."
McCarthy's speech, the Wherry and Hill investigation, and the Hoey committee built on existing groundwork that eventually led to Eisenhower's 1953 Executive Order, "Security Requirements for Government Employment," which effectively banned lesbians and gays from working for the federal government, which was then, (as it is now), the nation's largest employer. Ultimately, Eisenhower's directive may have meant that thousands of people were fired or forced to resign, and gay and lesbian people had no hope for work in the government for quite some time.
Miley Cyrus's Sister Responds to Liam Hemsworth "Flowers" Theories
By Kara Nesvig
Over 100 Harvard Students Walk Out Over Professor Accused of Misconduct
These Two Ginny & Georgia Stars Are Real-Life Siblings
Parts of the executive order were repealed in the 1970s, but Johnson says "the Lavender Scare is officially put to rest" in the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton passed two executive orders banning sexual orientation discrimination for federal civilian employees and for security clearances. (Clinton also famously instituted the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that allowed gay and lesbian people to serve in the military, but only in secret.)
While court battles and activist work helped change the official policies, the conflation between homosexuality and communism remained strong. Johnson says this was true during the Vietnam War era of the 1970s, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, and even into today.
The resonance of the Lavender Scare on our modern times is perhaps too loud. President Donald Trump's similarly unscientific ban on transgender people serving in the military went into effect earlier this month, and, just this week, the Supreme Court announced it would hear three cases of people who claim they were fired for being gay or transgender from private sector jobs, meaning the court will have the chance to set major precedent on whether or not people can be fired for sexuality or transgender identities.
"It's not surprising in some ways that there's a backlash [right now], an attempt to return to a simpler time with these religious freedom bills," Johnson says. "Even in the trans military ban, there was language about trans people being 'deficient' somehow."
Then, as now, the LGBTQ community's responses to these issues have been potent. Notably, a man who was fired during the Lavender Scare went on to become a pioneering gay organizer and activist.
"The Lavender Scare does lead to activism, particularly among people in Washington who were most acutely affected by it," Johnson says. "And Frank Kameny is the best example of that. He loses his job with the federal government in 1957 — he's an astronomer, it's the dawn of the space race, and he basically cannot get a job that doesn't involve security clearance. He's more or less unemployed after that."
Frank Kameny, center right, shaking President Barack Obama's hand in the Ovral Office at the signing of a 2009 bill extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
After losing a court case that addressed his firing, Kameny founded a Washington, D.C., chapter of the Mattachine Society, a branch of the country's first gay rights organizations.
"By 1965, they're picketing in front of the White House, claiming they're being discriminated against and treated as second-class citizens," Johnson says. Some believe it was the first gay rights demonstration at the White House in history.
Kameny went on to have an illustrious career as an organizer, even while Eisenhower's executive order was active; Kameny founded, cofounded, and served as a leader in several organizations like the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, the National LGBTQ Task Force, the Gay Rights National Lobby, and the D.C. Commission on Human Rights.
He's even credited with coining the famous protest phrase, "Gay is good."
Want more from Teen Vogue? Check this out: Nazis Burned Down This Famous LGBTQ Institute in Germany
Keywords lgbtqog historygayu.s. governmentdiscriminationcommunism


text:
Milestones : Peru Makes The Grade
Author: Santiago Fittipaldi
Peru's president Alan Garcia: Fiscal policies led to upgrade.
While analysts debated whether Brazil or Panama would win the race to become the next Latin American investment-grade-rated country, Peru beat both countries to the finish line. Citing a strong improvement in fiscal and external solvency ratios, Fitch upgraded Peru's long-term foreign currency rating in April to BBB- from BB+.
Standard & Poor's still rates Peru one notch below investment grade but is expected to follow Fitch's lead. Moody's remains more cautious and rates it two notches below. According to finance minister Luis Carranza, the upgrade now puts Peru "on the road to first-world" status.
The upgrade places Peru in the same league as Mexico, Chile and El Salvador—the region's other investment-grade-rated sovereigns. Recent economic growth and fiscal stability throughout the region continue to keep Brazil and Panama in the running, while Colombia, which lost its investment-grade rating in 1999, is also on a steady path toward recovering it.
The upgrade is a feather in the cap of Peruvian president Alan Garcia, whose first administration (1985-1990) ended in an economic debacle, with four-digit inflation and stalled growth. Since taking office in 2006, Garcia has taken a fiscally responsible stance and adopted business-friendly policies that are paying off nicely. Peru's economy grew 9% last year, driven by high metals prices.
The government is using the commodities windfall to pay down foreign debt and announced plans to pre-pay some $1.1 billion to the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank by mid-year. It paid down $1.8 billion of Paris Club debt last year and in March bought back $838 million in Brady bonds.
The upgrade, which is sure to broaden Peru's investor base, boosted Peruvian asset prices, though many market players had already priced in the move, leaving little room for further upside. The foreign exchange rate also strengthened to a 10-year high, with Goldman Sachs predicting further strengthening by year-end.
Santiago Fittipaldi
This article appeared in issue May 2008

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Lydia does not have many marvelous things to write about in comparison with other countries, except for the gold dust that is carried down from Mount Tmolus.
The earliest coins were not made of gold or silver but of electrum, a naturally occurring gold-silver alloy. The Pactolus River (Sart Çayı) beside the slopes of Mount Tmolus (Boz Dağ) in the kingdom of Lydia was one of the most important sources of electrum in the ancient world, and just as the rulers of the Middle East today have become wealthy from oil, so the ancient Lydian kings became rich by accumulating and minting coins from electrum. The capital city of ancient Lydia was Sardis (Sardes, Sardeis, Sart), and it was a major commercial center linking the Asian kingdoms of the east with the coastal Greek cities of Ionia, including Miletus. It is not an accident that the first coins appeared in the important commercial centers of Lydia and adjacent Ionia, nor that the first system of bimetallic currency—the first system of interrelated gold and silver issues—was also developed there.
The electrum lion coins of ancient Lydia should probably be considered the world's the first true coins, in the sense of a state-issued quantity of metal impressed with a consistent type. The earliest issues, thought to date from the reign of Alyattes (about 610–560 BC) or perhaps his predecessor Sadyattes—both of the Mermnad dynasty—feature the Lydian kings' emblem of a roaring lion, almost always with a curious knob, often called a "nose wart," on its forehead. Reid Goldsborough has written a very thorough review of what is known about the history of these electrum lion coins of Lydia, and his essay includes citations to the relevant technical literature on the subject.
