STEPHEN FLATOW AND IRAN

What do a Jewish attorney from New Jersey and a totalitarian, terrorist-sponsoring, vehemently anti-Semitic State, such as Iran, have in common? Their connection is so far-fetched that if it were the subject of a movie no one would believe it. This story chronicles one man’s determination to obtain justice for his murdered daughter and, in doing so, triumphing over the judicial system, the State Department, the Justice Department, several multi-national banks, and the State of Iran, itself. Read on, and be inspired.

In 1995 Stephen Flatow was an ordinary real estate attorney living in New Jersey. His daughter, Alisa, was studying in Israel for the semester. One day, on her way to the beach she became the victim of a horrendous terrorist attack when her bus was struck intentionally by a van filled with explosives. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad (“PIJ”) took responsibility for the act. Alisa was mortally wounded in the attack and died some days later in an Israeli hospital. As a side issue to the main story, the Flatows wanted to donate various of Alisa’s organs. Organ donation is frowned upon among some Jewish groups, especially in Israel, who maintain that the body should be buried whole and unaltered. But Jewish law does provide an exception if the purpose of the donation is to save a life. The Flatows were practicing Orthodox Jews and believed organ donation would be acceptable in order to save a life. They verified this with their rabbi, and they proceeded. They donated Alisa’s heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, pancreas and corneas, saving six lives in the process. As inspiring as that was, it is not the main point of this story.

It was well-known that Iran was the sponsor of the PIJ. Flatow was determined that they be held accountable. Below, in summary form, is how he achieved his objective:

1. At that time, US law did not permit private citizens to sue foreign governments, so Flatow worked to change the law. As you can imagine, that was a daunting task.
2. Flatow, with the assistance of Senator Frank J. Lautenberg and President Clinton, lobbied Congress to pass the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, which allowed US citizens to sue foreign nations for damages in Federal court under certain circumstances.
3. The courts rejected the law, but Flatow did not give up. He got Congress to pass another law, which the courts ratified.
4. The court awarded Flatow a judgement of nearly $250 million. Now, came the task of collecting it from a country that, due to sanctions, officially, had no assets or business interests in the US.
5. Flatow got very inventive. First, he attempted to take possession of the former Iranian embassy, which was lying dormant. The State Department thwarted that idea. It wanted to save it for when and if relations with Iran might be normalized.
6. Reasoning that Iran was likely funneling money through the major US financial markets illicitly, especially NY, in order to fund its terrorist activities, Flatow began hunting for hidden Iranian assets. Eventually, the trail led to the Alavi Foundation. The Alavi Foundation had been established in the days of the Shah to promote Iranian culture in the US. It owned a huge skyscraper in Manhattan near Rockefeller Center, prime real estate. Flatow suspected that Alavi was a “front” for Bank Melli, Iran’s government-owned national bank.
7. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office got wind of Flatow’s activities and got involved. By fortunate happenstance, one of the attorneys in the DA’s office was Eitan Arusy, a former Israeli soldier who had actually been one of the soldiers that had responded to the terror attack back in 1995. He took a special interest in the case. Eventually, it was determined that Alavi was not a charity but, rather, an instrument of the Iranian government.
8. The Feds, led by the Treasury Department and the FBI, took over the prosecution of the case.
9. Several multi-national banks were found to be complicit in moving Iranian funds into and out of the US illegally on behalf of Bank Melli. In order to disguise the transactions the banks had been deleting the Iranian clients’ identifying information from the wire transfers.
10. Alavi was forced to sell the building. In addition, the complicit banks – BNP, Credit Suisse, Lloyds, and Barclays, among others, were forced to settle with the Feds and pay huge fines ($8.9 billion in the case of BNP alone). The proceeds will be distributed to the victims of terrorism.

CONCLUSION

This story is a testament to persistence and determination. It is a tribute to a grieving father who wanted justice for his daughter and never gave up his quest regardless of the roadblocks. Sue a foreign government, no problem. Against the law, change the law. Struck down by the courts, pass another law. Opposition by the State Department, bring it on. Fight various powerful, multi-national banks, no sweat. This story should be an inspiration to us all.

MOVIE QUOTES

Enough bad news, already. I thought we could all benefit from a break from all the serious news in the world today from the economy, to Hillary’s emails, to ISIS beheadings, to Iran’s push to become a nuclear power, to Russia’s and North Korea’s sabre rattling..

So, below please find my latest quiz. This time it is quotes from the movies. Test your knowledge below. Have fun! As always, no peeking at the answers.

