MARY T. WAGNER
  • HOME
  • ABOUT
  • FINNIGAN THE CIRCUS CAT
  • BOOKS
  • BLOG
  • PRESS
  • PHOTOGRAPHY
  • SHORT STORIES

Mornings with Perry

12/31/2025

3 Comments

 
Picture
     I confess to starting many things “on a lark” which eventually turn into pleasant obsessions. That would include up-selling little antiques that I find at thrift stores and garage sales, birdwatching, and whatever vintage or British TV series I watch with my morning coffee and my morning Ibuprofen.  

   And so began my fascination with the classic “Perry Mason” legal drama series, which ran for a whopping 271 episodes over nine years spanning 1957-1966. Yes, Perry Mason, a defense attorney created by Erle Stanley Gardner, who always had innocent clients, and capped every episode with a courtroom showdown with the unlucky District Attorney Hamilton Burger. Burger, played with hooded-eyed consternation by William Talman, was doomed to fail in these scenarios, as the actual criminals inevitably confessed in the witness box in the shows’ final moments, entrapped or uncovered by Perry’s skillful cross-examination. Once in a while, Perry—played to perfection by Raymond Burr with his sepulchral voice and eyes like searchlights under thunderously heavy brows—would involve Burger in the trap—but not often. Burger lived to be frustrated and humiliated.

       And so when the series turned up on one of my streaming services, I absolutely couldn’t resist. Not only was this a familiar program from my childhood—when I definitely did NOT entertain any thoughts of becoming a lawyer—but I figured I would find it both ironic and amusing to watch from my vantage point as a former prosecuting attorney. In the world of the TV series, there were no female attorneys, with the exception of screen legend Bette Davis doing a guest star turn for an episode when Burr was sidelined, recovering from surgery. There were certainly no female prosecutors. In 271 episodes, there was a woman on the bench only three times. Fast forward fifty years to the present day. In the courthouse milieu where I worked for 18 years, it was not unusual for every single authority figure in the courtroom--judge, bailiff, court reporter, prosecuting attorney and defense attorney--to be female. In my own imagination, if I’d been occupying the prosecution’s seat in the courtroom instead of Hamilton Burger, I’d have been kicking Perry’s can all over the place in my high heels.

      And so, coffee and breakfast and Ibuprofen at the ready, one morning I began and entered the time warp, starting with the very first episode and marching through all the way to the end. It took nearly a year to make it through.

       It was easy to chuckle at the 1950s era male/female dynamics in play at first. Starting with the ridiculous Barbie-style “mules” Perry’s faithful secretary Della Reese minced around the office in for the first couple of seasons. She eventually graduated from the equivalent of sexy bedroom slippers to actual spike heels, which looked equally ludicrous in scenes where she was perchance stepping into a row boat or walking through a construction site.

     Eventually, though, the entrenched power dynamics were disturbing when set against the modern realization that despite her competence and fidelity and unquestioned utility to Perry, good old Della would have been unable to get a credit card in her own name, much less unilaterally buy a house or a get an auto loan. Those days didn’t come about until 1974, long after the series had ended. If she wanted to get ahead, Della would have needed a man.

     And still, I kept watching, in part because I love a good mystery, and in part because William Hopper—who played private investigator Paul Drake—was indeed a tall, cool drink of water (albeit quite the well-mannered chauvinist!).

     Along the way, several rules or conventions emerged as through-lines for the writers. One truism was that tough divorce laws made for many a murder plot. The harder it was for a character to get a divorce from an unpleasant or inconvenient spouse, the more attractive it became to use an extra-judicial process.
 
       Another was that the entirety of the U.S. military was both populated and run by white men in uniforms.

      Yet another was that business and industry were entirely run by white guys in suits. The roles of women were largely ornamental, though often colorfully villainous. Virtuous wives wore Peter Pan collars and were buttoned up to the chin, while femmes fatale really overdid it with the satin and the jewelry and the furs. Any woman over fifty was played either for laughs or for bitterness. The general contempt for women in business settings was illustrated by dialogue such as “Well, women in business…you know, I paid little attention” and “It’s a man’s world, Miss Krall, I do not take orders from lady straw bosses.”

     In general, despite the foundational melting pot nature and reality of America, virtually every single character in 271 episodes was white. There was a single African American judge on the bench in a single episode—Season 6, Episode 6, “The Case of the Skeleton’s Closet”—but the actor was not credited in the cast, and more important, he didn’t utter a single word in the episode. So the entire customary and entertaining dance of objections and insults lodged between Perry and Hamilton Burger in the courtroom requiring frequent rulings from the bench--a veritable highlight of the episodes--was 
absent because, of course, this judge who wasn’t white wasn’t given a line to speak. And even that  modest break from convention was controversial in the industry. By the way, giving credit where it’s long overdue, the person playing the part was Vincent Townsend, Jr., an actual judge in Los Angeles County and a friend of Thurgood Marshall.

     As I finally wrapped up watching the series, it was easy at the time to think “oh thank God things aren’t like that anymore!” I have credit cards. I have a car. I received a seamless no-fault divorce without having to temporarily move to Reno, Nevada. And then the politics of 2025 settled in, and there is suddenly an increasing erasure in the military, in education, in history, in daily life, of the accomplishments and rights of anyone who doesn’t look like the regular cast of Perry Mason in the 1950s.