This type is known from electrum thirds (4.70 g), sixths (2.35 g), and twelfths (1.18 g), all with approximately the same design. The larger denominations typically have two incuse punches on the reverse rather than one. Rare examples are known with the lion's lead left instead of right. Apparently part of the same series are a number of smaller fractions that feature a lion's paw, although it is possible that these are Milesian rather than Lydian.
Twelfth-stater specimens are less common than thirds, but are still quite well documented.
RJO 55. Electrum 1/12 stater (1.19 g), about 610–560 BC. Obverse: lion's head right with "nose wart." Reverse: square incuse punch. A clear and well-centered example of Weidauer's Type XVI, which is distinguished by the large number of chevrons on the lion's neck (Weidauer, 1975: 24–25, pl. 10).


When people plan to do something new, like new business startup or purchase a new house or car, they choose a lucky day to start with to gain more profit, success, and happiness in their personal life and business. What is your lucky day of the week? Please like and vote.
Sunday is the 7th day of the week and it is part of the weekend. Most of the countries in the world marks Sunday as the day of rest and worship.
Tuesday is the 2nd day of the week it come after Monday and before Wednesday.
Wednesday is the 3rd day of the week it come after tuesday and befor Thursday.
Thursday is the 4th day of the week it come before Friday and after Wednesday.
Friday is the 5th day of the week it come after Thursday and before Saturday.
Saturday is the 6 th day of the week it come after Friday and before Sunday.


text:
Kartika Review's Interview with Viet Thanh Nguyen
Posted on June 30, 2017 Leave a comment →
Anne Mai Yee Jansen interviews Viet Thanh Nguyen for Kartika Review.
Viet Thanh Nguyen is an award-winning Vietnamese American author and the Aerol Arnold Chair of English and Professor of English and American Studies and Ethnicity at the University of Southern California. His first novel, The Sympathizer (2015), won the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for fiction. His subsequent exploration of the Vietnam War, Nothing Ever Dies: Vietnam and the Memory of War (2016), was a finalist for the National Book Award in nonfiction as well as the National Book Critics Circle Award in nonfiction. The Refugees (2017), a short story collection Nguyen wrote in the years prior to The Sympathizer and Nothing Ever Dies, was released earlier this year. He is also the author of Race and Resistance: Literature and Politics in Asian America (2002) and co-editor of Transpacific Studies: Framing an Emerging Field (2014).
Nguyen, who was born in Viet Nam, arrived with his family in a refugee camp in Pennsylvania in 1975. A few years later, they relocated to San Jose, California. He has dedicated much of his authorial career to exploring the impact of the Vietnam War on Vietnamese refugees in the United States and on others involved in that war in various ways. His tremendous respect and appreciation for his parents' generation and everything they experienced as a result of this conflict is evident not only in his writing but also in the way he speaks about them in our interview.
Nguyen's thoughtful intellectualism, so prevalent in his writing, is evident from the moment our interview begins. He approaches each question with great care, taking his time and delivering mindful responses. His obvious investment in the political aspects of being a writer is inspiring, and is one of the aspects of his writing that has drawn me to his work over the years. His dedication to speaking up on current political issues manifests itself in the many critical pieces he's written for publications like the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, The Atlantic, and other public venues since his writing has gained him such widespread attention. His sharp wit and generous spirit made our interview a thought-provoking and enjoyable experience that gives me a new layer of insight—one that informs how I will approach and interpret his writing in the future.
Kartika Review: I was looking at Nothing Ever Dies, and in that book you write, "The problem of war and memory is […] first and foremost about how to remember the dead, who cannot speak for themselves. Their unnerving silence compels the living […] to speak for them." I couldn't help but notice that The Refugees is full of hauntings—both literal and metaphorical. Even The Sympathizer has elements of hauntings. In your writing, how are you thinking about the role of ghosts? Is it connected to this problem of war and memory, or is it something else entirely?
Viet Thanh Nguyen: Ghosts do not belong solely to war and memory. You can be haunted by many different kinds of ghosts from many different kinds of histories, but certainly those three books that you're talking about are all deeply concerned with war and memory in ways implicit and explicit. The idea of the ghost comes from Avery Gordon's Ghostly Matters where she talks about the ghost as a sign of an injustice needing to be addressed. That idea is certainly influential in my work; when these ghosts appear, that's what's happening. I just treat them in different ways in the different books, so Nothing Ever Dies offers the most explicit theorization of that. With a couple of characters in The Sympathizer and certainly with the opening story of The Refugees, I make the ghosts very literal, as in real ghosts. Obviously, what the real ghosts gesture at are the metaphorical implications of ghosts as well, this idea that people can be haunted by their pasts in different ways. That is a very strong theme in The Refugees and in The Sympathizer, too. In The Sympathizer, for example, our narrator is haunted by things he knows he's haunted by—explicit kinds of atrocities committed during the war—but he's also haunted by something he doesn't know he's haunted by, which won't be revealed until close to the end of the book.
KR: Avery Gordon's idea about that particular burden calls to mind Kathleen Brogan's idea of "cultural hauntings," especially in The Sympathizer, and I'm interested in this potential connection between the idea of sympathy and what it means to be haunted—especially when one does know one's haunted.
VTN: In order to be haunted, perhaps we have to have at least a degree of sympathy—if we're talking about metaphorical hauntings versus literal hauntings. If it's a literal haunting, you have no control, the ghost is going to show up. If it's a metaphorical or symbolic haunting, then I think that you have to at least have sympathy for the situation from which the ghost comes in order to even be aware that the ghost exists. In other words, if the ghost is a metaphor for some kind of psychic process by which we who feel haunted haven't fully addressed our past, it means that we at least have some sense of connection to it: articulate or inarticulate, guilty or not, there's some degree of sympathy. If we think about other examples, our relationship to slavery, for example, liberals are certainly haunted by the legacies of slavery—feel tremendous sympathy for the people involved and their descendants. But even people who are racists might feel some degree of that which they repress, and the manifestation of the ghost becomes evidence of that repression.