1. “Heeeere’s Johnny!”
a. The Johnny Carson Story
b. The Shining
c. Home Alone
d. Scary Movie

2. “There’s no crying in baseball.”
a. The Natural
b. Eight Men Out
c. Moneyball
d. A League of Their Own

3. “No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.”
a. Dr. No
b. Goldfinger
c. Thunderball
d. From Russia with Love

4. “You can’t handle the truth!”
a. A Few Good Men
b. Five Easy Pieces
c. Chinatown
d. Terminator II

5. “Is it safe?”
a. Mission Impossible
b. War of the Worlds
c. The Boys from Brazil
d. Marathon Man

6. “You had me at ‘hello.’ ”
a. Risky Business
b. Jerry Maguire
c. Princess Bride
d. It Happened One Night

7. “Surely, you can’t be serious. I am serious, and don’t call me Shirley.”
a. Groundhog Day
b. Fletch
c. Airplane
d. Naked Gun

8. “Say hello to my little friend.”
a. Scarface
b. The Godfather
c. Pulp Fiction
d. Goodfellas

9. “If you build it, he will come.”
a. Major League
b. Hoop Dreams
c. Field of Dreams
d. Rudy

10. “I’ll have what she’s having.”
a. Sleepless in Seattle
b. American Pie
c. 22 Jump Street
d. When Harry Met Sally

11. “Plastics.”
a. The Graduate
b. School Ties
c. Night at the Museum
d. All the Kings Men

12. Round up the usual suspects.
a. High Noon
b. The Maltese Falcon
c. Casablanca
d. Rear Window

13. “Rosebud”
a. The Hunger Games
b. Princess Bride
c. Citizen Kane
d. Gone with the Wind

14. “I coulda been a contenda. I coulda been somebody…”
a. Rocky
b. The Karate Kid
c. Raging Bull
d. On the Waterfront

15. “…You’ve got to ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?”
a. Gran Torino
b. Dirty Harry
c. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
d. Sudden Impact

16. Thank you, sir. May I have another?
a. 21 Jump Street
b. Animal House
c. Dumb and Dumber
d. The Hangover

17. “Do I amuse you? Do you think I’m a clown?”
a. The Public Enemy
b. A Bronx Tale
c. The French Connection
d. Goodfellas

18. “I like you. I’ll kill you last.”
a. Commando
b. Kindergarten Cop
c. Dirty Harry
d. Gran Torino

19. “This is your tent, Aunt Edna.”
a. Goonies
b. Ace Ventura, Pet Detective
c. Fletch Lives
d. Vacation

20. “So let it be written; so let it be done.”
a. The Ten Commandments
b. The Firm
c. Exodus
d. Ben Hur

Answers: 1) b, 2) d, 3) b, 4) a, 5) d, 6) b, 7) c, 8) a, 9) c, 10) d, 11) a, 12) c, 13) c, 14) d, 15) b, 16) b, 17) d, 18) a, 19) d, 20) a

Well, what were your favorites? Did I omit any you like? Let me know.

HILLARY’S EMAILS

Hillary Clinton continues to be a polarizing figure. She has been in the public’s eye for over 20 years, as First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State and Presidential candidate. Love her or hate her; you can’t ignore her. She can always be counted upon to stir up controversy. As Gilda Radnor used to say: “It’s always something.”

The latest Hillary issue is with respect to her emails during the period in which she was Secretary of State. As reported by the “New York Times,” Associated Press and various other news sources, she used a private server for all her emails, and, as a result, they were not retained on the official government server, were not archived properly and were not available for scrutiny by Congress and other authorized parties. (On the other hand, hackers and other unauthorized persons would have had easier access, which, among other issues,constituted a national security threat.) As part of the Congress’ Benghazi investigation Clinton eventually submitted 55,000 pages of these emails, but no one can be certain of whether or not there are more that have not been disclosed. There are legitimate doubts as it was Clinton’s staff that reviewed the emails before determining which ones would be disclosed.

There is no doubt that Clinton did not comply with the Obama Administration’s policy regarding emails, which, quite properly, requires officials to conduct their government business primarily on an official government server. Any business emails on a private server are required to be forwarded to their government account. The obvious reasons for this policy are national security and public disclosure and access to authorized persons.

The more serious question is whether or not she also broke the law. The law’s definition of a federal record is broad and open to interpretation, but, in my experience it is extremely difficult for a public official to claim a separation between public and private communications. For example, in my experience dealing with the SEC it always maintained that any communication had at least a partially public element. Following that logic, as long as Clinton was serving as Secretary of State virtually any email she would have sent or received could be construed as pertaining to government business. For example, an email pertaining to the Clinton Foundation might seem, at first glance, to be a private email. But, it has been disclosed that some donors to the foundation, especially foreign governments and multi-national corporations that do business with the federal government, may have likely donated expecting a “quid pro quo.” This would have major ramifications not only for a Secretary of State, but also for a President, should she be elected. Therefore, foundation or not, these emails should be treated as government business. In summary, in the interest of full disclosure and common sense, all emails should have been run through and maintained in her public email account.

