Author: webuiltitblog

I am a retired financial services executive who worked on Wall Street for 42 years. I established this blog to publish commentary on politics and business as I still follow these areas closely. My hobbies include golf, reading, travel and spending time with my grandchildren.

STATE OF THE UNION

The Constitution requires the President to inform Congress on the “state of the union” annually. The time of the year is not specified, but traditionally Presidents have given the address in January or February. Presidents are not required to give it in person. George Washington gave the initial one, in person, in 1790. In fact, during the 19th century most of them were actually delivered to Congress in handwritten form. Apparently, they were not viewed as that big a deal. With the advent of radio, however, Presidents began to see an opportunity to disseminate their policies directly to the people. Hence, they were broadcast on the radio and, later, telecast on TV. Down through the years most of them have been rather mundane, however, a few of the notable announcements were:

1. President Monroe announced the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.
2. FDR described the famous “four freedoms” (freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear) in 1941.
3. LBJ outlined his War on Poverty in 1964.

Last night, President Obama delivered his sixth State of the Union speech. I can sum it up succinctly in four words: “same old, same old.” It more resembled a campaign speech, than an objective state of the union. The rhetoric was fine, but we know from experience that his actions will not live up to it.
For example, he denoted that (1) unemployment is down; (2) the stock market is up; (3) he wants to help the “working man;” (4) he wants to work with Congress; and (5) the world is safer today. But, a closer examination reveals these to be half-truths or down right falsehoods.

1. Statistically, unemployment is down, but some polls show that part of that decrease is attributable to some of the unemployed having given up on finding a job and essentially leaving the workforce. These people are not counted in the unemployment statistics. Polls show that we presently have the lowest percentage of labor force participation since 1978. In addition, many of those who are employed are working fewer hours or even part-time. This is not by choice.
2. The rising stock market is fine, but it only helps those who actually own stocks. According to a recent Pew Research survey approximately 47% of American families own any stock at all. Moreover, there is a direct correlation between income and stock ownership. Only 15% of families with an annual income of $30,000 or less own any stock, whereas 80% of those with an annual income of $75,000 or more do. Thus, the rising stock market has only served to widen the gap between the rich and the poor, which Mr. Obama has often criticized and vowed to change.
3. He wants to help the working man, but the middle class is being squeezed considerably. They are caught between the rich who have benefited from the rising stock market and other factors, and the poor, who have benefited from the growth of entitlements. Wages have been stagnant for a decade. Median income is down. According to an ABC News poll 74% of respondents said their finances have not improved in the last six years, and 56% believe that President Obama’s policies have made the economy worse or had no effect.
4. He says he wants to work cooperatively with Congress, but in the next breath he lists four items he will definitely veto: the Keystone Pipeline, immigration reform, modifications to Obamacare, and sanctions on Iran. Yes, there are arguments on both sides of these issues, but certainly, common ground can be found. Threatening a veto in advance is counterproductive. My conclusion is that he wants to work with Congress but only if they adhere to his policies. I think he is an ideologue who does not know how to compromise and has no interest in doing so.
5. Does anyone believe the world is safer today than it was six years ago? For example, we have had attacks by home-grown terrorists, who are actually American citizens (Fort Hood, Boston marathon), ISIS televised beheadings, al Qaeda attacks (Paris being the most recent), Iran developing nuclear capability, Yemen about to disintegrate, and rogue states such as Russia and North Korea doing what they want with impunity. All this and Mr. Obama won’t even say the words “Islamic terror.” Furthermore, he won’t let his staff say it. So, anyone feel like going on a vacation around the world?

CONCLUSION

The country is in deep trouble, and the President doesn’t seem to realize it. He has tuned out the results of the 2014 elections, which delivered a resounding repudiation of his policies and record. If he won’t acknowledge the existence of the problems we are facing, how is he going to resolve them?

Fox News retained a focus group to listen to the speech and opine on it afterwards. Before some of you roll your eyes at the notion of Fox News, consider that the group consisted of all ages, genders, races and political preferences. About half of the participants disclosed that they had voted for Mr. Obama in 2012. Afterwards, none of them said they were optimistic about the future and Mr. Obama’s ability to deal with it. I am afraid I share their pessimism.

by Leave a comment

I HAVE A DREAM

Yesterday, we celebrated Martin Luther King’s birthday. For some people the day holds no special meaning; it is just a day off from work; a day to spend with family or friends; part of a long three-day weekend. For many of us, however, particularly those of us who were alive in the 1950s and 1960s, it is much, much more.

MLK was born on January 15, 1929. He became the most prominent and influential American civil rights leader in the 1950s and 1960s, maybe ever. MLK was more than just a pastor. He believed that more could be achieved by civil disobedience and non-violence than by violence. He preached peaceful disobedience, sit-ins, marches and demonstrations, often in the face of violence and cruelty by the police and others, rather than rioting. In this regard, he was inspired by Mahatma Gandhi. In turn, he inspired others such as the Black Civil Rights movement in South Africa.

He also recognized the power of the press to bring attention to his cause and influence public opinion. For example, as many as 70 million people around the world witnessed the police brutality inflicted on the peaceful black and white marchers in Selma, including women and children as well as men. Those images, broadcast live on TV and radio, appalled and disgusted many people and provided an immeasurable boost to the public awareness of the injustices being visited upon blacks in the South.

Unlike any African American leaders before or since, he had the ability to unite, rather than divide. Although he was criticized by some of the more militant civil rights leaders of the time, such as Stokely Carmichael, he commanded the support and respect of a large majority of blacks and many whites as well. In that regard, he was similar to Nelson Mandela. After his death, despite the urgings of some civil rights leaders who wanted to continue MLK’s philosophy, more militant African American leaders, such as Mr. Carmichael, came into prominence. There was rioting in over 100 US cities, and a slew of violent incidents at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago in front of the national press and millions of Americans. The Civil Rights movement was changed forever.