KR: Thinking about The Refugees, your new collection, a lot of the stories there involve intergenerational relationships and conflicts. What is it about the Vietnam War and its aftermath, especially for refugees, that makes explorations of intergenerational dynamics so important—or is it not the war or a refugee situation but something else entirely that leads to this focus on the intergenerational?
VTN: It's hard for me to imagine many kinds of historical events that aren't intergenerational in some way, but certainly if we're talking about Vietnamese culture, then the notion of generations is really crucial to the culture in general. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Vietnamese person who's been raised in a Vietnamese culture who isn't in some way aware of the importance of generational difference because, obviously, those generational hierarchies and forms of etiquette and obligation are based on generations. Given that, what The Refugees deals with is the intersection of a preoccupation of generations that is a part of Vietnamese culture with traumatic events that get passed on through generations, as well. Whenever we're dealing with trauma, we have to talk about generational inheritance. Whether it's war or being a refugee or some other kind of traumatic experience, oftentimes that trauma is passed on explicitly, but sometimes implicitly, unconsciously, inarticulately, silently—and it's that spectrum of possibilities of transmission of trauma across generations that concerns much of The Refugees.
KR: I can see that in stories like "The Americans" and "Fatherland." Kind of related to that, you're often talked about as the first Vietnamese American to win a Pulitzer Prize, and you've also spoken about the fact that the publishing industry is 87% white—and I know you've talked a lot about audience. Do you consider your work to be part of the Asian American literary tradition, in some ways (partially or wholly)? How does that label "first Vietnamese American to win the Pulitzer" resonate with you? Or does it?
VTN: That title certainly resonates with me. It means a lot to other people: Vietnamese people in Vietnam and especially in the United States have taken immense pride in the prize and, through the prize, me, which I find very endearing and surprising—that the Vietnamese people who have some negative traits have overcome those traits to embrace someone like me whose work can be characterized as ambivalent about Vietnamese culture, history, identity, and some politics. While I, as a writer and a critic, resist the idea of being a representative of Vietnamese America or Asian America, I recognize that the mechanisms of representation are beyond me—that people have seized this book because of the Pulitzer because they see it as a mode of representation for the Vietnamese, and people who are not Vietnamese have done the same thing for exactly the same reason. That means that, as much as I don't like that mechanism of representation, I have to acknowledge that it has existence, just as I don't like race, I have to acknowledge that it exists. Therefore, I have to grapple with both race and representation, which means that I have to draw attention to it constantly and critically, so I've talked often about my relationship to race and representation, either via the Pulitzer Prize or through literature and all the various complications when we talk about literature, race, and representation.
In relationship to the Asian American literary question, I think that The Sympathizer and me are part of many literary traditions, and Asian American literature is one of those. All this is to say I don't deny Asian American literature, and I also don't see it as the only category by which to see this work. But in that category, The Sympathizer is very self-consciously an Asian American novel. If you've read any Asian American literature, you can see very clearly how the novel is alluding to Asian American literature, Asian American politics, Asian American history, and so the novel is meant to insert itself into that genealogy and it's also meant to rebut certain kinds of Asian American literature that I find problematic—usually implicitly. The novel is doing different things than what some Asian American literature (that I find problematic) does, so if you know what those things are, then you can see the novel as a rebuttal and as an alternative to some of these more problematic Asian American literary strategies.
KR: Related to that, in Race and Resistance I know you talk a lot about the different, and sometimes limited, ways that various authors have tried to grapple with the dominant modes of portrayals of Asian Americans in literature by Asian Americans. In that text, you focus your analysis on the body in Asian American literature, specifically its relationship to politics and American racism, which you talk about as tending to represent Asian Americans as either "bad subjects" or "model minorities." Can you talk a little bit about how you would read your own works of fiction through your own earlier critical lens?
VTN: The way that I read the two works of fiction, The Refugees and The Sympathizer, is through my own biography as a writer and also as a critic. In terms of writing The Refugees, which came first, I wrote those stories deeply aware of the various kinds of issues that I already talked about in Race and Resistance and aware of the difficult place of Asian American literature, but also aware that I did not have the real capacity to do what I wanted at the fictional level that I understood at the theoretical level. In other words, (laughs) I was not as good of a writer as I wanted to be when I was writing The Refugees, at least in my own mind. These stories in The Refugees, if I were to address them as a critic, are meant to work in a mostly realistic vein and are meant to work in a humanist vein, so the project of the stories is to humanize Vietnamese people and Vietnamese Americans and to enable their voices to be heard through literature. I knew even as I was writing the stories that this was a limited aesthetic strategy. It's not that it couldn't be a powerful aesthetic strategy, it's just that politically it's a limited strategy because it means that the stories can be framed in a particular literary and political moment in the United States that privileges realism and that privileges the aesthetics of voice, and that any minority writer who does these two things finds an entree into contemporary American literature. In other words, these stories are easily understood. That doesn't mean they're not emotionally powerful, because there are some readers who prefer this book over The Sympathizer precisely for the reasons I just outlined. But it means that The Refugees, while it can make a political intervention in content—it can make a political intervention in the discussion of refugees, which is why the book was topical for a while—it may not do so at the level of aesthetics, at the level of form, because it concedes to realism and the aesthetics of voice and humanization.