CONCLUSION

Supporters and critics are already weighing in. Supporters include, David Axelrod and Senators Schumer and Pelosi. Critics include Senators Darrell Issa, Ted Cruz and Trey Gowdy, who have called for an investigation and the hiring of an independent agent to examine the emails. In addition, Gowdy has expressed suspicions that the disclosed emails did not include any from the time period that Clinton had traveled to Libya despite the fact that she was photographed using her handheld device. Furthermore, Jason Baron, former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, cites the significance of timing. He opines that all emails should have been handed over no later than on the date Clinton left office.

It’s true that Clinton is hardly the only public figure to have utilized a private email account. Others include, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Chris Christie, all of whom may also be running for President. Be that as it may, at the very least, Clinton has created an unnecessary issue and distraction that she doesn’t need as she seeks to become the first female president. In addition, to paraphrase Mike Huckabee, former politician turned news commentator, it re-enforces her image problem as one who skates right on the edge of right and wrong and, perhaps, over it.

Many prominent Democrats, such as Senator Barbara Boxer, while not exactly critical of Clinton in this matter, have nevertheless urged her to resolve the matter before it lingers too long and causes serious damage to her campaign. In this regard, Clinton has leaked the fact that she will be holding a news conference shortly at which time she will address the matter fully. If you’re a Clinton supporter, you’d best hope that the news conference puts the matter to bed once and for all. Personally, I have my doubts.

TELLING IT LIKE IT IS

Yesterday, Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech before a joint session of Congress about the growing crisis in the Middle East…. and, what do you know, contrary to what some critics had predicted, the world didn’t end! I woke up today, and found that the earth is still spinning on its axis; the sun is still in the sky.

My friends, I am not writing this blog to debate the merits and demerits of Mr. Netanyahu’s addressing Congress without President Obama’s permission. People have their opinions on it, and that’s that. Whether you agree or disagree with what he said or his right to speak in the first place is not the important issue, and to focus on it obscures the much broader and much more serious point, which, plainly and simply is IRAN CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR CAPABILITY.

Common sense and past experience tell me that a nuclear-capable Iran cannot be good for the Middle East, for Israel or for the US. This is a country whose leadership continually lies, cheats and obfuscates. They have been fomenting terrorism directed toward the US. They have vowed to wipe Israel which, last time I checked, is our only dependable ally in the region, off the face of the earth. The leadership is unstable and dangerous. Give me a scenario in which it would be acceptable for Iran to have nuclear capability. There isn’t one.

To paraphrase Secretary of State John Kerry, this is the 21st century, not the 19th. We cannot rely on two vast oceans insulating us from the rest of the world. What happens in the Middle East or elsewhere affects us as well. It affects us militarily, economically, politically and socially.

Even worse, the agreement currently under discussion, the one we are hoping Iran will accept, is a bad deal for the US. As I understand it, (1) Iran would retain a sizeable portion of its nuclear arsenal, and (2) there would a “sunset” provision by which after ten years any restrictions would expire. Talk about “kicking the can down the road!” How does that protect us? How is that acceptable? Furthermore, does anyone believe that Iran will live up to its end of the deal in the first place? If we insist in negotiating a deal at least make it a good deal. Negotiating 101 says negotiate from strength. Don’t be afraid to walk away from a bad deal. Iran needs a deal as much as we do, particularly if they know we are willing to re-impose sanctions. Effective sanctions might even bring down the current regime. The mullahs are cognizant of this, and, therefore, if we push them they may be more flexible than we think.

It does not take a geopolitical genius to figure out that Israel will not stand by and watch Iran develop nuclear capability. It has no choice. It simply cannot afford to do so. At some point it would feel compelled to take pre-emptive military action. Many Israelis feel that their very continued viability as a nation depends on preventing Iran from achieving nuclear capability, and they will do whatever is necessary to prevent it. Such action would destabilize the region further, and a destabilized Middle East could easily spill over to the rest of the world politically, militarily and economically.

CONCLUSION

I view the current situation with Iran as an example of that old adage “an of ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Simply put, our government should have dealt with this situation years ago when it was a much smaller and more manageable problem. If you have a small fire in your kitchen, put it out immediately. Don’t ignore it until it becomes a conflagration. Now that, by most accounts, Iran is on the very threshold of becoming a nuclear power what was a small, manageable problem has become a huge problem with no easy solutions.