MLK came into prominence in 1955 when he led a bus boycott, peacefully, in Montgomery, Alabama. The boycott had been fueled by the famous Rosa Parks incident in which she had refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white person. She was arrested on December 1. (Most people don’t know that earlier that year in March a similar incident had occurred also in Montgomery involving Claudette Colvin, a black girl who also refused to give up her seat to a white man. However, that case did not receive the same notoriety. Civil rights lawyers declined to pursue it because Colvin was 15, unmarried and pregnant. They chose to wait for a case with a more favorable fact pattern, and they were proven to be right.)

Later, MLK became the leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and remained so until his death. He applied his non-violence philosophy to protests in Selma, Ala., St. Augustine, FL, and the March on Washington, D. C., among others. He made it a policy never to endorse a particular political party or candidate. He believed he could be more effective if he were neutral and not beholden to anyone. Furthermore, in his view, neither party was all bad, and neither one was perfect. In his words, “[t]hey both have weaknesses.”

Perhaps, MLK’s most famous moment occurred during the famous March on Washington in August 1963. Ironically, MLK was not the primary organizer of the march. That was Bayard Rustin, a colleague. The primary purpose of the March was to dramatize the plight of blacks in the South. Civil rights leaders, including Roy Wilkins, NAACP, Whitney Young, National Urban League, A. Philip Randolph, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, John Lewis, SNCC, James Farmer CORE, and MLK, wanted to bring awareness of these issues right to the seat of the Federal government. More than 250,000 people of all ethnicities and colors attended. MLK was one of several speakers, and he only spoke for 17 minutes. But, his “I Have a Dream” speech became one of the most famous speeches ever. The March, in general, and MLK’s speech, in particular, are credited with bringing civil rights to the political forefront and facilitating the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Some little-known facts about MLK:

1. His birth name was Michael King, Jr., after his father. In 1931 his father changed his own name to Martin Luther King, after the German theologian, Martin Luther, whom he admired. At the same time, he changed his son’s name.
2. In 1958 MLK was stabbed in the chest after a speech by a woman who had been stalking him and nearly died.
3. The FBI began tapping MLK’s telephone as early as 1963. Robert Kennedy, who was Attorney General at the time and who is viewed as a staunch supporter of civil rights, in general, and MLK, in particular, authorized the tapping.
4. MLK won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 at the age of 35, the youngest age ever at the time.
5. MLK won a Grammy Award in 1971, posthumously. It should be denoted that he won it, not because he displayed a great singing voice, but for a “Spoken Word Album,” “Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam.”
6. Even though MLK was one of the great public speakers of his time, inexplicably, he got a “C” in a public speaking course at the seminary. (Kind of like a baseball scout saying Willie Mays can hit “a little bit.”)
7. MLK is one of three individuals and the only native-born American to have a holiday named after him. In case you’re wondering, the others are George Washington (born in the COLONY of Virginia), and Christopher Columbus.

Some MLK quotes to ponder:

1. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
2. “The time is always right to do what is right.”
3. “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”
4. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

Today, there is much division among African Americans as well as their leaders. Some are moderate and want to work within the system; others are more militant. Many of them have their own agendas and look for any excuse to foment distrust and discord. I believe that these militant leaders and we all know who they are, do more harm than good, but that is a subject for another blog.

One can speculate whether and to what extent MLK’s assassination changed the course of history. In my opinion, had MLK lived, the Civil Rights Movement would have been considerably different over the last 47 years, more peaceful and less divisive, with better results. Furthermore, his assassination had a significant impact, not only on the history of the civil rights movement, but also on the overall history of the country, itself.

I hope and believe that eventually a moderate leader will emerge and bridge the gap as MLK did half a century ago.

by Tags: 1 Comment

BRAIN DRAIN

In the wake of the recent Muslim terror attacks in Paris, the issue of “brain drain” has gained a great deal of traction in the press. Many observers have postulated that as a result of the overt and blatant anti-Semitism exemplified by these attacks and others, which I discussed in my last blog, large numbers of Jews, French and others, do not feel safe and secure. In many European countries there are areas that are governed by Sharia law; some universities have become havens for anti-Semitism; and Paris has “no go” zones where even the police do not go. Many Jews feel they are being targeted and the government is unable or unwilling to protect them. They have had enough and will seek to emigrate to Israel where they will be accepted and treated fairly. “The Times of Israel” has reported that as many as 15,000 French Jews may make “Aliya” to Israel in 2015, a significant increase from the 7,000 in 2014. (At the same time, it should be noted that according to the Washington Post and Tablet Magazine, a sizeable number of Israeli academics have emigrated to the US. A recent study by the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel concluded that about 20% of them are now on the faculties of US universities. Interestingly, Berlin has been another popular destination. There are an estimated 17,000 Israelis living there at the present time.)

Jews in other European countries may follow suit. For many Jews these terror attacks are reminiscent of the pogroms of the 19th and early 20th centuries and the terror of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. In those days, too many Jews were reluctant to leave their respective homelands, which was understandable, and soon it was too late. We all know what happened, and modern-day Jews do not want to make the same mistake.

Brain drain is not a new phenomenon, although the term, itself, was not coined until after WWII (generally attributed to the Royal Society in England). It refers to the emigration of well-educated, highly-motivated, intelligent individuals from one country to another. Typically, the motivations include better education or job opportunities, higher pay, better living conditions or to escape religious or political persecution. The old country suffers, and the new country benefits. Think of a see-saw. It is a zero-sum game. The pattern has been repeated many times throughout history. People with the means and motivation move from undeveloped, unstable, and/or repressive countries to developed, stable, and/or free and open ones. Picture a pyramid. The US, which offers the best combination of education, career opportunities, medical care, political stability, and other lifestyle benefits, would be at the very top. The next rung would consist of other industrialized Western countries, followed by underdeveloped, politically unstable and/or repressive countries. Sometimes, the émigré returns to his original country after a time. For example, someone who emigrates to the US to attend college or medical school may, for a variety of reasons, return to his original country at some point. This phenomenon is more like “brain circulation” rather than brain drain. It has been labeled the “boomerang effect.”

Below please find two of the many examples of brain drain throughout history. Often, Jews have been involved, and, generally, the “drained” country has suffered the consequences.