If I were to situate it in relationship to Race and Resistance, it's a book that's only moderately resistant. By privileging the idea of refugees, it is acknowledging that we have to resist a certain kind of racism and ethnocentrism and exclusionary politics, but it's accommodationist in that its aesthetics are easily reconciled with the dominant aesthetic moment that we have in American literature. The Sympathizer is a much more radical book, politically and formally. It's because I got better technically as a writer in terms of the art of writing, and therefore I was able to more closely approximate the critical vision that I had for myself in my work. I explicitly set out to write The Sympathizer in a mode of anger, and The Refugees was not written in a mode of anger. The Refugees was written more in a mode of melancholy, and that's an emotion that's easily reconciled with the dominant aesthetic and political moment. But The Sympathizer is angry, and it's anti-humanist—it refuses the project of humanization by deliberately foregrounding a protagonist who is ambivalent (laughs) at best in terms of his morality, and it devises various kinds of formal strategies to undermine the project of voice. I'll give you one example of how it does that: the accommodationist kind of minority narrator, in terms of having a voice, is often meant to use that voice to humanize himself and his own people, and how the narrator does that is through translation—translating and explaining the narrator's culture in a way that makes it more human and understandable to other people. The problem with that, obviously, is that there's an issue of audience there. Who's hearing this voice? It's not primarily going to be the narrator's own community; it's going to be dominant society. The Sympathizer is structured as a confession between one Vietnamese person and another Vietnamese person, which means that it's not written to dominant society. Of course, this is a fiction; dominant society is still the ultimate audience beyond the book—or at least one audience beyond the book—but within the confines of the book, it's not. That means the aesthetics of the narration are shaped by this Vietnamese-to-Vietnamese structure, and that was a very deliberate choice on my part in order to ensure that at least the first intended audience within the diegesis of the novel was Vietnamese. This completely changes the inflection of the voice. To go back to Race and Resistance, it also changes the issue of race and resistance because race and resistance—if we talk about it in the United States—is oftentimes oriented toward dominant society—(laughs) racists. But if it's Vietnamese-to-Vietnamese, then where's the access to resistance? Where's the problem of race? It's completely recast. It is an internal discussion versus a discussion oriented outward toward dominant society.
KR: In an interview with NPR's Ari Shapiro this February, you mentioned that you don't think your life is "particularly worthy of writing about." So I'm curious, to you, what makes a person's life—or a subject or an event—worthy of being written about?
VTN: Well, I think that, obviously, everything is worth writing about. It's really a question of the writer: Can the writer make something interesting, and does the writer want to make something interesting? So I guess a refinement of my response to Shapiro is to say, my life could be interesting in the hands of the right writer, but that writer is not me because I don't find it interesting. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be interesting, I just don't have the motivation to try to make myself interesting. In the mode of nonfiction and memoir—and going back to the idea of generations—I'm shadowed by my parents. They've had interesting lives; there's a lot of raw material there that a writer could use, and why bother with a life like mine that's really a subsidiary life to theirs. My struggle as a writer, while it was difficult and all that (laughs)—there's no way that I'm going to pretend that somehow it's as mortally dangerous and threatening as the situations that my parents underwent. That's why I would not consider my life worth writing about.
KR: With regard to your characters—I love your characters because of how complex they are, which you've spoken about. I know you've talked about the importance of writing characters who defy flat or easy understandings. I'm thinking of characters from The Refugees like Louis and Liem and Carver. Could you say a little bit about what makes a character interesting to you—interesting enough that you want to write about them?
VTN: They have to be a combination of virtue and vice, or failure. They have to be contradictory because, obviously, it's not very interesting to write about people who are purely virtuous or purely evil—although if I had to choose, I'd rather write about the evil than the virtuous. It's the tension in these characters that I find interesting. So in the case of Liem, for example, he's mostly a person trying to do good but ultimately engages in acts of betrayal—with his host couple, for sure, but also with his family. Now, that act of betrayal he does to his family, some of us may think it's something he should have done, but within the world of his family it still amounts to a betrayal. He's tormented by that. All those characters that you mentioned are people who, consciously or unconsciously, know that they're in situations of ambivalence in one way or another. It's how they cope with their flawed characters that I find to be interesting in a dramatic way.
KR: At this point, you've published a novel, short stories, nonfiction, and literary criticism. What, if anything, do you consider to be the unifying threads across your body of work so far—or does each text have an individual purpose or nature all its own?
VTN: Maybe on the surface, the works might be different. But underlying them all is my interest in the writer and commitment, whatever that means, because for me, to become a scholar and then a writer were always acts that involved both the art of writing or criticism (which I think is of as a form of writing) and their relationship to political and aesthetic commitments. Now, I think every writer is aesthetically committed, or should be. Not all writers are politically committed, and for me the lifelong project is to figure out how to do those two things at the same time: the art and the politics. Each of these projects is, in their own way, engaged with that—either in terms of content, like Race and Resistance, or in terms of being formal projects, like The Sympathizer. Even if I already characterized The Refugees as not being as radical as The Sympathizer, nevertheless it is a form of political writing in a more moderate sense than The Sympathizer is. Nothing Ever Dies is an investigation of both art and politics in terms of the various examples that it deals with, but it's also my best attempt (at the moment) to write as a critic who is politically committed, but also artistically committed as well. I couldn't say that of Race and Resistance. Race and Resistance is a conventional academic book and the writing there was not art; it was academic. At least with Nothing Ever Dies I tried—whether I succeeded or not is a different issue—to at least make the writing an aesthetic project as well.
KR: My final question comes out of that tension between art and politics. Now that you've won the Pulitzer, has that changed how you approach your writing? As an author who certainly doesn't shy away from politics, does the power that comes with this kind of recognition change anything about how you grapple with political matters in your fiction, or in your nonfiction?
VTN: In terms of my fiction, it's interesting. In the year since I've won my Pulitzer, I've only written ten pages of fiction, so it's hard to say how much the Pulitzer has impacted the actual writing. It's certainly impacted my capacity, my time, to write fiction. But in terms of what I've written so far, I haven't shied away from the project I laid out in The Sympathizer. The Pulitzer validates that project and is certainly encouragement for me to do more of the same, so I don't have any doubt about that project that I set out to do and am continuing with the sequel to The Sympathizer. (pauses) Okay, I have some doubt. (<em<laughs< em="">) But mostly I have no doubt.</em<laughs<>
In terms of my identity as a writer in general and all the different kinds of writerly tasks that I do, I think the Pulitzer has given me more notice. My ideas haven't changed, but the degree to which people are willing to listen to my ideas has changed drastically, and I find that to be an opportunity and an obligation at the same time. It's an opportunity because now I can write articles and get them published in the New York Times or what have you, and I want to use that platform. Ever since graduate school, the question of how to become a public intellectual has always been of concern to me, and now it seems that I have the opportunity to do that. But I think of it as an obligation because when I think of myself as a writer, I don't think of myself as an individual. I think of myself as an individual and as someone who is a part of a collective and a community—or multiple collectives and multiple communities—engaged in multiple solidarities and beholden to previous legacies of struggle by other writers and other literary movements and other political movements before me. So winning the Pulitzer Prize, I can't claim that as an individual accomplishment, as I think many writers might, given the way I see myself as a writer.
I see that as the culmination of many different things that made that have made me possible: many kinds of aesthetic histories that turned me into the writer that I am, and political histories that created the conditions to have something called Asian American literature, Vietnamese American literature, or minority literature and created the conditions by which the Pulitzer board would be responsive to writers of color. Junot Díaz is on the Pulitzer board, and Edward Jones was on the Pulitzer fiction judging committee—in other words, even winning the prize is made possible by other writers of color who have played some role in this process, so we're all the inheritors of these kinds of legacies and histories. Therefore, I don't see winning the Pulitzer as an individual accomplishment—not only as an individual accomplishment. (laughs) I did work hard to write the novel! I also think of it as a collective recognition, and therefore I have to use the prize to address that collective history. Also lurking in my mind is the issue that it takes tremendous luck to win a prize of any kind, including the Pulitzer. You make your own luck, obviously, so if I didn't write at least a decent novel, I wouldn't be a viable candidate. Nevertheless, it takes luck to go from viable candidate to winning the prize. There's a way in which I think I also have to pay back the luck as well. The luck is partially randomness, but the luck is also the confluence of all these histories that made it possible for this book to be considered for the Pulitzer. That's what the nonfiction work that I've done in the past year has been oriented toward: using the opportunities given to me to write all kinds of nonfiction essays about politics and literature and refugees—issues that have been enduring concerns for me and that I now have the chance to say something about to a larger audience.


text:
Home»Asare Vrs. Asomani (H1/37/2007) [2007] GHACA 13 (13 July 2007);
Asare Vrs. Asomani (H1/37/2007) [2007] GHACA 13 (13 July 2007);
DAVID VS MIKE.pdf
- IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL - ACCRA
CORAM - AKAMBA, JA [PRESIDING]
KUSI-APPIAH, JA
DOTSE, JA
H1/37/2007
DAVID ASARE … PLAINTIFF/RESPONDEN
V R S.
MIKE ASOMANI … DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
DOTSE , J.A:- This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Accra dated 16th July, 2004. In that judgment, the learned trial justice of Appeal, sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court Judge, delivered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent, hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff and against the Defendant/Appellant hereafter referred to as the Defendant.
In the High Court, the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant, the following reliefs:-
Payment of the sum of $37,400 or its equivalent in cedis at the current exchange rate.
Interest on the aforesaid sum of money from December 1991 until judgment.
Due to the special circumstances of this case, it is necessary to set out in some detail the facts of the case.
The Plaintiff commenced the instant suit against the Defendant on 16th July, 1992. The action arose as a result of an agreement entered into between the parties in or about September, 1991. By that agreement, the Plaintiff was to transfer an amount of $17,000 to the Defendant's Barclays Bank PLC, 414 Kennington Road, London.
The said amount was duly transferred and was to attract interest at the rate of 120% in favour of the Plaintiff every three months.
By the Plaintiff's calculation, the interest and the principal amount due and owing was this amount of $37,400 at the time of the inception of the writ of summons on 16th July, 1992.
The Defendant resisted the plaintiff's claims and contended that the agreement entered into between them was to be a joint business with the plaintiff providing the capital and the Defendant labour. The Defendant therefore contended that, it was the type of business they decided to enter into which did not move fast enough on the Ghanaian market. This was due to the fact that the particular drugs he the Defendant imported into the country was unknown to the market.
On the 10th day of March, 1993, summons for Directions and the Additional issues were set down for hearing by the learned High Court Judge.
Actual hearing of the suit commenced on 5th day of July, 1993 at the High Court when the plaintiff's Lawful Attorney, Pastor Felix Asare testified.
The Defendant on the other hand testified on 4th November, 1993 and called one witness, DW1 Seth Ofosu Asiamah.
On the 12th day of May, 1994, the Defendant closed his case whereupon the learned trial judge directed both counsel in the matter to file written addresses on or by 30th June, 1994.
We have observed that, whilst learned counsel for the plaintiff, managed to file his written address on the 30th June, 1994 as directed by the Court, learned Counsel for the Defendant filed his written address on the 18th July, 1994.
Thereafter, the next proceedings filed in the matter as disclosed by the record is a Motion Ex-parte for an order directing costs paid into Court to be paid to Plaintiff or his Attorney on 17thDecember 2003 by the Solicitors of the Plaintiff. Reference page 58 of the appeal record.
Judgment was later delivered by the learned trial judge on the 16th day of July, 2004.
By that judgment, the learned trial judge directed as follows:-
"I accordingly enter judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $17,000 or its equivalent in cedis at the current rate of interest from December 1991 to date of judgment."
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
It is against this judgment that the instant appeal has been filed with the following grounds of appeal.
The Judge lacked jurisdiction to deliver the judgment.
Alternatively the judgment is a nullity in as much as it took the judge over 9years to deliver judgment after the conclusion of the case in or about 1995.
The judgment is irregular in as much as the plaintiff took judgment for more sum than is due.
ADDITIONAL GROUNDS
In his written statement of case for the Defendant, learned counsel stated the following additional grounds of appeal as having been filed pursuant to Rule 20(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, C.I. 19 as amended by C.I. 25.
These grounds are
(d) The judgment is irregular in as much as it conferred on plaintiff interest earning which was far in excess of what plaintiff was entitled.
(e) The learned judge erred when she preferred the plaintiff's evidence that the payment of the money to defendant was for the purchase of goods from Europe and the Far East as against the Defendant's version that the money was meant for the importation of pharmaceuticals.
(f) The cost awarded is too excessive.
The Defendant therefore prayed that the judgment entered on 16th July, 2004 in favour of the Plaintiff be set aside on the above grounds of appeal and trial de novo ordered.
We have observed that the Defendant indicated in his written statement of case that he filed the additional grounds of appeal on 25th September, 2006.
We have perused the entire appeal record and there is no indication that the said additional grounds of appeal had been filed on the said 25th September, 2006 and with the leave of the Court as is provided for under rule 8(7) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 C.I. 19.
This rule 8(7) actually provides that an appellant shall not without the leave of this court be heard in argument in respect of any ground of appeal not contained in the Notice of Appeal for or for which leave to argue same was not obtained by order of the Court.