Our choices are limited. No one is advocating boots on the ground, and even if we wanted to bomb the nuclear facilities, they are well disseminated and buried deeply underground. The way I see it, the best approach would be to re-impose economic sanctions. They were working before. Their effectiveness was what brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. Now, as a result of the precipitous decline in the price of oil worldwide, Iran’s economy is in dire straits, and the sanctions should be even more effective. Don’t wait for the talks to breakdown months from now when it might be too late. Iran has been stalling us while they work feverishly toward their objective. Do it now! Then, continue to negotiate, but from strength.

GOODBYE MR. SPOCK

On February 27 we lost the entertainer who is closely identified with one of the most iconic and influential characters in TV and film history. Of course, I am referring to Leonard Nimoy, who is best known for his portrayal of “Mr. Spock” on Star Trek. He passed away at age 83 of end stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Although Nimoy had a long and varied career, he will forever be identified as the half-vulcan Mr. Spock. In fact, many casual fans are probably unaware that he ever performed in any other roles or even that he spent 60 years in the entertainment business as an actor, director and writer. To his fans, he didn’t just play Spock; he was Spock. The role and he became one and the same. Spock was calm, unflappable and omniscient. He continually used logic and reason to extricate the Star Trek crew from tight situations. He created the “V” shaped “Vulcan salute (which was, in fact, based on the Hebrew letter “Shin,” which signifies the word “Shaddai” or God). In addition, he coined several famous expressions on the show, such as “Live long and prosper” and “highly illogical.”

“Trekkie” lore says that he became so absorbed in the role that he took the persona home with him on off days. He morphed into Spock around the house. I can imagine how tough that was on his family. Nimoy often said that the role “affected [him] personally, socially, psychologically [and] emotionally.” He credited it with “giving” [him] a career. Nimoy received three Emmy Award nominations as Spock. Furthermore, “TV Guide” magazine has identified “Spock” as one of the 50 top TV characters of all time.

Looking back, it is hard to believe that Star Trek’s original run only lasted three seasons, a victim of sub par ratings. Puzzling, since at the time, most everyone I knew loved the show. In any event, after the show was cancelled it and the major characters became even more popular in reruns, movies and memorabilia. It even spawned a fan club called “Trekkies. Its popularity has lasted to this day, over 40 years after its cancellation.

Leonard Nimoy was born in Boston in 1931 to Orthodox Jewish parents who had emigrated from Russia. His father owned a barbershop. He briefly attended Boston College but dropped out to pursue an acting career in Hollywood. After serving in the army, he worked at various odd jobs, such as movie theatre usher, taxi driver and vacuum cleaner salesman while looking for his big break. Beginning in 1951 he found work mostly as a “heavy” in several small parts. In his words, he became proficient in the use of a “switchblade and a gun” and would often “kick people, hit people, choke ‘em, threaten ‘em, torture ‘em – all the nice things heavies do.” He appeared in dozens of such small, forgettable roles in “B” movies. (One of those was as an Army sergeant in a horror flick called “Them,” which I actually saw in the movies as a 9 or 10-year-old, although I don’t remember him specifically.) He also “guested” on dozens of TV shows, such as “The Twilight Zone,” “Wagon Train,” and “Perry Mason.” Basically, he was earning a living while waiting for his big break, just like countless other actors.

Finally, in 1966 he got his big break. In a classic “Road Not Taken” moment, Nimoy had to choose between the role of Spock and one on “Peyton Place.” He chose Spock and became an overnight success after bouncing around for 15 years.

CONCLUSION

Nimoy’s career did not end after “Star Trek” was cancelled. He appeared in dozens of other roles, most notably as “Paris” in “Mission Impossible.” He also achieved notoriety as a director, writer and photographer.

But, he will forever be remembered as Spock. After all, it is only logical.

WHAT YEAR IS IT?

A country with an autocratic government led by an aggressive leader has brutally attacked its neighbor without provocation. It has occupied a large chunk of its neighbor’s territory and is threatening further military action. Another country has been increasing its military capabilities in defiance of the world powers. Innocent civilians are being slaughtered because of their religion. The world is largely in denial. Its response has been weak and ineffectual. The American people, war-weary and in the midst of battling their own economic problems, are ignoring these events hoping that they will somehow miraculously solve themselves without American involvement.

What year am I describing? 2015, you say? Russia? Iran? Islamic terrorism? Wrong. I am describing 1938.

Japan had been at war with China since the early 1930’s and had slaughtered millions of Chinese civilians in actions that were nothing short of genocide. Germany was arming itself to the teeth in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles it had signed at the conclusion of WWI. In addition, Germany had annexed Austria and was soon to annex the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) and attack Poland. Finally, Germany had begun its wanton and insane persecution of Jews.