1. In 1492 Spain began expelling Jews and Moors. The Catholic monarchs, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, had just unified the country, and, basically, if you weren’t Catholic you were no longer welcome. You were either converted or were killed or expelled. The extensive loss of Jews damaged Spain’s financial system and economy significantly. Coincidentally or not, it has never recovered its former glory.
2. Nazi Germany’s anti-Semitic policies in the 1930s caused many Jews with the means and motivation to emigrate, primarily to the US. Some of the more significant ones were Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Niels Bohr, Theodore von Karman and John von Neumann. Why, you may ask, were these five so significant? They were all brilliant physicists, mathematicians, aerodynamic and aerospace engineers who played significant roles in the development of the atomic bomb. One can argue that if these men had been working on behalf of Germany, it would have developed the bomb, not us, and using it may have won them the war.
3. More recently, Iran and Syria have lost many Jews who emigrated to the US and Europe. Like I said, their loss is the US’s and Europe’s gain.

CONCLUSION

French Premier Francois Holland seems to be cognizant of the negative effects of brain drain. I believe he wants French Jews to stay in France. In a speech last week, he pledged to protect “all minority religions.” The supportive rhetoric is fine as far as it goes, but what actions, specifically, will the French government take? After all, Holland is cognizant of the power, influence and volatility of the significant Muslim population in France. Moreover, he is a socialist, and France is largely a free and open society.

It remains to be seen how effective the French government will be in protecting Jews prospectively. The first thing it must do is rein in the extremist Muslims in France. The “no-go” zones must go. How they have been allowed to exist boggles my mind.

I believe that most French Jews will wait and see how things play out. Actions always speak louder than words. When all is said and done, it’s nice to know that Jews have a safety net, if you will – Israel.

by Tags: Leave a comment

ANTI-SEMITISM IN EUROPE

Anti-Semitism in Europe is on the rise. It is pervasive and all-encompassing. There are many reasons for and examples of this trend, which I will discuss below. To many observers with a sense of history, the situation is beginning to resemble that of the 1930s. Thankfully, however, there is one crucial difference. In the 1930s no country was willing to accept the large numbers of Jews who wanted to emigrate to escape persecution; today, however, Jews have a safe haven in the State of Israel. Jewish emigration from Europe has been increasing sharply. In 2014, 7,000 immigrants came from France alone.

In the wake of the recent terror attacks in Paris Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement encouraging European Jews to emigrate to Israel to escape what he characterized as a “rising tide of anti-Semitism.” He added: “All Jews who want to [emigrate] to Israel will be welcomed with open arms. We will help you in your absorption here in our state that is also your state.” Mr. Netanyahu may be unpopular in some quarters for some of his policies, but he deserves much praise for those supportive comments.

Other than the latest events in Paris, which I discussed, in detail, a few days ago, some of the more recent examples of anti-Semitic terrorism in Europe include:

1. In July, 400 protesters attacked a synagogue and Jewish-owned businesses in Sarcelles, France shouting “death to the Jews.” Some observers have compared these actions to the pogroms of Czarist Russia in that the terrorists had the arrogance to distribute posters beforehand advertising the impending attacks.
2. In Toulouse, France in May 2012 a terrorist gunman shot up a Jewish school killing seven.
3. In Liege, Belgium a café sported a sign that said dogs were welcome, but not Jews.
4. In May a terrorist shot up the Jewish Museum with a Kalashnikov assault rifle, killing four.
5. In 2011 Somali police found documents on a senior al-Qaeda terrorist that described planned attacks on various neighborhoods in London that have sizeable Jewish populations.
6. In 2012 nine Jihadists were convicted of plotting terrorist acts against a rabbi and other Jews in Manchester, England.
7. Right wing extremist political parties have been gaining considerably in elections in France, Greece, Hungary and Germany.
8. A senior Hungarian minister has been advocating the development of a list of Hungarian Jews that work in the government as they constitute a “national security risk.”
9. Malmo, Sweden has become a hotbed of anti-Semitism. There have been many troubling incidents. The one that struck me as particularly egregious was that of a single mom and her five year-old son on a train. The boy was wearing a kippah, which, obviously, identified them as Jews. The woman reported that they were repeatedly harassed by an “Arab” for the entire trip. Neither the other passengers nor the conductor came to their aid or even said anything to the man. Interestingly, in Sweden kosher butchering is against the law, but Hallal butchering is not.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. What are the reasons for this development? I believe there are several, but the primary ones are as follows:

1. The European countries have sizeable Muslim populations, which, to a large extent, have not been assimilated adequately, or at all. Many Muslims prefer to live separately and retain their own laws and customs, such as Sharia Law. For example, in Paris there are several “no-go” zones, inhabited by Muslims, that even the French police avoid.
2. Many of these European Muslims are the children and grandchildren of laborers who were encouraged to emigrate 50-60 years ago to provide cheap labor in factories. Many of them are unemployed, disaffected, and prone to violence.
3. The countries with the largest Muslim populations are France (500,000), the UK (290,000) and Germany (119,000), but Belgium (30,000), Sweden (15,000) and Spain (12,000) also have large populations relative to their overall populations. These populations have become very influential politically and socially.
4. Historically, in bad economic times, such as these, people have sought to blame others for their problems. Governments, whether the kings in the Middle Ages or politicians of more modern times, have always turned a blind eye or even encouraged this to deflect blame from themselves. Jews have always been a convenient scapegoat, and that is true now.
5. We are in an age of excessive political correctness. Many people, especially politicians, are very reluctant to say or do anything that could be construed as anti-Muslim.

Incidentally, yesterday there was a “unity rally” and march in Paris in which some 40 world leaders paid their respects to the victims. Guess which country failed to send anyone? That’s right, the US. Where was President Obama? What other matter was so pressing that he couldn’t attend or at least send Joe Biden? Was he afraid that his presence would offend Muslims or what? A White House spokesman mentioned there was some concern about security, but that is a flimsy excuse. How about the other world leaders who attended? Their security teams were able to make appropriate arrangements.