This rule has been given different interpretations by various panels of this court. Some have taken it to mean that prior leave must be obtained before an appellant can be heard in support of any ground of objection or of appeal can be argued if it was not contained in the original grounds of appeal or filed before the appeal record is transmitted to the appeal court.
However, in the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has made reference to rule 20(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 C.I. 19 as amended by the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 1999 (C.I. 25). Out of abundance of caution let us quote in full the said rule:-
Rule 20(1) "An appellant shall within 21 days of being notified in Form 6 set out in Part 1 of the Schedule that the record is ready, or within such time as the court may upon terms direct, file with the Registrar a written submission of his case based on the grounds of appeal set out in the notice of appeal and such other grounds of appeal as he may file".
The words "such other grounds of appeal as he may file" have been interpreted to mean the abolition of the regime of obtaining leave before the additional grounds can be filed and argued.
Is that really the case? It appears learned counsel for the appellant; is also one of the apostles of the abolition of the "grant of leave" regime.
In our quest to understand the proper legislative regime, we have looked critically at the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 1998 C.I. 21 and the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules 1999 C.I. 25 but there is no specific mention of the deletion or amendment of rule 8(7) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997, C.I. 19 already referred to supra. What then is the effect of the said rule 8(7) of C.I.19 in view of the provisions of rule 20(1) of C.I. 25.
It should be understood in no uncertain terms, that the legislature must be deemed to have indirectly amended rule 8(7) of C.I. 19 by the provisions contained in rule 20(1) of C.I. 25 since it is later in point of time.
We are fortified in what we have said by what COCKBURN C.J stated in the case of R. v. PRICE (1897) LR6QB. 411at p.416 as follows:-
"The legislature, in legislating in pari material and substituting certain provisions for those which existed in an earlier statute, has entirely changed, the language of the enactment, it must be taken to have done so with some intention and motive".
With the above analysis, it must be taken that, the effect of the provisions of rule 20(1) of the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 1999, C.I. 25 is that parties and or counsel no longer require prior leave of the court before filing additional grounds of appeal. To that extent therefore, rule 8(7) of C.I. 19 would be deemed to have been amended.
This therefore means that appellants can file additional grounds of appeal as of right. However, it must be noted that this right must be exercised reasonably and within acceptable time limits. For example, it should be understood that, this right to file additional grounds of appeal without leave of the court must however be filed contemporaneously with the filing of the written statement of case.
Since it would be presumed that the written statement of case would be based on the additional grounds of appeal, and this statement of case ought to be filed within the acceptable time limits set under the court of Appeal Rules, it follows that the provisions of rules 20(1) of the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 1999, C.I. 25 is not a blanket licence to file additional grounds of appeal as and when the need arises.
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AFTER LAPSE OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR.
We have observed that both counsel have complied with the request from this court to address it on a procedural matter that was raised pursuant to Order 64 r.12 of the High Court, Civil Procedure Rules, 1954, LN 140A but now repealed; which provided thus,
"In any cause or matter in which there has been no proceedings for one year from the last proceeding had, the party who desires to proceed shall give a month's notice to the other party of his intention to proceed…"
In this appeal, the last proceeding before addresses were filed pursuant to orders made by the Court can be found on page 49, and that was on 12th May, 1994.
Therefore, plaintiff filed his address on 30th June 1994 whilst Defendant filed his on 18th July 1994. No proceeding took place thereon until on or about 18th December, 2003 when an Ex-parte motion was filed by the plaintiff followed by delivery of judgment on 16th July, 2004, a lapse of more than one year indeed a lapse of more than 8(eight) years.
We have noted with some concerns, the submission of both learned counsel on this matter of procedure. There is no indication on the appeal record that the plaintiff gave this one month's notice to the Defendant before it filed the Ex-parte Motion. It does not really matter whether the process that was filed is one that notice should have been given to the Defendant or not.
What is of importance is that, it is a process that had been filed by the plaintiff who was desirous of proceeding with the case after lapse of more than a year from the last proceeding had.
It our understanding of order 64 r.12, that procedural requirement is a fundamental one, breach or non compliance of which took away the jurisdiction of the trial court from proceeding with the case. See the unreported unanimous judgment of this Court in Suit No. H1/50/06 intitutled
Paul Ankomah – Plaintiff/Appellant
City Investment Co. Ltd. – Defendant/Respondent
Dated 1st June, 2007.
DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT
Another serious irregularity which we wish to deal with and which has also been dealt with at length by the counsel in the statement of case is the delay of the trial court in delivering judgment after the case was concluded.
We have taken note of the invitation of learned counsel for the plaintiff to this court to disregard the failure or inability of the learned trial judge to deliver judgment within the six weeks prescribed time after the close of the case. That invitation had been premised upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Republic Vrs High Court, Accra, Ex-parte Expandable Polystyrene Products Limited [2001-2002] SCGLR 749 which decided that the failure of a judge to deliver judgment within the time limit allowed under the rules of court at the time to wit, rule 2A of Order 63 did not make the said judge functus officio or render him incompetent as not to have jurisdiction in the matter and any judgment delivered by him was not a nullity.
The Supreme Court judgment was contrary to an earlier decision of the same court given in the case of
Judicial Committee of the Central Region House of Chiefs, Ex-parte Aaba, [2001-2002] SCGLR 545.
We consider ourselves bound by the later decision of the Supreme Court. However, there is nothing on the appeal record to give any indication that the conditions given in the judgment which as it were would confer validity on the judgment given after such lapse of time had been done. For example, there is no indication that the Chief Justice had granted an extension or fixed the date for the delivery of judgment after more than a lapse of 9 (nine) years.
A perusal of the appeal record further indicates that no permission was sought for and granted before the judgment in the instant appeal was delivered after lapse of more than 9 (nine) years.
If our understanding of the Supreme Court decision in the Ex-parte Expandable Polystrene Products Limited referred to supra is right, then it is that, the failure of a trial judge to deliver judgment under the rules does not
(i) make the said judge functus officio
(ii) does not take away the jurisdiction of the court.
However, if the said judgment cannot be delivered within the said time limits, then the same rules of court stipulate that permission for extension of time be sought form the Lord Chief Justice.