The world had been engaged in appeasement, hoping that if they “allowed” Japan and Germany to seize a little bit of territory they would be satisfied. Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Great Britain, had just returned from the Munich conference with France, Germany and Italy, which had been convened to discuss the future of the Sudetenland. In return for not opposing Hitler’s occupation of the Sudetenland, he had supposedly promised not to go to war with Britain and France. Chamberlain was shown disembarking from his plane proudly waiving the non-aggression pact treaty in the air. The world exhaled, believing it had secured “peace in our time.”

Well, we all know how that worked out. Rather than taking decisive action against Japan and Germany while they were relatively weak and could have been defeated relatively easily, the world sat back and hoped for the best. The world stood by while Japan and Germany’s power and influence metastasized. America held back until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 (the 20th century version of 9/11) dragged us in. Eventually, it took a six-year long world war and 60 million deaths on both sides to defeat them.

CONCLUSION

No one is saying that we should attack Russia militarily over the Ukraine, but I believe economic and currency sanctions would be effective. Russia’s economy and currency are weak and vulnerable. Also, our government should commence dealing with them more forcefully, in general, than it has been. Had we done so, perhaps, Putin would not have been emboldened to invade the Ukraine in the first place.

Similarly, no one is suggesting we invade Iran. Economic sanctions were having an effect and should be re-imposed. Does anyone seriously believe they are not stalling the negotiations while continuing to develop a nuclear capability and delivery system, and that they will adhere to any agreement they may sign? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you. One cannot overestimate the danger to our national security and the stability of the Middle East of Iran’s achieving nuclear capability.

Regarding Islamic terrorism, we need to explore all options, including “boots on the ground.” I am not advocating just American “boots” nor “nation building.” That has not been successful. But, we need to exhibit more forceful leadership in assembling a bona-fide international response, military or otherwise. Islamic terrorists must be hunted down and destroyed. They have been beheading and burning innocent civilians, including Americans, and posting it on the internet for all to see! They have been raping and enslaving 10-year-old girls! This is not the Vietcong hiding in the jungle. We know where they are. They are out in the open mocking us, defying us to take action. Let’s accommodate them. Get in, do the job, and get out. The world stood by in the 1930s and 1940s. Let’s not make the same mistake again.

Remember the famous line from the late 19th century and early 20th century American philosopher, George Santayana, who said “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Let’s remember and learn from the past and NOT repeat it.

MY GRANDFATHER WOULD HAVE SHOT ME

Many families have a “skeleton in their closet.” Perhaps, there was a ne’er do well grandparent or an ex-con in the family tree. These would be embarrassing situations that you wouldn’t want publicized, but their ramifications on your life would not be significant, particularly if they occurred before you were even born. Well, there are skeletons, and then there are SKELETONS! Imagine that you found out, quite by accident, that your grandfather was a Nazi during WWII, and not just any Nazi, but one of the most notorious concentration camp Commandants, the so-called “Butcher of Plaszow,” Amon Goeth. Such is the skeleton facing Jennifer Teege.

Teege is a biracial German-Nigerian woman who has lived most of her life in Germany. Her biological mother was German, and her biological father was Nigerian. When she was only a few weeks old she was left at a children’s home. Subsequently, she was placed in foster care. She spent her childhood with various foster families. She only saw her biological mother occasionally. She was closer to her maternal grandmother. By all accounts, she had a normal middle class upbringing.

Teege spent several years in Israel as a student where, among other things, she earned a college degree at Tel Aviv University and became fluent in Hebrew. During this time she developed an affinity for Israel and the Jewish people. Subsequently, she returned home to Germany, married and raised a family. All this time she had no clue as to her family’s deep, dark secret.

She discovered it by accident. Apparently, she happened upon a book about Goeth in her local library. The author was his illegitimate daughter. Teege noticed that the author bore a striking resemblance to her own mother. It was shocking to her as she realized the implications. “It was like the carpet was ripped out beneath my feet” she stated. She felt compelled to read the entire book, and she realized a startling truth. Goeth was, in fact, her grandfather. Moreover, since she was biracial, her own grandfather would have had her shot on the spot!

Goeth was notorious. He personally supervised the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. Any survivors were placed in his camp or in Auschwitz. His special perverse pleasure was to shoot Jewish camp inmates for arbitrary reasons, such as perceived laziness, failed escape attempts by others, or for just plain sport, and then have his dogs attack them. Goeth was hanged for war crimes in 1946.