CONCLUSION

Some of you may recall that I have been blogging for some time about the disturbing trend of anti-Semitism. The recent events in Paris have merely been the latest example. Anti-Semitism is often disguised as criticism of Israel and its policies toward the Arab states in the Middle East and the Palestinians. I view this as bogus. Any objective person would recognize it for what it is. It reminds me of the 1950s and 1960s in the US when bigots would attempt to disguise their racism by espousing “states’ rights” or “separate but equal” education. Then, as now, most people are not fooled. They know what the real deal is.

So, what is the solution? Is there one? I think it is unrealistic to expect basic human nature to change. Bigots and terrorists have always been with us and always will be. They are not suddenly going to modify their beliefs and actions toward Jews after 5,000 years. The human tendencies to blame someone else for one’s shortcomings and hate those who are different are too engrained. It is a sad, but realistic, fact of life that we Jews have to deal with. Jews have to be wary and vigilant. I can understand one’s reluctance to leave their country and start all over again in a foreign country. Personally, I would not want to do so. But, at least now, if one feels that his situation has become intolerable, one has the option to emigrate to Israel.

by Tags: 2 Comments

TERROR IN PARIS

Wednesday, three Islamic terrorists launched a heinous and cowardly attack on the office of a French newspaper that publishes satirical articles and cartoons. Apparently, the terrorists, two of whom were identified as French citizens (the third was unidentified as I write this), had objected to the newspaper’s publishing of a satirical cartoon poking fun at the prophet Mohammed. They murdered 12 people at the publication, including the editorial director, Stephane Charbonnier, and wounded eleven others. They left shouting “Allahu Akbar,” which translates into “God is great.” As I write this blog, two of the three are still at large, but they have been identified and no doubt will be apprehended.

Unfortunately, this was not an isolated instance. We are all familiar with the recent Islamic terror attacks in the US, such as Fort Hood (sorry, not “buying” “workplace violence”), Boston marathon, and police officers Ramos and Liu.  In addition, there have been several such attacks in Europe, to wit:

l. March 2012 – A terrorist linked to al-Qaeda gunned down three Jewish schoolchildren, a rabbi and three paratroopers in Toulouse, France.
2. May 2013 – Two al-Qaeda terrorists murdered a British soldier in London. They ran him down in the street and then proceeded to brutally hack him to death.
3. May 2014 – A terrorist linked to ISIS murdered four people at the Jewish Museum in Brussels with a Kalashnikov.

Terrorist attacks are definitely on the rise in Europe as well as the US, and virtually all of them have been perpetrated by extremist Muslims. One would be hard-pressed to recall a terrorist attack by a non-Muslim.

In my opinion, France seems to have the biggest problem with extreme Muslims.  Some of the reasons are:

l. France has maintained strong economic, social and political ties with several Muslim countries, notably Algeria and Syria, a holdover from the colonial period. Many of you may recall that Algeria fought a long, brutal war with France in the 1950s to obtain its independence. Consequently, there is still latent animosity among some elderly Muslims, particularly those originally from Algeria.
2. France probably has the most Muslims of any European country, about 5 million. Many of them have emigrated to France from North Africa and the Middle East over the last 60 years. At first, the French encouraged emigration because Muslims were a source of cheap labor. But, now, many of their descendants are unemployed and disaffected. In addition, many Muslims resist assimilation into their new country’s society.
3. Most significantly, France is a very strongly secular country. It has many laws that discourage public displays of religion. These secularist laws, even though they apply to all religions, are particularly offensive to some Muslims. For example:

a. There are bans on crosses, yarmulkes and veils in schools.
b. In one famous (or, perhaps, notorious) case in 2008 a French court denied French citizenship to a Moroccan woman on the grounds that her wearing a veil and her strict submissiveness to her husband constituted “assimilation defects.”
c. In 2010 the French Senate banned the wearing of face-coverings in public.
d. In 2013 the French government promulgated a set of guidelines for schools, which were aimed at excluding religion from schools.

CONCLUSION

Charlie Hebdo has a long history of satire.  It is its “bread and butter.” No person or group has been immune. Sometimes, it has pushed the envelope. For example, just last month it published a cartoon mocking the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus. Did any Catholics riot or attack the newspaper? Nooooo! They accepted it as satire or, perhaps, an expression of freedom of the press that was silly and beneath addressing.  Not so in the radical Muslim world where humor and self-deprecation are absent, and the slightest insult, real or perceived, must be avenged violently.

Following the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo many world leaders, including President Obama, issued comments condemning the attack as an affront to the principle of free expression. That’s fine as far as it goes. But, no one seems to want to address the root of the problem, the 500-pound gorilla in the room as it were, which is the ongoing terrorism being perpetrated by radical Muslim groups. Moderate Muslim political and religious leaders remain silent either out of fear or tacit approval. Muslim states that sponsor and/or finance terrorism, such as Iran and Pakistan, are allowed to do so with impunity. Where are the financial or economic sanctions or other measures that might dissuade them? Western political and religious leaders are even afraid to label these attacks as “terrorism” either out of fear of retaliation or of being accused of Islamaphobia. Instead, they use more benign descriptions, such as “demonstrations,” “workplace violence,” or “lone-wolf attacks.” Political correctness is running amok. Enough, already! Do any objective, thoughtful, knowledgeable people “buy” these characterizations? Hopefully, not. Let’s recognize it for what it is, and call a spade a spade. All these wimpy reactions do is encourage further terrorist attacks.

Everyone knows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful. There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today. If even .1% of them are Jihadists, probably a low estimate, that still amounts to 1.6 million Jihadists. The world has to address the actions of the violent minority. Students of history will see a parallel to Germany in the 1930s. At first, only a small percentage of Germans were Nazis, but the vast majority of Germans stood by and did nothing. Soon, a tipping point had been reached, and it was too late. Soon, it may also be too late in this instance

by Tags: 7 Comments

LUISE RAINER

If I were to ask you to name the only five actors who have won consecutive Academy Awards chances are you would be able to identify three of them fairly easily – Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn and Tom Hanks. If you were a real aficionado of the movie industry you might even know the identity of a fourth person- Jason Robards. Until a few days ago, virtually no one would have been able to identify the fifth person, who was also the first to do so. Her name was Luise Rainer, and she died a few days ago of pneumonia at the age of 104.