If is for the compliance of these time limits set in our rules of court that the supreme court in the case of DOKU vrs Presbyterian Church of Ghana [2005-2006] SCGLR 700 held that "it is not for nothing that rules of Court Procedure stipulate time limits."
We consider this irregularity also as a fundamental error which goes to the root of this appeal. Once the provisions which could have validated the judgment had not been done, the judgment so delivered is void and is accordingly set aside.
See Mosi v Bagyina [1963] 1 GLR 337.
The combined effect of these two fundamental errors committed at the trial court is such that the entire proceedings culminating into the judgment under appeal is void.
The result is that the appeal succeeds on the reasons stated herein.
Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court, Accra, dated 16th July, 2004 is set aside.
The case is remitted to the Court below for trial de novo to be conducted in an expeditious manner devoid of the delay that bogged down the first trial.
No order as to costs.
J. DOTSE
I agree. J.B. AKAMBA
I also agree. F. KUSI-APPIAH
COUNSEL - K.A. OWUSU-ANSAH FOR RESPONDENT.
DESMOND QUAYNOR FOR APPELLANT. ~eb~
Adjei And Another Vrs. Tema (H1/221/2006) [2007] GHACA 10 (20 July 2007);
Abodakpi Vrs. Republic (H3/17/2007) [2007] GHACA 1 (01 November 2007);
Teiko Akrong {Head & Lawful Representative Of The Boi Kwao Family Of Ofankor Vrs. Kofi (H1/154/2005) [2007] GHACA 19 (16 February 2007);


text:
Boardwalk Empire season premiere recap: 'Golden Days for Boys and Girls'
The nonstop party that was the Roaring Twenties is over on Boardwalk Empire, as the HBO drama surges ahead into the Great Depression.
By Sarene Leeds Updated September 08, 2014 at 02:00 AM EDT
Credit: Macall B. Polay
Show MoreAbout Boardwalk Empire
The seven-year time jump that takes place between the end of Boardwalk Empire's fourth season and the start of its fifth and final one isn't that surprising. Think about it: It's the end of an era—the lavish HBO period drama is coming to a close. So doesn't it make the most sense to conclude the series with the repeal of Prohibition, the constitutional amendment that turned so many of Boardwalk's characters from small-time crooks to the legendary gangsters they are now? It remains to be seen if creator Terence Winter will end the show in December 1933, just like he began it in January of 1920 (when Prohibition went into effect), but even if he doesn't, by 1931, which is where we reconnect with Steve Buscemi's professional bootlegger Enoch "Nucky" Thompson, you don't need a congressional ratification to know Prohibition is on its last legs.
If anything, skipping over the rest of the 1920s merely proves that people don't change that much—which suggests that Nucky will never be able to really leave his criminal past behind. After all, he wasn't a stranger to illegal activities before Prohibition. The only startling example of the passage of time comes in the form of the grey stubble on Chalky White's face.
For a show that has centered the majority of its action in Atlantic City over the past four seasons, the only time spent in America's one-time Playground throughout the season premiere is during Nucky's flashbacks to 1884, where he was just a beach urchin getting left behind by the bigger boys, whether it was diving for coins tossed in by the dandies on the pier or earning extra money as a street lackey to hotel-patron swells. There's little love coming out of the Thompson shack—Nucky's sister Susan is dying while abusive dad Ethan drinks away the family's meager income. We see the turning point in Nucky's life when he is introduced to Commodore Louis Kaestner, played by a dude doing a bad Dabney Coleman impression. Obviously the Commodore didn't obtain his charisma until after the age of 75.
It's no spoiler to say that these flashbacks are now a regular part of the abbreviated final season (eight episodes as opposed to 12). All of the 1884 scenes are shot through a sepia-toned filter, which helps us differentiate the time period more easily—because this season is going to cut to the 19th century just as regularly as it does to New York or Chicago without hesitation. It's Winter's last chance to help the audience understand that Nucky is just as much a damaged antihero as all the other cable-drama greats.
NEXT: The Dick Whitman Story… again
Trouble is, we've seen it all before—young Nolan Lyons (a.k.a. 1884-era Nucky) could easily step in as a 1930s Dick Whitman if necessary—and it's too late to try to make Nucky a compelling character after so many false starts over the past four seasons. This is not at all a dig at Buscemi, but our interests and loyalties are with characters like Chalky White, Margaret Thompson, Gillian Darmody, and Charlie "Lucky" Luciano, at this point. So for the sake of closure, it's understandable why Winter decided to take us back to the moment where Nucky went from a good boy to a corrupted one. It's nice to have that information, but watching him now try to go legit with the repeal of Prohibition looming is just too derivative of The Godfather Part II. And it seems redundant—Luciano already has the Michael Corleone character covered this season: After four seasons of playing a supporting role, Vincent Piazza finally has scenes and story lines to sink his teeth into, as his ascension to Mob boss is an open road following the deaths of Arnold Rothstein and Joe Masseria.
The biggest criticism of the new season has to be the continued use of the slow-burn-narrative route. It works in some ways, most notably it helps the audience come back to Nucky's corner and see him as a sympathetic character. But, with a shortened season and one-third of each episode being taken up by 19th-century flashbacks, the slow burn drags the rest of the story lines down. We only reconnect with about one-third of the characters in the season premiere, and with seven episodes left, it doesn't leave much time to give the rest of Boardwalk's residents neatly packaged endings.
It's also hard to be invested in Nucky's story line this time around because save for the location, his life hasn't seemed to change much since 1924. For all his talk of the Depression hitting him hard, he's still living it up in custom-made suits, glad-handing politicians, and jet-setting in Havana with a bodyguard and Tampa speakeasy owner Sally Wheet close at hand. Although, it was plenty fun to see Buscemi and Patricia Arquette partaking in a rhumba, as well as a conga line.
After spending most of Season 4 in little more than a glorified cameo, Kelly Macdonald's Margaret Thompson has returned as enigmatic as ever, with the kind of juicy plot she should have had back in the early seasons. Her Wall Street boss Mr. Bennett's dramatic suicide in front of his entire staff was a beautifully orchestrated scene, but it was really just to set the tone for America's precarious financial state and to illustrate what was becoming a common occurrence among those who played the stock market like a game of Monopoly. In a turn of events that should come as a surprise to no one, the result of Bennett's death is that Margaret's affiliation with Arnold Rothstein has finally come back to haunt her, despite his being dead for almost three years. Let's hope there will be some flashbacks to the 1920s this season, not so much for plot exposition, but just so we can get one last taste of Michael Stuhlbarg's devilish take on the gambling gangster.
NEXT: Albert in Chains
A lot of the questions at the end of last season were directed toward the future of Michael Kenneth Williams' Albert "Chalky" White. And in the ultimate tease, we don't get too many answers in the season premiere. Back in 1924, Chalky's feud with Marcus Garvey acolyte and Northside interloper Dr. Valentin Narcisse (Jeffrey Wright) resulted in the absolute destruction of the kingdom Chalky had built for himself as boss of Atlantic City's African-American community. By the end of the stellar season finale he had lost all of his power, his daughter, Maybelle, was dead—the result of a botched assassination attempt on Dr. Narcisse—and his marriage was ostensibly ruined by his dalliance with blues singer/Stockholm Syndrome victim Narcisse's surrogate child, Daughter Maitland (Margot Bingham). Last we saw Chalky, he was hiding out in Maryland at the home of his mentor and wanted for the murders of two Atlantic City police officers.
In 1931, Chalky is in prison stripes and working on a chain gang, his quiet demeanor not allowing for much explanation as to what has transpired over the past seven years, while Williams' calculated movements and expressions convey sheer bitterness and anger. He could be in for the police killings, or he could be in for a multitude of transgressions. All we know is he landed in jail because he "got [himself] caught." But as Winter has already stated, Chalky is a survivor, and he's not going to let something like incarceration get him down. By the end of the episode, he and another inmate have managed an escape, but this partnership has catastrophe written all over it, as Chalky's key to freedom appears to be in the form of a creepily deranged convict who wants him for his rich-man telephone skills.
–The new season starts in April 1931. Joe Masseria finally sleeps with the fishes as Boardwalk re-creates the Sicilian Mob boss' murder on April 15, 1931 in Coney Island, with Charlie "Lucky" Luciano supposedly orchestrating the assassination.
–Who here didn't start singing "Stuck in the Middle With You?" when Nucky's Punjab-and-the-Asp-esque bodyguard foils a machete-wielding assassin on the streets of Havana by meticulously slicing the man's ear off right before Steve Buscemi's eyes?
–The episode's title, "Golden Days for Boys and Girls," is named after the 19th-century kiddie newspaper Mrs. Thompson gives young Nucky.
–British actor Ian Hart, who portrayed John Lennon in two different films, takes on the role of a younger, just-as-abusive Ethan Thompson (Nucky's dad, previously portrayed by the late Tom Aldredge).
Episode Recaps
Boardwalk Empire 01
S5 E8 Recap
Boardwalk Empire series finale recap: 'Eldorado'
By Sarene Leeds
Boardwalk Empire Recap
Boardwalk Empire recap: 'Friendless Child'
Boardwalk Empire recap: 'Devil You Know'
Boardwalk Empire recap: 'King of Norway'
Boardwalk Empire recap: 'Cuanto'
Boardwalk Empire recap: 'What Jesus Said'
Boardwalk Empire recap: 'The Good Listener'
Boardwalkempire11
Boardwalk Empire recap: Lucy's pregnant pause, Nucky's rage
By Darren Franich
Boardwalk Empire recap:
Boardwalk Empire season premiere recap: Nucky Thompson vs. Everybody
Boardwalk Gretchen Mol
Boardwalk Empire recap: He Won't Be a Father Figure
By Annie Barrett
Boardwalk Empire recap: Ribbon & Blues
Boardwalk Empire series premiere recap: Clams, Casinos
Steve Buscemi stars in HBO's sprawling Prohibition drama set in Atlantic City.


This original painting was created in 2015 with watercolor, ink and pastel on archival watercolor paper, framed. The dimensions are 12 15/16" x 13".
Artist signature and date appear on the front and the back of the work.
A letter of authenticity accompanies the work.


text:
The Daily Telegraph front page for 18 July 2020
Visit Daily Telegraph Web Site
Read the Digital Edition of The Daily Telegraph
Show More Headlines from The Daily Telegraph
7/18/2020: Front Page: Sir Tom and a 'secret' royal wedding as Queen returns to work
IT HAS been an extraordinary 120 days in royal life, as the Queen worked in isolation at Windsor to lead her country through challenges unprecedented in peacetime. In the glorious sunshine of the castle quadrangle yesterday, as she looked 100-year-old...
7/18/2020: Front Page: PM: We'll be back to normal by Christmas
BRITAIN can be back to normal in time for Christmas, Boris Johnson has said as he unveiled the Government's road map out of the pandemic measures. The Prime Minister said the public should start "looking ahead with optimism" and "hope for the best"...
7/18/2020: Front Page: Hancock orders 'urgent review' of PHE'S virus deaths statistics
AN INVESTIGATION has been launched into Public Health England's Covid-19 death figures after it emerged officials are including thousands who may have died of unrelated causes. Oxford University experts have revealed that a significant proportion of...
7/18/2020: Front Page: Leeds promoted back to Premier League
Leeds United last night were guaranteed promotion back to the Premier League after a 16-year absence from the top flight. The club, a fallen giant of English football who were last league champions in 1992, had their promotion confirmed when West...
PROFILE: Established in 1855 and currently owned by David and Frederick Barclay, the Daily Telegraph adopts a traditionalist, centre-right political orientation. The best-selling quality press title, it consistently backs the Conservative Party in UK elections (hence the nickname Torygraph). The website was launched, under the name electronic telegraph at midday on 15 November 1994, making it Europe's first daily web-based newspaper. Profile extracted from Wikipedia and used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.
Circulation: 639,578 (April 2011) Political Outlook: Centre-Right, Pro-Conservative See our UK Newspaper Guide.
See All Newspaper Front Pages from UK for 18 July 2020 or Today
The Daily Telegraph Newspaper (UK) Archived Front Pages from 25 January 2023 to 10 January 2023
The Daily Telegraph newspaper from UK is also available through PressReader where you can browse and read hundreds of full content premium newspapers and magazines from around the globe. With a subscription to PressReader, users gain access to full print versions of newspapers on the day they are published.