Briefly, the family history is as follows:

1. Teege’s maternal grandmother, Ruth Irene Kalder, was a secretary in Oskar Schlindler’s factory. It was Schlindler, himself, who first introduced her to Goeth.
2. Goeth’s wife was back home in Austria.
3. Goeth and Kalder had an affair, which produced Teege’s mother, Monika Hertwig.
4. Later, Hertwig had a brief fling with a Nigerian student, which produced Teege.
5. It was Hertwig’s book entitled “I Have to Love my Father, Right?” that set Teege on her quest for the truth about her family’s skeleton.

CONCLUSION

As stated above, Teege said she had been shocked to learn of her ancestry. Heinous as that was, however, she said the hardest thing for her to grasp was how her grandmother could love a man as cruel as Goeth. In addition, she said she had difficulty reconciling this situation with her love of Israel and the Jewish people.

At some point, she decided to write about her family’s history. She has said that one of the primary motivations for doing so was reading an interview of Herman Goering’s grandniece, who said she was so ashamed of her infamous ancestor that she had herself sterilized to “end her bloodline.”

Teege is not about to do anything so drastic. She prefers to look at the bright side. Who you are as a person, she opines, is not determined by some black sheep ancestor; your character is decided by you.

Teege has written a book about this situation entitled “My Grandfather Would Have Shot Me.” So far, it has only been published in Hebrew, but an English version is set for April. It should make for fascinating reading.

LINCOLN – THEN AND NOW

Students of history know that the prevailing opinions of Presidents tend to change over time. Often, a particular President is controversial or even unpopular during his tenure, but with the perspective of history his actions and accomplishments grow in stature and appreciation. Such has been the case with President Abraham Lincoln. As we celebrate Lincoln’s birthday this week I thought it appropriate to offer my “two cents” on his legacy as President.

During his time as President, Lincoln was very controversial. In fact, his very election to his first term in 1860 was controversial. He ran as a moderate from a “swing” state, Illinois, as the first nominee of the new Republican Party. He swept the northern and western states, but he had little support in the South. In fact, he won zero electoral votes in the South. Historically, such extreme regional disparity has been highly unusual, if not unique. Furthermore, in a multi-candidate race he garnered less than 50% of the popular vote, although he did win the electoral vote decisively (180 compared to his rivals’ combined total of 123). Ironically, two of his defeated rivals were William Seward and Salomon Chase, whom, in a show of solidarity, Lincoln later appointed to his Cabinet as Secretaries of State and Treasury, respectively.

Additionally, Lincoln’s election was the “last straw” for the pro-slavery southern states. The slavery issue had been brewing since before the American Revolution. Its resolution had been delayed time and again through various compromises, such as the famous “Missouri Compromise” of 1820. (In order to maintain the balance of power in the Congress the Missouri Compromise was an agreement to admit Missouri as a “slave” state and Maine as a “free” state.) This “can” had been kicked down the road for nearly 100 years. It was the proverbial 500 pound gorilla in the room. Southerners were convinced that Lincoln meant to end slavery. Thus, after threatening to secede from the union for several years, one by one, the pro-slavery states did so before Lincoln even took office, beginning with South Carolina in December 1860. Lincoln’s immediate predecessor, James Buchanan, one of the worst Presidents in US history, had been unable or unwilling to deal with the issue effectively, leaving the mess for Lincoln. Ironically, Lincoln viewed his primary objective as preserving the union at all costs, not necessarily ending slavery.

The Civil War began in April 1861. At first, the war did not go well for the North. The rebels, with more competent leadership, particularly General Robert E. Lee, were more than holding their own. By contrast, the northern generals, such as Winfield Scott, George Meade and George McClellan were overconfident and/or ineffective. Many northerners became dissatisfied with the war. Many in the North had expected a quick and easy victory. Anti-war sentiment took hold. A “Peace Wing” arose in the Democratic Party and gained some traction as the election of 1864 approached. As President, much of this criticism was focused on Lincoln. There was even some doubt that he would win re-election. He did, but the longer the war dragged on the more unpopular it and Lincoln became. Finally, Lincoln found a general, Ulysses S. Grant, who could and would fight effectively. With better leadership and superior resources and manpower the North was able to wear down the South and win the war. Despite Lincoln’s unpopularity at the time many historians, such as Princeton University’s Fred Greenstein, a noted scholar and author on the Presidency, praise him for acting decisively and wisely eventually. In any event, at the time of his assassination Lincoln was a very controversial, if not unpopular, figure.

Lincoln’s stature and reputation have grown considerably over the years. Currently, most surveys by presidential scholars and historians that rank presidents place him in the top three along with George Washington and FDR. Consider:

1. His assassination made him a martyr in the eyes of some people, especially among southern blacks and northern abolitionists. Some historians maintain that his assassination and the aftermath had as profound an effect on US history as any other event in our history.
2. Over the years, he has become a symbol for nationalism, freedom and courage, particularly in times of turmoil, such as WWI, WWII, the Great Depression and the Cold War.
3. He has been memorialized on Mount Rushmore and by the Lincoln Memorial.
4. He has become a pop culture icon. Hollywood has always portrayed him in a very favorable light in movies. The “New Yorker” has denoted that his likeness has been used in marketing and advertising “for almost as long as he has been dead.” His likeness has appeared in TV commercials.
5. In the days immediately preceding America’s entry into WWII FDR referenced his words and deeds in speeches to inspire the American people.
6. His likeness is on US currency, such as the penny and the five dollar bill.
7. In general, he is revered as a common man of humble origins who rose to the highest office in the land and preserved the union.

CONCLUSION

Some fun facts about Lincoln:

1. He was one of 11 presidents who did not graduate from college. He had less than two years of formal schooling of any kind and no law degree.
2. He actually argued a case before the Supreme Court (and lost).
3. He was the first president to have been born outside of the original thirteen colonies (Kentucky).
4. He was the only president to have a patent (for a device that freed steamboats that had run aground).
5. In his youth he was a wrestler.
6. He was a suffragette as early as the 1830s, well before it became a popular issue.
7. As a youngster, his life was saved on two separate occasions.
8. He was photographed with John Wilkes Booth at his second inauguration.
9. In 1863 he designated the final Thursday in November as a day of “giving thanks.”

As an aside, personally, I agree with the prevailing opinion of most historians and presidential scholars that the top three presidents were Washington, Lincoln and FDR, although one can debate the order. I place Jefferson, T. Roosevelt and Truman in the next group.

What is your opinion? I would welcome your comments and opinion.

SUPER QUIZ II

Another Super Bowl; another quiz (what else at this time of the year). Some of the questions may be too difficult for casual football fans, but I have to challenge the hard core football fans. Remember, no peeking.

1. The first Super Bowl was played in what year?

a. 1966
b. 1967
c. 1968
d. 1969

2. The losing team in the first SB was:

a. Cowboys
b. Raiders
c. Giants
d. Chiefs

3. At which college did Pete Carroll coach immediately before coaching the Seahawks?

a. UCLA
b. USC
c. Oregon
d. Penn State

4. Which city has hosted the most games?

a. Miami
b. Dallas
c. Los Angeles
d. Phoenix

5. How many Super Bowls have been decided in overtime?

a. 0
b. 1
c. 2
d. 3

6. Which franchise has won the most SBs?

a. Dallas
b. San Francisco
c. Pittsburg
d. New England

7. Each of the following teams is undefeated in SBs except:

a. Jets
b. Ravens
c. Bucs
d. Green Bay

8. The name “Super Bowl” was derived from:

a. College “bowl” games
b. Fan vote
c. Media feedback
d. Child’s toy

9. Who has won the most SB MVPs?

a. Bart Starr
b. Tom Brady
c. Eli Manning
d. Joe Montana

10. Who was the only MVP from the losing team?

a. Chuck Howley
b. Len Dawson
c. Bruce Smith
d. Icky Woods

11. How many defensive players have been MVP of a SB?

a. Two
b. Five
c. Eight
d. Ten

12. Which of the below franchises has had the most SB appearances?

a. Green Bay
b. San Francisco
c. NY Giants
d. Pittsburg

13. Which of the below networks has not telecast any Super Bowls?

a. ABC
b. CBS
c. Fox
d. ESPN

14. Each of the following has not appeared in a SB, except:

a. Browns
b. Bengals
c. Lions
d. Jaguars

15. Who performed at halftime last year?

a. Beyonce
b. Lady Gaga
c. Usher
d. Bruno Mars

16. How many times has a team played the SB in its home stadium?

a. 0
b. 1
c. 2
d. 3

17. Which of the below-listed coaches has the most SB appearances?

a. Vince Lombardi
b. Tom Landry
c. Don Shula
d. Bud Grant

18. The coldest temperature for a SB held outdoors was 39 degrees in which city?

a. Houston
b. New Orleans
c. Stanford
d. Cleveland

19. Which of the following coaches has taken more than one team to a SB?

a. Don Shula
b. Tom Landry
c. Bill Belichek
d. Vince Lombardi

20. Which coach has the most SB wins?

a. Don Shula
b. Bill Belichek
c. Mike Shanahan
d. Chuck Noll

21. Which of the below-listed quarterbacks did not win any Super Bowls.

a. Jim Plunkett
b. Dan Marino
c. Joe Namath
d. Terry Bradshaw

22. After whom is the SB trophy named?

a. Pete Rozelle
b. Paul Brown
c. Al Davis
d. Vince Lombardi

23. Which player has won the most SB rings?

a. Adam Vinatieri
b. Charles Haley
c. Terry Bradshaw
d. Bob Lilly

24. Which half-time entertainer became (in)famous for a “wardrobe malfunction?”

a. Beyoncé
b. Janet Jackson
c. Madonna
d. Lady Gaga

25. What marginal player became famous for the “helmet catch” in SBXLII (Giants vs. Pats)?

a. Plaxico Burris
b. Randy Moss
c. David Tyree
d. Bob Schnelker

ANSWERS: 1. b; 2. d; 3. b; 4. a (10); 5. a; 6. c; 7. d; 8. d; 9. d(3); 10. a (SB V); 11.c; 12. d (Tied with Dallas – 8); 13. d, 14. b; 15. d; 16. a; 17. c (6); 18. b; 19. a; 20. d(4); 21. b; 22. d; 23. b(5); 24. b; 25. c

AUSCHWITZ REMEMBRANCE

Monday, January 27 marked the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Russian soldiers. The date has also been recognized in many countries as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. This year approximately 300 survivors of the camp, according to the BBC, made the pilgrimage to mark the occasion. They were joined by political leaders and dignitaries of many countries.

Originally, Auschwitz was constructed as an Army barracks. Then, beginning in May, 1940 it was used to hold Polish political prisoners. Exterminations began in September 1941. Jews, gypsies and other prisoners were transported there from early 1942 until late 1944. It was the largest of the concentration camps and, in my opinion, the most notorious. The camp was operational until January, 1945.

It is not known for certain how many people were murdered at the camp. First of all, despite the Germans’ reputation for maintaining meticulous records, some of the prisoners were not registered. Secondly, towards the end of the war the Nazis, perhaps sensing they were going to lose, began to cover their tracks. For example, on Himmler’s orders mass graves were opened, the prisoners’ remains were burned, and the ashes were scattered so as to prevent an accurate count of the victims. Additionally, as Russian troops approached, the guards tried to evacuate the camp to hide the evidence. They evacuated most of the prisoners to other camps. The relatively few that remained were liberated by the Russians. Estimates of those murdered at Auschwitz are as high as four million (by the Russian government), but the most reliable and generally accepted number is 1.1 million, approximately 90% of which were Jews. The remainder included gypsies, communists, homosexuals, political prisoners and other dissidents or “undesirables.” This estimate was determined after much detailed research by Franciszek Piper, who is a polish scholar, historian, author and recognized expert on the history of Auschwitz. In his analysis, Mr. Piper went so far as to analyze timetables of train arrivals and deportation records. Approximately 1/6th of all the Jews who perished in the Holocaust were murdered at Auschwitz.

Not all of them were actually gassed. Some died as the result of disease, starvation, medical experiments, or were simply worked to death. Moreover, some German companies, such as Krupp and Siemens, maintained their own “subcamps” staffed by slave labor dedicated to manufacturing their products. Estimates of the number of such camps vary, but there were several dozen whose laborers worked in venues such as factories, mines, chemical plants, and foundries. The workers tried to retaliate as best they could through sabotage and work slowdowns, with some success.

CONCLUSION

This reunion is likely the last one that will include survivors. As Kevin Connolly, a reporter for the BBC denotes, most of them were mere children during the war, but today they are in the 80s or 90s, and their time is running out. For that reason, many of them brought along their children and even grandchildren whom they hope will keep the memories of the Holocaust alive after they are gone.

Some survivors that made the trip, like Marcel Tuchman, 93, feel they “owe[s] a debt” to those who were exterminated. Others, like Isabelle Choko of Paris, have found it difficult to confront the memories of their experiences, even after all these years. She told NBC News that she had maintained silence of her ordeal for decades. Now, she was there to face them and, hopefully exorcise them. “I had only one solution in front of me [she told NBC]. It was to live, love, work, have children, [and] have joy in my life…… because it is only those sentiments that allow you to survive.”

There are many more stories, too many to relate here. The best way we can honor both the victims and the survivors is to keep the memories alive. There are various documentaries appearing on TV this week. I highly recommend HBO’s “Night Will Fall,” which includes interviews of actual survivors plus actual footage shot in 1945 by liberating British, US and Russian troops. It was edited by Sidney Bernstein and Alfred Hitchcock, among others, and contains the most vivid and horrifying film of the camps and the victims I have ever seen. Some parts are very painful to watch, but, at the same time, very necessary.

Remember, NEVER FORGET!