Rainer was not nearly as famous as the others with whom she shares that unique distinction. You might wonder why. Well, read on.

Rainer was born on January 12, 1910 in Dusseldorf, Germany. She was raised primarily in Vienna, Austria. She began acting at the age of 16 in Germany and Austria on both the stage and in films. She was discovered by an MGM talent scout who signed her to a three-year contract in 1935. At that time, it was common for the major studios to employ talent scouts who would scour theatres, clubs and other venues, regardless of how unlikely, for undiscovered talent. In an extreme case, Lana Turner was discovered by a talent scout while eating ice cream at Schwab’s Drug Store, because she had “the right look.”

Rainer was an immediate success. She won Oscars for her roles in “The Great Ziegfeld” in 1936 and “The Good Earth” in 1937. But, then she ran afoul of the “studio system” and, in particular, Louis B. Mayer. Briefly, under the studio system, which existed from 1927, when “talkies” became popular, to 1949, when a Supreme Court ruling ended such practices on anti-trust grounds, the major studios – MGM, Loews, Fox, Paramount and Warner Brothers – were able to sign stars to contracts and exert control over their careers. They did this by what is called “vertical integration.” The studios controlled the actors, produced the movies, and controlled their distribution through movie theatres that they owned or controlled. An actor under contract was required to take whatever roles the studio wanted. Being under contract provided security, but many performers who became successful found it stifling.

After her initial success, Rainer’s vision of her career’s direction differed radically from that of MGM’s. Most dissatisfied actors realized that while they were under contract the studio had control over their careers, not them, and they went along with the system. Not Rainer. In her opinion, the studio was offering her roles that were not substantial enough to suit her talents. Two of the roles she wanted were that of Maria in “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” which went to Ingrid Bergman, and Madame Curie, which went to Greer Garson. She got neither. This conflict came to a head in a famous meeting with Louis B. Mayer. MGM controlled Rainer’s destiny and Mayer was intransigent. He demanded that she fulfil the terms of her contract, which required she make one more movie for the studio under his terms. Depending on one’s point of view Rainer either quit or was blackballed. The end result was that her career in Hollywood was over at the age of 28.

CONCLUSION

Some movie historians consider her case to be one of the most extreme examples of actor victimization. Rainer returned to Europe where she married and raised one daughter. Except for infrequent appearances in minor roles, she lived a quiet life away from the movie business. She only returned to Hollywood twice, for the Academy Award shows in 1998 and 2003.

Obviously, Rainer had substantial talent. It would have been interesting to see what her career might have been like. If Rainer had any regrets she expressed them in a 1987 interview when she said “I’ve always felt guilty about not having continued to work. I should have made 50 more pictures.”

by Tags: Leave a comment

NEW YEAR’S EVE

On December 31, people around the world will celebrate New Year’s Eve. Although the specifics of the celebration may differ in various countries, it is generally a time of social gatherings, parties, eating, drinking, and merriment. The Pacific island nations of Kiribati and Samoa are the first to celebrate; Hawaii is the last.

Below please find a sampling of celebration customs in various countries:

1. In the US NYE is celebrated with parties with family and friends and other special events. For example, since 1907 people have been gathering in Times Square to watch the “Ball Drop.” At precisely 11:59 pm, a 11,875-pound Waterford crystal ball begins its descent from the roof of One Times Square down a 70-foot high pole. Exactly one minute later, at midnight, the ball reaches the roof of the building, and huge lights signal the start of the New Year. The details of this “Ball Drop” have evolved over the years, especially technologically. It has become so symbolic of the celebration of New Year’s that it draws approximately one million spectators from all over the world, many of whom stand in the cold without access to food or toilet facilities for hours just to be there. The Drop has inspired similar celebrations in other cities, such as Atlanta (“Peach Drop”) and Nashville (“Music Note Drop”). Entertainment from various venues is also featured. The most famous and enduring entertainer was Guy Lombardo, who from 1928 to 1976 entertained from the ballroom at the Waldorf-Astoria, first on the radio, then on TV. After his death in 1977 other programs became prominent, most notably “Dick Clark’s Rockin’ New Year’s Eve.” Traditionally, NYE is the busiest day at Disneyland and Disney World, which feature Disney character-shows and fireworks.
2. In Canada the mode of celebrations vary by region. For example, in Toronto, Niagara Falls and other areas of Ontario, there are concerts, parties, fireworks and sporting events. On the other hand, in rural Quebec some people go ice fishing.
3. In Mexico families decorate their homes in various colors, each of which symbolizes a particular wish for the upcoming year. For example, yellow would symbolize a wish for a better job, green improved finances, white improved health, and red general improvement in lifestyle and love. At midnight, many Mexicans eat a grape with each chime of the clock and make a wish each time. Some people bake a sweet bread with a coin hidden inside. Whoever gets the piece with the coin will be blessed with good fortune in the coming year. Finally, some people make a list of all the bad events that occurred to them over the past year on a piece of paper and then burn the paper to symbolize a purging of all the bad luck.
4. As you might expect celebrations in England focus around Big Ben. People gather to observe fireworks and celebrate. In addition, many celebrate in pubs or at private parties.

At the stroke of midnight it is traditional to sing “Auld Lang Syne.” I have always been curious as to the derivation of this song and why it is sung at New Year’s. The origin is murky, but it has generally been attributed to the Scottish poet Robert Burns. He wrote it in 1788, but it is likely that some of the words were derived from other Scottish poems and ballads. “Auld Lang Syne” literally translates into English as “long long ago,” “old times,” or “days gone by.” Thus, at the stroke of midnight we bid farewell to the past year and, at the same time, wish to remember the good times. In some areas the song is also sung at funerals, graduations and any other event that marks a “farewell” or “ending.” Sometimes the singers gather in a circle and hold hands.

CONCLUSION

Whatever your NYE plans may be and however you celebrate, I urge you to be careful and drive safely and defensively. Pay particular care to watch out for the “other guy.” This is one night where too many people celebrate excessively and drive under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. These people should not be on the road, but, nevertheless, they are, and they are dangerous both to you and themselves. For this reason, Ed McMahon, Johnny Carson’s long-time side kick on the “Tonight Show” and a noted party-goer, used to refer to New Year’s Eve derisively as “amateur night.” New Year’s Day is the second most deadly holiday for drivers. (Thanksgiving is #1.) Moreover, a whopping 42% of the driving fatalities on NYD are the result of DUI.

Enjoy yourself, but don’t become a statistic!

by Tags: Leave a comment

MURDER OF TWO NYC COPS

Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu. If you have not heard these names, hear them now, and remember them. They were members of the NYC police force. On Saturday, they were brutally and cowardly murdered by a gunman as they sat in their police cruiser while on the job at a housing project in Bedford-Stuyvesant. They were there on patrol to protect the citizens of that high-crime area. Instead, it was they who could have used some protection.

The gunman, whose name I will not mention, because he doesn’t deserve acknowledgment of any kind, snuck up behind them and shot them through the car’s passenger window without warning. He actually committed this heinous crime after bragging about it beforehand. Why did he do it? I don’t know, and I don’t care. There is no reason that could justify the murders, no possible mitigating and extenuating circumstances. Frankly, I’m glad he killed himself afterward. At least, we will be spared a lengthy trial, along with a self-serving attempt at justification by certain liberal mainstream media outlets and race-baiters.

Rafael Ramos was a 40-year-old two-year veteran of the police force. He was married with two children who will now have to grow up without a father. In his spare time, he was studying to become a lay chaplain. Wenjian Liu, 32, was recently married with no children. His family had emigrated here from China to make a better life for their only son. Rather than pursuing a career in medicine or some other lucrative profession, Liu decided to become a cop to serve the community. By all accounts, they were both solid family men and good citizens.

I don’t believe that this incident should be viewed in a vacuum. It is a by-product of the toxic atmosphere that has been created and fomented by certain politicians, race-baiters and biased media coverage following the recent events in Ferguson, MO and Staten Island, NY. This type of atmosphere provides “cover” for those who would have a tendency to acting out violently. Politicians, such as NYC Mayor de Blasio, Attorney General Eric Holder, and, to a lesser extent, President and Mrs. Obama, rather than trying to tamp down the anger among some African-Americans by calling for calm, reason and respect for due process, have been issuing comments citing perceived racism among cops and others and a “rigged” judicial system. These comments play to their liberal bases but do little to resolve matters. Collectively, they have taken these two isolated incidents and extrapolated them into a belief that a widespread racial problem exists in the US. In addition, they have perpetuated the myth that cops deliberately go into black neighborhoods to harass blacks. That is utterly ridiculous. They go there to protect the law-abiding blacks that live there and want police protection. They go there because, to paraphrase the notorious bank robber, Willie Sutton, “that is where the crime is.”

Mayor de Blasio’s comments have been particularly toxic. For example: (1) He characterized the recent attacks by a mob on two NYC police officers as “alleged” violence, ignoring the fact that the attack was recorded on tape; (2) He failed to condemn the recent demonstrators who chanted “What do we want? Dead cops!” (3) He disclosed that he had cautioned his biracial son to be careful around cops lest he be targeted because of his race. His anti-cop comments and actions during this crisis have lost him the support of the cops, perhaps permanently. Many of them have signed a petition requesting that he not attend their funerals. Also, when he showed up to pay his respects to Officers Ramos and Liu, the cops present actually turned their backs on him to express their displeasure of his lack of respect and support.

Messrs. Obama and Holder have mouthed appropriate platitudes, but their actions, or lack thereof, have revealed their true biases. Michele Obama’s gratuitous comment that she was approached in Target to retrieve something off a top shelf because the customer assumed that, because she was black, she must be an employee, was excessively inflammatory and not helpful to the discourse. I, too, have been asked to retrieve items from the top shelf in stores, and I have observed many other tall people doing the same for shorter people. It was not a matter of racism, but height. Just smile, and retrieve the item, and that’s the end of it. No need to perceive every imagined slight as racism. Finally, the reliance by Messrs. Obama and de Blasio on Al Sharpton as an advisor on race relations is definitely counterproductive.

Sharpton and other race-baiters have ascribed these situations to racial profiling by cops. They ignore the fact that with respect to the Ferguson incident independent, verifiable evidence demonstrated that Michael Brown had attacked Officer Wilson. Officer Wilson did not profile Brown; he was defending himself. Regarding the Staten Island incident the police officer in question was actually being supervised at the scene by a black officer. The video of the incident did indicate that the officer who choked Mr. Garner may have used excessive force, but if there is a beef regarding the Staten Island incident, it should be with the Grand Jury that failed to hand down an indictment, not the cops. (Additionally, we have not been privy to the evidence presented to the Grand Jury.) Even Eric Garner’s daughter does not attribute her father’s death to racism. Any objective person would have to agree. However, race-baiters are not interested in objectivity or helping minorities. They have their own agendas. They are interested in agitating, not healing.

Generally, the media coverage has been slanted toward the agitators and protesters in both Ferguson and NY. Again, the media has a vested interest in fomenting conflict. It drives ratings and sells newspapers. Also, look at the misguided actions of certain celebrities, such as Samuel Jackson and his ridiculous song and the athletes who wore the “hands up, don’t shoot” jerseys. I know they have a right to exercise freedom of speech, but at least get the facts right. Independent witness testimony has proven that Brown did not raise his hands and say “don’t shoot.” Perhaps, a better jersey to wear would have been “Be a good father to your son.”

On the other side of the spectrum, many people, including former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former NY Governor George Pataki, former NYC Police Commissioner Bernard Kerick and many sensible media personalities, such as Bill O’Reilly and Charles Krauthammer have spoken out in support of the police. I also believe that there is a “silent majority” (to quote former Vice President Spero Agnew) that supports the police.

CONCLUSION

Anyone who thinks there is a “racial problem” in the US today is misguided and not cognizant of the history of race relations. Whatever one perceives the situation to be, one must admit that it is vastly improved over 50 or 60 years ago. Sure, things are not completely harmonious between whites and blacks, and, likely, they never will be. There will always be racists on both sides. Race relations could still improve. But, I submit that the overwhelming majority of Americans are NOT racist. I cannot cite a poll to prove this assertion, and, besides who would admit to a pollster that they are racist. I am basing this on empirical evidence of how I have seen people interact. Also, consider that we have elected and re-elected a biracial President. Moreover, we have a black Attorney General and a plethora of black, Hispanic and Asian congressmen, judges and State officials. Fifty-sixty years ago, blacks were being denied basic rights, such as the right to vote and access to educational and career opportunities. If you don’t remember this or forgot your history, watch the movie “Selma,” which will be released on Christmas Day. You will see what real racial problems were like. Then, try to tell me we have a race problem in America today.

In the meantime, we should recognize that 95% or more of the cops are fair and not racist. They are there for the protection of law-abiding citizens, and they do a damn fine job of it under very difficult circumstances.

by Leave a comment

TWO VIEWS OF ENHANCED INTERRROGATION

Last week the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its long-awaited report with respect to the CIA’s program of enhanced interrogation of suspected terrorists in the years since 9/11. According to the NY Times, the report, which was prepared and issued solely by Democrats on the Committee, characterized the Program as “more brutal” and “less effective” than the CIA had acknowledged previously either to government officials or the public. The Times article goes on to state that “detainees were deprived of sleep for as long as a week” and “subjected to medically unnecessary [procedures, such as] rectal feeding or rectal hydration.” Furthermore, the article characterized the water boarding of KSM as a “series of near-drownings.” Most damning, the Report concluded that little, if any, worthwhile intelligence was gleaned from these interrogations that could not have been learned from other, more humane sources. Dianne Feinstein, the Committee Chairperson, called the CIA’s Program “a stain on our values and on our history.” There was much more to the report, but I think you get the idea.

The report, if read in a vacuum, is devastating. However, as with most complex issues, there is another side to the story.

1. Proponents of the Report and opponents of the Program could benefit from a little history lesson. Let’s not forget that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 Americans were shocked, scared and angry. The terrorists had just taken down the World Trade Center Twin Towers murdering 3,000 innocent people in the process. In addition, the terrorists had intended to murder individuals who comprise our top layer of government – congressmen, senior Pentagon officials and even the President and Vice President. Were it not for the heroism of those on United Airlines flight 93, they might have very well succeeded. Also, there were rumors of further impending attacks, possibly even the detonation of a nuclear bomb on American soil. Many Americans were afraid to travel to NY or anyplace else, for that matter. Many foreigners were afraid to travel to the US. In response, there was an overwhelming flood of patriotism and nationalism. We were desperate for intelligence. We wanted information; we wanted revenge on the perpetrators and masterminds of 9/11, such as bin Laden and KSM; and we wanted it NOW. That was the context in which enhanced interrogation procedures were conceived and carried out by the CIA.
2. The Program was approved by the President and the Attorney General, and the interrogations were closely supervised. Extreme care was taken to ensure that interrogation techniques did not “cross the line” from interrogation to torture. Because of movies and TV, people envision a “knuckle-dragger” like the fictional Jack Bauer, physically brutalizing and berating detainees without limits or supervision. Nothing could be further from the truth. In point of fact, there were many people in the interrogation room besides the interrogator(s) (the exact number is classified), including attorneys, senior supervisory personnel, and medical personnel and equipment. Whenever a detainee was in medical danger the interrogation was stopped. Every precaution was taken within the guidelines of the Program.
3. Dr. James Mitchell, a former Air Force psychologist, was one of the chief interrogators. During his recent interview by Megyn Kelly on “The Kelly File” he discussed many of these points, in detail. In addition, he stated emphatically that, at first, he had been reluctant to participate in the interrogations. He found it “repulsive at times,” but he did it to save American lives. Furthermore, he stated that the CIA’s Program had been investigated thoroughly by the Attorney General. It was deemed not to be within the definition of “torture.” If it was [torture], I would be in jail.” He and several others maintain that enhanced interrogation of KSM led us to bin Laden’s chauffeur, who, in turn, led us to bin Laden himself.
4. Most telling of all is the fact that the authors of the Report, though they claim to have conducted exhaustive research, did not interview Mr. Mitchell, any of the other participants in the Program, or the former and current Directors of the CIA for their side of things. Also, no Republicans participated in the Report.

A sampling of comments and opinions, which, generally, fall along party lines:

1. President Obama praised the CIA interrogators as “patriots,” but added that the techniques employed “constituted torture in my mind.”
2. Senator John Wyden (D-Oregon): was “disturbed by the CIA’s continuing defense of torture tactics.”
3. Former President George W. Bush has reiterated often that the Program was not torture, and the information gleaned from it was instrumental in capturing not only bin Laden but other senior terrorists as well.
4. Senator John Comyn, (R-Texas) – “Enhanced interrogation techniques …save American lives, and Senate Democrats should thank these brave men and women who worked to protect us – not vilify them.”
5. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Jim Risch (R-ID) issued a joint statement that characterizes the release of the Report as “reckless” and expressed the concern that it could produce a backlash that could “endanger the lives of Americans overseas, jeopardize US relations with foreign partners, potentially incite violence, create political problems for our allies, and could be used as a recruitment tool for our enemies.”

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I realize that this is an extremely emotional issue and one on which reasonable people may disagree. My personal opinion is that we are and have been in a state of war with terrorism and those who plan, support and execute terrorist acts since even before 9/11. This is not the time to retreat into one’s ivory tower and take the high moral and ethical road. The other side has shown no mercy. It has murdered violently and indiscriminately and will continue to do so. In just the last few months, we have witnessed beheadings and bombings of innocent non-combatants. Who knows what else they have planned for us.

It is important to realize that historically, people have done things during wars that they would not do normally. If you doubt me, re-read the history of wars, any war. As George C. Scott, who played the title role in the movie, “Patton,” stated: “the idea is not to give your life for your country, but to cause the other [guy] to give HIS life for HIS country.” As with any war, the idea is not to be the good guy, but to WIN, whatever it takes. There are no “style points” for good behavior. Second-guessing events and decisions from several years ago is misleading and unfair. The relevant question should be were the actions in question appropriate based on the facts and circumstances that existed at the time?

Finally, regardless of your opinion on this issue ask yourself why the Committee wrote and released the Report without any input from those who conceived and carried out the Program, the politicians, the interrogators and the current and former heads of the CIA. It was akin to holding a trial with only the prosecution presenting evidence. Anyone who would have had a contrary or dissenting view was excluded. Why not try to develop a bipartisan report? Indeed, why release it at all? The obvious conclusion is that it was for political expedience, and, as a result, whatever credibility the Report may have had has been severely damaged.

What is your opinion of the Report and this issue in general? I would welcome your comments.

by Tags: 4 Comments

TERROR ATTACK ON PAKISTANI SCHOOL

The story is all too familiar. Most of us remember the terrorist attack on the Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, CT. in December 2012. We remember how horrific that attack was and how devastating, particularly to the families and friends of the victims. Well, the recent terrorist attack by a unit of Pakistan’s Taliban on a school in Peshawar, Pakistan was equally horrific. Once again, parents sent their young children off to school with every expectation that they would be returning home safe and sound like they had every other day. Alas, in many cases, it was not meant to be. The terrorists murdered 141 persons, 132 of which were children. The word “killed,” which has been used by many media outlets, is extremely misleading and way too benign a term for what they did. This was out and out indiscriminate murder, by any definition of the word.

This attack, carried out by a unit of the Pakistani Taliban, was arguably the worst in Pakistan since a terrorist bombing in Karachi in 2007 murdered 150 persons. The hurt is exacerbated because most of the victims were innocent children. Witnesses stated that seven terrorists stormed the school wearing suicide vests, and opened fire indiscriminately. Again, describing them as “militants,” as some media outlets have done, would be too benign a description. Obviously, their goal was not to take hostages to make a political statement but to murder. It was a suicide mission designed to cause maximum damage and pain. Subsequently, Pakistani army commandos counterattacked, and in the ensuing gun battle all seven terrorists were killed either by the commandos or by blowing themselves up. The attack was roundly condemned by other governments, including President Obama on behalf of the US. Fine as far as it goes, but these statements of condemnation were largely symbolic gestures that will have negligible impact. It will be up to the Pakistani government to deal with its terrorist problem.

Most Americans tend to view Islamic terrorists as a homogeneous group. In reality, there are many separate factions. Some of them are allied as they do have some common goals, such as murdering “infidels.” Some observers even believe that some terrorists are members of different groups from time to time.
On the other hand, some of the groups are in conflict with each other. Apparently, the Pakistan Taliban, aka TTP, is in conflict with the Afghani Taliban. The TTP is a more extreme faction, and their beliefs are closer to those of al-Qaeda. Some alliances are temporary depending on the situation. Hussain Haqqani, former Pakistani ambassador to the US, has likened these shifting alliances to how various mafia families interact.

The Pakistani government has been inconsistent in its internal war on terror. For example, it has been in conflict with the TTP for last six months, which it feels is actually seeking to overthrow the government. Their latest offensive resulted in the deaths of approximately 2,000 TTPs. Nevertheless, Mr. Haqqani characterized the offensive as “inadequate” and “flawed.” Indeed, there is evidence that the TTP had been tipped off as most of its key leadership was able to escape.

The TTPs justified the attack on the school by claiming it was in retaliation for that offensive. Suffice to say, in their twisted minds Islamic terrorists equate attacks on defenseless children with attacks, bombings and other military actions waged against them, even though in those cases children and other non-combatants are not targeted. (As we know, terrorists often hide among non-combatants for security reasons.) To a rational person the two don’t equate.

In contrast to its ongoing conflict with TTP, the Pakistani government has largely ignored other terror groups, such as Jamaat-ud-Dawa (“JUD”). The US has labeled JUD a global terrorist organization, and has complained that it has been aided and abetted by the Pakistani government, which appears to be accurate. Furthermore, the US government has placed a $10 million bounty on JUD’s leader, Hafiz Saeed who, it appears, is being harbored by the Pakistani government. If you are confused by how all these terror groups fit in and relate to each other and the Pakistani government, you are not alone.

CONCLUSION

The Pakistani government’s inconsistent attitude toward the various terrorist factions is not helpful. In particular, it has fed the hostility between TTP and JUD, which has exacerbated violence. There is little the US can or should do. Interfering would only unite all the terrorists groups against us and incur the ire of the Pakistani government, which has made it clear it does not want us involved in their internal affairs. Remember, this is the same government, though technically an ally, that harbored Osama bin-Laden.

The Pakistani government must exhibit the military capacity and political will to rein in these terrorists on its own. So far, it has not demonstrated either. The central government is weak, and it has been harboring various and sometimes competing terrorist groups. It has even been harboring Afghani terrorists in western Pakistan just over the border, probably because it is too weak to expel them. Therefore, an argument can be made that the Pakistani government’s own actions and inactions have created the situation that led to these terrorist attacks.

Sadly, this attack was merely the latest in a long chain of Islamic terror attacks. There is no need to list them all here. They have all been burned into our collective memories. Political correctness aside, of all the terrorist attacks since 9/11 and even before, one would be hard-pressed to find even one example of any one act NOT perpetrated by extreme Islamists.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that these attacks will likely continue, or even accelerate in intensity and/or frequency. At the present time, the 5% or so of Muslims who are acting out their radical views are overshadowing the other 95% who live their lives peacefully and in a law abiding manner. This cannot be allowed to continue. Moderate Muslim leaders, especially religious leaders, have a responsibility to speak up. All we Americans can do is to remain vigilant and steadfast in doing all we can to protect ourselves. Unfortunately, we can thwart dozens of plots and attacks, and we probably have, but, as we saw on 9/11, it only takes one successful one to devastate us.

by Tags: 2 Comments