       Whether we are indeed hurtling toward a future that looks more and more like The Handmaid’s Tale or will be able to course-correct to what we had thought of as “normal” a year ago is an open question.

      But if you’re interested in getting a preview as to where it looks like things are headed, I suggest you pull up the original Perry Mason series, and instead of a viewing it as a period piece, think of it as going “Back to the Future.” 

3 Comments

On Health Care...yet again

12/3/2025

2 Comments

 
It is coming up on FIFTEEN YEARS since I first put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) with a very personal reflection on the state of health care and the precarious position of the Affordable Care Act dependent on political whims. Now, a decade and a half later, we haven't moved the needle forward, we're actually going backwards in terms of seeing more people stand to lose coverage because of affordability. And so, a look back in time. Swap out the phrase "Tea Party" for "MAGA" and you have the exact state of things today.

Health Care Manifesto
As the mother of three adult children with serious pre-existing medical conditions—one case of cancer and two of Crohn’s disease—I’d like to add my voice to the current health care debate. After years of emergency room visits, consults, surgeries and medications, all are currently doing well. But the need for continuous and decent health insurance coverage perilously hangs like the Sword of Damocles over their futures.

So while Republicans and Tea Partiers cheerfully roll up their sleeves and dig in on their campaign promises to dismantle health care reform and let free market competition dictate the best values to be had for “health care consumers,” I’d like to point out that that basic term recasts reality for ideological convenience.

In the difficult world of trying to provide our families with decent medical coverage in this dire economy and job outlook, we shouldn’t be categorized as health care “consumers.” Health care “victims” is more like it. “Hostages,” at the very least.

Calling us simply “consumers” in this minefield of co-pays and deductibles and coverage limits and employer contributions implies some sort of sharp-eyed and dispassionate retail adventure akin to buying a refrigerator. Or perhaps a recliner sofa. An exercise in comparative shopping that puts the consumer in the driver’s seat, ready to walk out the door and take his money to the next store or provider if the deal being offered isn’t sweet enough. Under those conditions, yes, you’re likely to get a better price on that refrigerator or sofa. It’s the nature of the free market.

But “comparative shopping” for health insurance coverage for your family is entirely different game, and one with deadly stakes. Not only are you betting on trying to provide good medical care and cost coverage for yourself or those you love in light of unforeseeable catastrophic events in the future, you are blindly investing in trust. Trust that valid claims and reasonable medications will not be denied or delayed beyond their usefulness; trust that your doctors will be able to give you the proper medical treatment for your problems without a bean counter looking over their shoulders and casting a chill on their decision-making; trust that you and your family will be taken care of with compassion and wisdom and won’t be forced into bankruptcy at the end of the crisis.

If you buy a refrigerator and it doesn’t work, you have the option of having the store either take it back or fix it for you while live on peanut butter sandwiches or go out to eat. If the recliner sofa you bought as cheaply as possible after visiting a half dozen furniture stores has a defective reclining mechanism, neither your health nor your home nor your family nor your life’s savings are at risk while you find a replacement or demand a refund. But if the insurance company you have thoughtfully chosen on a sunny day in the free market from several slickly-packaged options elects to deny coverage for a transplant, or a course of treatment, at exactly the moment when it is most needed, you are helpless. A life may hang in the balance, hooked up to monitors and IV bags and catheters, and yet you are virtually powerless. The idea of exercising your power and right as a consumer to take your business elsewhere right then is a grotesque joke.

Years ago, I remember talking about health insurance with a “soccer dad” whose son was on the same team as mine. As we stood on the practice sidelines, he vented about his situation. His wife was the primary breadwinner, and she was seriously ill. There was a large deductible involved, as I recall, and under whatever rules of engagement applied, he was somehow precluded from choosing a cheaper radiological test provider. He was angry, and frustrated, and railed at the unfairness of not being able to better comparison shop for a cheaper result.

I felt stunned, like I had gone through the looking glass. Why, I thought, at this time of horrible stress and family crisis, should shopping for medical tests be his concern as though he was pricing tomatos? All logic and compassion dictated that at this particular time, his primary job should have been to reassure his young children that their world wouldn't end and to take care of his wife while the medical professionals did their jobs. And yet here he was, fixating on scrambling for dollars instead.

Given the position and vulnerability of the “consumer” in the vast food chain that makes up the health care system and health insurance funding, this is an area of our lives that absolutely cries out for governmental involvement and protection to guarantee the health and safety of its citizens. I slept easier for a short time after “Obamacare” was passed, knowing that my children could not be denied insurance coverage because of their prior health problems.

Now, with a new face on Congress (and the White House) intent on repealing those improvements, the sleepless nights begin again.


2 Comments

    Archives

    December 2025
    October 2025
    February 2025
    November 2024
    April 2024
    December 2023
    March 2023
    December 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    February 2021
    November 2020
    October 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    August 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    December 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    December 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013

    Categories

    All
    Adapation
    Coronavirus
    Country Roads
    Covid19
    Families
    Farms
    Gratitude
    Love
    Nature
    Old Farmhouses
    Pandemic
    Personal Growth
    Quarantine
    Relationships
    Resilience
    Safer At Home
    Shelter In Place
    Social Distance
    Social Distancing
    The Road Less Traveled

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly