Author: webuiltitblog

In the northern hemisphere, the 2017 summer solstice occurred this morning, June 21, at 12:24 am.   As most of us know, the ss is the date with the longest period of daylight, and when the sun’s shadow is its shortest.  Furthermore, in most of the US it is the date on which the sun appears to be at its highest point in the sky.   In extreme northern locales the sun will be “out” the entire day.  In the NY area, where I live, we will get about 15 hours of sun.

The word “solstice” is derived from the Latin “sol,” meaning “sun” and “sistere,” meaning “to stand still.”  As the seasons progress from winter to summer in the northern hemisphere, the sun appears to move north in the sky.  On the date of the ss it has progressed as far north as it will get, and it momentarily “stands still” before it appears to begin to slide southward toward the point of its winter solstice.

In most cultures and countries the summer and winter solstices are intertwined with the seasons.  For example, in the US and many other countries the ss marks the commencement of summer.  On the other hand, in extreme northern and southern locations the solstices mark the midpoint of summer or winter.

For many ancient cultures the ss was a festive time.  Most of them were sun worshippers anyway, and the longest day of the year was a reason to celebrate the renewal of life. The recurrent themes, in various forms, were life, light, femininity, marriage and fertility.  (Perhaps, this concept was the derivation of the custom of having weddings in June.)

For example:

1. The pagan holiday, Litha, which is a celebration of light and life, was celebrated on that date.
2. Many archaeologists maintain that the ancient culture that constructed Stonehenge intended it to be a crude calendar. The stones do seem to have been placed to align with the sunrise on the date of the ss.
3. The ancient Chinese marked the date with celebrations of the femininity, the “Yin” forces, and the Earth. Itself. This served as a counterpoint to the winter solstice, which was a celebration of the heavens, masculinity, and the “Yang” forces.
4. Typically, Native Americans held festivals featuring body paint and ritualistic dances.
5. In ancient Gaul (modern-day France) the celebration was called the Feast of Epona after a mare goddess that protected horses and personified fertility.
6. Slavic and Germanic cultures celebrated with huge bonfires.

CONCLUSION

In modern times the ss is a time to celebrate the arrival of summer.  In many extreme northern areas, where the people may not see the sun at all for certain parts of the year, such as northern Sweden, Finland and Norway, people spend the entire day outside.  Many of them decorate their homes, light bonfires, and dance around Maypoles.

I have always enjoyed a warm summer day as much as the next guy.  But, truthfully, to me June 21 is just another day.  Depending on the weather I will play golf, play outside with the kids (or grandkids), go to the beach, or, if it’s inclement, just stay inside.

One final thought on the date, it has always seemed counterintuitive to me that the beginning of summer also marked the time when the days started to get shorter, and I view shorter days as a harbinger of winter.  Whatever, you do, enjoy the day.

WWII in the European theatre was almost over before it began.  If I were to ask you to identify the turning point of the European theatre you would likely choose the Battle of  Stalingrad or, possibly, the Allies’ successful landing in Normandy on D Day.  Good choices, and most historians would likely agree, but equally crucial was the rescue operation at Dunkirk in May-June of 1940.  The Dunkirk Evacuation, aka The Miracle of Dunkirk, code-named Operation Dynamo, took place from May 26 – June 4, 1940.  (The code name was derived from the dynamo room in naval headquarters in the basement of Dover Castle that supplied electricity to the building.)

The lightning German advance through the Low Countries and Belgium in early 1940 had surprised everyone, and the entire British Expeditionary Force (“BEF”), as well as substantial numbers of French, Canadian and Belgian troops, was trapped at the nondescript little beach town of Dunkirk.  Britain had deployed the BEF to defend France after the Germans had blitzed through Poland in a matter of weeks in September, 1939 and then Belgium and the Netherlands in May, 1940.  Outnumbered and cut off with little hope of rescue it appeared that the entire force would be killed or captured.  Had that happened, the British, French and Canadian armies would have been severely hampered prospectively, and the entire course of the war would have been changed.  (Remember, the US had not yet entered the War.)  As the feisty British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill famously put it: “the entire root and core and brain of the British Army” was in grave peril.  Instead, the British people, civilians as well as military, rose to the occasion big-time and “saved the day” in dramatic fashion.

How did this near disaster happen?  In a nutshell, the Germans outfoxed the Allies.  In the 1930s the French had constructed the much-ballyhooed Maginot Line.  Conceived by French Minister of War Andre Maginot, for whom it was named, basically, the ML was a series of fortifications along the French-German border designed to deter Germany from invading France, especially in a surprise attack.   The ML was state of the art in many ways, but it had two glaring weaknesses: (1) in deference to Belgium’s neutrality, the French had not extended it through that country; and (2) the ML fortifications, mostly concrete bunkers, were static; they were designed to repel an attack solely from the east and were useless otherwise.  The theory was that Germany would have to bypass the ML and attack through Belgium through the Ardennes Forest, which was thought to be impenetrable to tanks.  Consequently, the area was sparsely defended.  If Germany were to swing farther north, the Allies would have plenty of time to respond.  Somehow, however, the German Army and its panzers managed to get through the Ardennes, overwhelm the light defenses in the area and split the Allies’ army.  The forces to the south were mostly killed or captured.  Most of those who were captured spent the remainder of the war in prisoner-of-war or labor camps.  The forces to the north were pushed to Dunkirk where they were trapped with their backs to the sea and nowhere to go.

At one point, the Germans were closing in on the trapped Allies, and it seemed that victory was well within their grasp.  Yet, the Germans halted their advance. The enduring question is why?  One theory is that the German Army’s commander, Gerd von Runstedt, was concerned about (a) risking his panzers on the marshy ground, (b)  over- extending his supply lines, and (c) exposing his flanks to a counterattack.  Another is that Herman Goring, ever the overly optimistic glory-hound, convinced Hitler that his Luftwaffe could finish off the Allies without the army’s assistance.  In any event Hitler had the army stand down and let Goring have his way.

That proved to be a crucial mistake.  As it turned out, (a) the German pilots were worn out after the prolonged fighting to that point, and (b) more significantly, the planes’ effectiveness was dependent on satisfactory weather, and the weather did not cooperate.

The evacuation was very chaotic.  The Brits did not have enough naval vessels to accommodate all the trapped soldiers, so they scrounged whatever non-military small craft they could.  Even private boats, manned by civilians, participated in the rescue operation, crossing the Channel in very rough weather.  All in all some 700 vessels of various types participated, most of which were non-military.  Meanwhile, the RAF engaged the Luftwaffe in the skies to try to protect the evacuees.

The evacuation went on for nine days.  Some 300,000 troops were rescued, but tens of thousands were killed or captured.  Approximately, 150 planes were lost along with some two dozen naval ships.  In addition, a plethora of tanks, military vehicles, heavy guns, weapons, ammunition, fuel and other material had to be abandoned.  All in all, it was a disaster, but not a knockout blow.  The Brits would “live to fight another day,” so to speak.  In the midst of the post-evacuation euphoria Churchill recognized the situation for what it was and summed it up thusly:  “we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory.  Wars are not won by evacuations.”

CONCLUSION

Most historians agree that Hitler’s stand-down order was one of his crucial errors with respect to his conduct of the war.  Hitler may have been a brilliant orator and politician, but he was a poor general,  and his military strategic and tactical deficiencies showed up time and again.  Even his own generals, when interviewed after the war, acknowledged this error.  Von Runstedt characterized it as “one of the great turning points of the war.”  General Manstein, characterized it as “one of Hitler’s most critical mistakes.”  After the war, noted British military historian and theorist, Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart, interviewed several surviving members of the German High Command who had been privy to Hitler’s decision-making on the matter.  He concluded that supposedly, Hitler was not that strong on wiping out the remnants of the BEF, because he believed that once it left the mainland, it would never return.  (Another critical error.  I can’t imagine why he would have thought that!)

In any event, we all know how things turned out.  The British people deserve a tremendous amount of credit for their bravery, courage and fortitude.

The story of Dunkirk has been made into a movie, which is currently playing “in a theatre near you.”  I haven’t seen it yet, and I suspect the producers have taken some license with the historical facts, but it should be worth seeing.

On Sunday, June 18, the third Sunday of June, many of us will celebrate Father’s Day.  FD is commonly viewed as an opportunity to gather with family for barbecues, picnics, sporting activities (e.g. baseball, golf or fishing), eat at a favorite restaurant, or attend a Broadway show.  Generally, it is a fun day with family and friends.

The idea of an annual day to recognize fathers was first proposed by Sonora Dodd a resident of Spokane, WA, in 1909.  She wanted to honor her own father who had raised her and five siblings as a single parent.   In her opinion, mothers had their “day,” so why shouldn’t fathers.  At first, she approached her pastor about organizing a special service on her father’s birthday, June 5, but for some reason, perhaps, time constraints, the celebration was deferred to the third Sunday of June.  The initial celebration was held in 1910.

For many years the idea of a “day” for fathers did not catch on with the general public.  The major reason was the fear that it would become overly commercialized like Mother’s Day and Christmas.  In addition, the media was not behind the concept.  Rather than support the idea, they attacked it with sarcastic and cynical articles and cartoons.  FD did, however, have its supporters.  Congress debated a bill as early as 1913, but it did not pass.  Presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge spoke out in favor of it.  Margaret Chase Smith, a longtime influential Senator from Maine,  criticized the inequity of Congress’ ignoring fathers while honoring mothers.  Finally, in 1966 LBJ issued a Presidential proclamation designating the third Sunday in June as FD.  It became a permanent holiday in 1972.

FD is celebrated differently in other countries around the world, as follows:
United Kingdom – It is also celebrated on the third Sunday of June.  It is recognized as a day to honor not only fathers, but also other father figures, such as grandfathers and fathers-in-law.  As in the US, typically, people pay a visit and give cards and gifts.  Other activities might include male-only outings [golf, football (soccer), or cricket] or trips.  One significant difference is that the day is not considered to be a holiday, just a normal Sunday.

Canada – Very similar to the UK.  Popular activities would include going to the park, the zoo or eating out in a restaurant.

Russia – The holiday, celebrated on February 23, is called Defender of the Fatherland Day.  All men are honored, not just fathers.  It began as a military celebration and is still marked by military parades.

Mexico – Celebrated on the third Sunday of June.  It is marked with parties and gifts for dads and a 21 kilometer Father’s Day race.

Brazil – It is celebrated on August 2 in honor of St. Joachim, patron saint of fathers and grandfathers.

CONCLUSION

Sports fans, which, let’s face it, include most dads, will have a variety of choices.  In addition to the regular choices of the US Open and MLB baseball many dads (and granddads) attend their kids’ (and grandkids’) sporting events.  Some years, the NBA Finals are on tv, but not this year (congratulations to the Golden State Warriors).  My family will be enjoying all of the above.

FD is one of the few days of the year when the wife will not complain when you watch “too much” sports.  Dads, it is your day. Whatever you decide to do, enjoy it.

No Tiger.  No Phil.  No ratings?  That last one remains to be seen, but the USGA and Fox TV will be holding their collective breaths for a close, suspenseful tournament that will attract the casual golf fans.  Despite Woods’ varied issues, golf-related and personal, he and Phil remain the two most compelling figures in the sport, particularly with respect to casual fans.  Phil is not injured; he will be attending his daughter’s high school graduation.  This will be the first Open since 1993 without either of those two present.  Jordan Spieth, three time major champion and one of the game’s brightest young stars, commented, “It kind of makes me feel like we’re maybe ten years down the road” [to a time when Tiger and Phil will be retired from big-time golf].

The 117th Open will commence tomorrow at Erin Hills in Erin WS, about 1 hour southwest of Milwaukee.  For you trivia buffs, this will be the first Open held in WS.   The Open is one of the four major championships in golf.  The others are the Masters, which is held in April, the British Open (July), and the PGA (August).   As in tennis, the majors are considered to be so important that players’ legacies are determined, in large part, by the number they have won.

Originally, the majors were generally considered to include the US and British Opens and the US and British Amateurs.  Those were the tournaments that Bobby Jones won for his Grand Slam.  However, concurrent with the rise of professional golf in the US in the 1940s and 1950s the Masters and the PGA replaced the two amateur tournaments in importance.  After all, it no longer made much sense to include amateur tournaments as majors when most of the best golfers could no longer qualify to compete in them.  The watershed year was 1960.  That year Arnold Palmer, who was the best and most influential golfer at the time, won the Masters and the US Open.  He observed that if he could add the British Open and the PGA he would have completed a “grand slam” equal to that of Mr. Jones.   He failed to do so, but the notion of those four tournaments as the four majors “stuck.”

The Open is always scheduled for mid-June with the final on Father’s Day.  The Open field includes 156 players.  This year there will be golfers from 23 countries, including every continent, except Antarctica.  Golf has truly become an international sport.  The Open includes four rounds of stroke play over four days.  If a playoff is required a full 18 holes are played on Monday.  If there is still a tie the winner is decided by sudden death.  Do you recall the name of last year’s winner?  See below.

Only about half of the players in the field are required to actually qualify.  The remainder gain entry by one of many exemptions.  Some of the exemption categories include:

Winners of the past ten US Opens.
Winner and runner-up of the previous year’s US Amateur Championship.
Winners of the past five Masters, British Opens or PGA Championships.
Winner of the previous year’s Senior Open.
Top 60 ranked golfers.
Special exemptions granted by the USGA. These are usually top-ranked players who, though past their prime, are deemed worthy.
There are other exemption categories, but I think you get the idea.  Those who are required to qualify must survive two stages – Local and Sectional.  There is no age requirement, so it not unusual to find a teenager in the field.  The youngest qualifier ever was 14 (Andy Zhang of China).

CONCLUSION

Some interesting facts about the Open that only the most knowledgeable golf fans would know:
The winner of the inaugural tournament in 1895 was Horace Rawlins, an Englishman.
Last year’s winner was Dustin Johnson.
The record score is 268 by Rory McIlroy in 2011.
The record for most Open Championships is four and is held by four men. Three of them will be familiar to you – Jack Nicklaus, Bobby Jones and Ben Hogan. If you know the fourth, you are either a golf historian or a trivia buff, and my hat’s off to you (even though I don’t wear one). His name is Willie Anderson. Anderson was an interesting and tragic story. He was born in Scotland and emigrated to the US at the age of sixteen. He was one of the outstanding golfers of his time. He won the tournament in 1901,1903, 1904 and 1905. He was an original member of the PGA Hall of Fame and an inductee into the World Golf Hall of Fame in 1975. Tragically, he died at the age of 31 from epilepsy.

The inaugural Open was contested on a nine-hole course at the Newport Country Club. Only ten professionals and one amateur bothered to enter. They played 36 holes in one day. The winner received $150 out of a total purse of $335 plus a gold medal. By contrast, this year’s winner is expected to receive in excess of $2 million out of a total purse of some $12 million.  I think we can say the tournament and the sport have grown considerably.

Enjoy the Open.  Let’s root for a tight, suspenseful tournament that doesn’t get decided until the last hole.

Trump and Comey.  Comey and Trump.  Who was the winner; who was the loser?  Undoubtedly, many of you were riveted to your tv Thursday hoping/expecting to witness something memorable, something “Watergateesque.”  If so, you were sorely disappointed.  There was no “aha” moment, no “smoking gun.”  For the most part, what you got was “he said, he said.”

There was something for everyone.  If you hate Trump, you would conclude he tried to intimidate Comey into (a) backing off on the investigation of Flynn’s purportedly inappropriate communications with Russia, (b) publicly announcing that Trump was not a target of any FBI investigation, and (c) giving Trump a “loyalty oath.”  When those tactics failed, he fired him, unjustifiably.

If you like Trump, you would conclude that Comey testified under oath that Trump was, in fact, not under investigation, and (b) there was no evidence of collusion or obstruction.  Furthermore, the closest revelation to a “smoking gun” was Comey’s admission, under oath, that he had leaked, the content of his private meeting with the president.  Whether or not the actual content was classified is irrelevant.  It demonstrated a lack of loyalty and trust, led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, which may not have been justified otherwise, and may be justification for further investigation.  In this case, the ends most certainly did not justify the means.

Comey claimed that Trump “defamed” both him and the FBI, itself, by asserting that the bureau was “poorly led” and many agents had “lost confidence” in Comey.  In my view, the FBI has been poorly led.  Exhibit A is the manner in which Comey handled the disclosure of the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails.  He managed to displease both the Dems and the GOP.  Now, the Dems conveniently forget that immediately before and after the election they were heavily criticizing Comey’s job performance and wanted him fired.  Now that Trump has done so, they are defending him.  Tell me, does that abrupt “about face” make any sense?

In addition, Comey testified that he felt uncomfortable being alone with Trump.  Well, boo hoo!  Yes, Trump can be arrogant and tough, but the head of the FBI has to be tough also.  We have all had arrogant, tough or obnoxious bosses.  One has to learn to deal with them.  It’s as simple as that.

Incidentally, where was Comey’s “discomfort” when his former boss, Loretta Lynch, met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix to discuss their “grandchildren” (which Lynch does not have) and their “golf game,” which Lynch does not play?  Was it just coincidence that shortly thereafter Lynch instructed Comey to characterize the investigation of Hillary’s emails as a “matter” rather than an “investigation” prospectively?  That was clearly improper, if not illegal, yet Comey did not speak out about it.  “Inconsistent” would be the overly polite term to describe Comey’s performance during the past several months.

For his part, Trump (a) denies he ever asked Comey to “let go” of the Flynn investigation; and (b) denies he asked Comey to “pledge allegiance.”  He added: “I hardly know the man……. Who would do that?”

Trump’s succinct summary of the day’s events says it all, in my opinion:  “No collusion.  No obstruction.  He’s a leaker.”

CONCLUSION

In my view, the only crime that Comey’s testimony disclosed was his own leaking.   In addition to his own admitted leaking, there is a suspicion he may have been the source, directly or indirectly, of the other leaked information that has plagued the Trump administration.   In this regard, Trump had previously stated that he had launched an internal investigation.  Furthermore, according to multiple news reports Marc Kasowitz, his attorney in this matter, is planning to file complaints with both the inspector general of the Justice Department and the Senate Judiciary Committee.  We will see how that plays out.

I have a feeling that this was only Round 1.  The Senate’s and Special Prosecutor’s investigations are ongoing and will likely linger for several months.  The media loves this.  It drives ratings.  It will do its best to keep the story alive.

Where do the “Trump haters” go from here?  First, they tried challenging the voting results in the Electoral College.  That failed.   Then, they claimed there were voting “irregularities.”  That proved to be false.  Then, they claimed the Russians had hacked the voting machines to benefit Trump.  That has been proven to be false.  Finally, they hung their hats on Comey’s testimony.  That was also a dud.  So, I repeat, what is next?  They would be better served in admitting they lost and analyzing the reasons why, or else they will repeat the same mistakes and lose again in 2020.

The big losers in all this will be the American people.  As long as the government’s focus remains on these investigations, Trump’s legislative proposals regarding healthcare, border security, the economy, tax reform, and other matters that urgently need to be addressed will not be able to proceed.

Dozens of actors have portrayed Batman at one time or another on radio, in films, on tv, in commercials, in cartoons and on voice-overs, but, for me and those of my generation the “real” Batman will always be Adam West.  West, who portrayed the famous comic book character in the campy, popular tv series Batman from 1966 to 1968, passed away yesterday at the age of 88.  To many people, the character, Batman, and West are synonymous.  It’s as if Batman were the only role of his career.  In reality, as you will see, West enjoyed a seven decade career in tv, films, commercials and voiceovers.

William West Anderson was born on September 19, 1928 in Walla Walla, WA.  His father was a farmer; his mother was a former opera singer and concert pianist, who, as was customary in those days, abandoned her professional aspirations to tend to her family.  When West was 15 his parents divorced.  He and his mother moved to Seattle where he graduated from high school and Whitman College with a degree in literature and a minor in psychology.  Then, he was drafted into the Army where he primarily served as an announcer on Armed Forces Television.  After his discharge he worked at odd jobs for a while (including as a milkman).

Eventually, he moved to Hawaii to pursue an acting career.  One of his early jobs was as a sidekick to a chimp on a local tv show called El Kini Popo Show.  Sounds funny, but remember Ronald Reagan once played opposite a monkey, and look how he ended up.

In 1959 West moved to Hollywood.  One of the first things he did was to change his name to Adam West.  In his autobiography West explained he chose “Adam” because he “liked the way it looked and sounded with ‘West.’ ”

Perhaps, the best way to view West’s career is to divide it into “pre-Batman and post-Batman stages.  Pre-Batman, he appeared in more than a dozen minor tv and movie roles.  Most were forgettable, but among his more notable roles were in the movie, The Young Philadelphians starring Paul Newman, and guest spots in a variety of tv series, such as Sugarfoot, Colt 45, The Real McCoys, The Rifleman and Perry Mason.  Not much of a resume, but he made a living.

How did West get the role of a lifetime?  The story is that the producer of the show, William Dozer, saw him in a commercial for Nestle Quik in which he portrayed a “James Bond-like character,” and thought he would be “good for the role.”  Whether the story is true or not, it sounds good.  Incidentally, among the other actors who competed for the role was Lyle Waggoner, whom you may remember as the announcer and sometimes performer on The Carol Burnet Show in the late 1960s and 1970s.

Batman ran on ABC for only three seasons (1966-1968), but it was very popular, particularly with the teen and college set.  West and his co-star, Burt Ward as Robin, were also very popular individually, but in the long run the roles hurt their respective careers, because they became severely typecast.  Other roles were hard to come by, although West was offered the role of James Bond in 1970.  He turned it down, because, as he put it, in his autobiography, “the role should always be played by a British actor.”

West’s roles post-Batman were primarily related to playing a version of Batman.  For example, he made an appearance on behalf of the US Wrestling Association in which he engaged in a fake “war of words” with wrestler Jerry (the “King”) Lawler.  Also, he reprised the Batman role in the short-lived and forgettable animated series The New Adventures of Batman, as well as The Batman/Tarzan Adventure Hour and Tarzan and the Super 7, among others.   Furthermore, he performed guest roles on many tv shows, such as Love Boat, Hart to Hart, Maverick, Bonanza, and King of Queens.  Due to his distinctive voice, West was in demand to do voice-overs in many animated series, including, among others, the Simpsons, Family Guy, Rugrats and SpongeBob Square Pants, as well as a Batman video game.  Surprisingly, West never appeared in any of the Batman franchise movies (nor, for that matter, has Ward).

CONCLUSION

West was married three times and had a total of six children.  In 2012 he was honored with a “star” on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.  As I said, even though West’s career spanned seven decades, he is primarily remembered for one role.  Ironically, West never took that role very seriously.  He often said he played Batman “for laughs.”  He just had to “pull on that cowl and believe no one would recognize [him].”

Mark Hamill, who met West while, doing the voice-over for the “Joker” in “Batman, the Animated Series,” remembered him as a “wonderful actor [and] so kind.”  Also, Seth MacFarlane, creator of Family Guy, tweeted “Adam West was a joy to work with…His positivity, good nature and sense of fun were undeniable.”

Rest in peace Batman.  You will be sorely missed.

D Day. That’s all one has to say. Most everyone knows what it was and what it meant. Just the very name conjures up remembrances and images of one of the bloodiest battles and one of the turning points of WWII. The battle has been memorialized in books and movies, and who can forget the poignant image of countless crosses and Stars of David neatly lined up in military cemeteries in Normandy.

Yesterday, June 6, marked the 73rd anniversary of this epic battle. The Allied Forces included 156,000 troops from various countries, including the US, UK, Free France, Canada and Norway, among others, 5,000 ships and landing craft, 11,000 planes, 50,000 land vehicles, and coordinated landings over a 50 mile stretch of beaches code-named Juno, Omaha, Utah, Sword and Gold, truly a massive undertaking. Allied and German casualties have been estimated as high as 20,000 killed, wounded, missing and captured. If you were involved in the actual landing, whether you lived or died was largely a matter of luck and happenstance – two men sitting side-by-side in an LST and the German bullet finds one and not the other. Think about that for a minute. The movie “Saving Private Ryan” depicts this fact clearly.

If you were lucky enough to survive the landing, you became a “sitting duck” on the beach.  Then, if you managed to fight your way off the beach you had to charge into several thousand heavily-armed German troops, which were placed strategically in fortified bunkers.   Once you fought your way past those, you were ready to commence the real battle to liberate France.  Keep in mind, many of these soldiers were just kids as young as 17.

Planning for the operation began as early as 1943. Russia, one of our allies at the time (“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”) had been lobbying strongly for a second front to alleviate some of the pressure from the Russian Front. Military leaders on both sides recognized the significance of a second front and expected the Allies to attempt to open one at some point. The question was where and when. The Allies were not prepared to attempt such a massive landing until early 1944 primarily because they needed time to build up levels of men and material. Remember, the Allies were fighting in the Mediterranean and North Africa as well. Plus, the US was involved in the Pacific War against the Japanese. Finally, the British’s fighting capacity had been severely damaged in the evacuation at Dunkirk in 1940, when they were lucky that the Germans had not captured or destroyed their entire army on the beach.

The Operation was code-named Operation Overlord. The landing, itself, was code-named Operation Neptune. General Eisenhower was in charge. Indeed, he was in charge of the entire Atlantic Theatre. As the story goes, when he was put in charge his orders were very simple – “Win the War.” No confusion; no limited rules of engagement, which hampered us in Viet Nam and other future conflicts.

The Allies considered four possible landing sites: Brittany, Cotentin Peninsula, Pas de Calais and Normandy. The first two were eliminated primarily because they were located on peninsulas, which would have afforded very narrow fronts that would have enabled the Germans to trap the soldiers in a counterattack. That left Normandy and Calais. Once the Allies decided on Normandy there were many attempts to deceive the Germans into thinking the landings would be at Calais. Historical evidence indicates that the Germans thought Calais the most likely site anyway, possibly because it was closer to England, but both sites were heavily fortified. Indeed, the Germans had planned to fortify the entire coast from Norway to Spain, a so-called Atlantic Wall. This would have included concrete emplacements, barbed wire, booby traps, mines, the removal of ground cover, and, of course, troops and armored equipment. Luckily for us, these fortifications were never completed. Interestingly, although most of the German High Command viewed Calais as the most likely landing site, General Rommel, perhaps the best general on either side, surmised correctly that it would likely be at Normandy.

Accordingly, he increased fortifications in the area, but, luckily for us he was out of favor for political reasons, so some key elements of his plans for defending the area were ignored or overruled. Most notably, some panzer divisions, which he had wanted to place in the Normandy area were, instead, retained in and around Paris. In addition, the German Army was stretched very thinly. Much of its manpower was committed to the Eastern Front and depleted by heavy casualties after five years’ of fighting. Finally, it was relying on captured equipment, which was not of high quality.

One of the biggest unknowns, and one that the Allies could not control, was the weather. Due to the complexity of the operation conditions had to be just so, including the tides, phases of the moon and the time of day. Only a few days of a given month satisfied all criteria. For example, a full moon was preferred to provide maximum illumination for the pilots. Remember, instrumentation then was not what it is now. Additionally, dawn, which was between low and high tide, was the preferred time of day. That way, as the high tide came in it would carry the LSTs farther in on the beach, and the men could spot obstacles, such as land mines, more easily. High winds, heavy seas and low cloud cover were not favorable. The planners were determined to wait for a day with ideal weather conditions so as to maximize the chances of success for a very risky and dangerous mission. In fact, the operation was postponed several times before June 6.

As we know, the operation was a success. Some of the major reasons for this were:
1. The aforementioned missions to deceive the Germans forced them to spread their defenses over a wide area.
2. The Atlantic Wall was only about 20% complete.
3. The Allies achieved air superiority quickly.
4. Much of the transportation infrastructure in France had been damaged by Allied bombings and the French resistance, which hampered the Germans’ ability to move men and material.
5. The German high command was disorganized and indecisive.

CONCLUSION

If, as many historians believe, winning WWII was one America’s greatest achievements, then it can be argued that D Day was one of our greatest victories. Certainly, its success shortened the war in Europe and, in the process, saved countless lives (combatants and non-combatants alike). In WWII we had a clear-cut goal, win the war; the nation was united in support of the war, our government and our troops; we knew who the enemy was; and there was no holding back. Sadly, we have never had such clarity again, and, perhaps, we never will.

President Trump pulled us out of the Paris Accord, and the Trump haters and the uninformed reacted as if he were out to destroy the planet.  I say, his critics are overreacting.  Mr. Trump’s action does not mean he is indifferent to the future of the planet as some Trump haters and pundits have postulated.  Everybody take a deep breath and repeat after me.  His action was not about climate change; it was about the economy!  Half of you probably think I’m way off base, but read on, and I’ll demonstrate why the president’s decision was beneficial to the US, especially in the long run and will have a minimal impact on climate.  Remember, he ran (and was elected) on “putting America first,” and, to quote former president Obama, “elections have consequences.”  So, as you read this, please take the politics and emotion out of it and use some logic and common sense, (which, as we all know, is not “common).”

1. The science surrounding the global warming/ climate change issue can be complicated, confusing and even a bit contradictory.  Global warming is the increase in the earth’s average surface temperature due to emissions of greenhouse gases, such as CO2 from fossil fuels or deforestation.  According to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) the earth’s average temperature increased an average of only 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit from 1880 to 2012.
2. Many people point to daily or annual warmer weather as evidence of “climate change,” but that is inaccurate and misleading.  Climate and weather are two different things.  Weather is day to day; climate is weather conditions that prevail over a long period of time – thousands of years or more.  Thus, year to year phenomena, such as El Nino, do not constitute climate change.
3. Although human activities, such as the emissions of fossil fuels can affect climate change, there are other external causes, such as biotic processes (e.g. effect of the melting of the polar icecaps on the ecosystem), solar radiation, plate tectonics and volcanic eruptions.  Throughout the earth’s 4.5 billion year history its climate has varied widely from time to time, for example, before, during and after the various ice ages.  However, according to Wikipedia, through the science of paleoclimatology (the study of ancient temperatures) scientists have determined that over the last 10,000 years the earth’s average temperature has exhibited minimal variance from the mean.  Moreover, again according to Wikipedia, although 16 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last 17 years and 2016 was the warmest on record the average global temperature has only increased .13 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since 1880.  Is that cause for alarm?  I guess that’s up to each person to decide.  In my opinion, there is cause for some concern, but I don’t view the situation to be as dire as Al Gore and some others have postulated.  I think we would be better off focusing our attention on other issues, such as global terrorism, jobs, the economy and border security, to name a few.
4.  The stated goal of the accord is to prevent the earth’s average temperature from rising 1.6 degrees.  That is what all the fuss is about – 1.6 degrees.
5. Each signatory is required to submit voluntary goals for reducing emissions.  That’s right, VOLUNTARY. They are to be reported every five years to the UNFCCC Secretariat.  Provisions for monitoring compliance are weak, however, and will likely be largely ineffectual.  Moreover, there are no penalties for failure to meet one’s goals.  The UN assistant secretary general for climate change, Janos Pasztor, has labeled this a “name and encourage” plan.  I call it worthless.  Can you imagine these goals being enforced?  Who would do it, and by what mechanism?
6. Even some of the accord’s staunchest supporters think it does not go far enough.  Former President Obama opined “even if we meet every target….we will only get to part of where we need to go.”
7. The US and other “developed” countries are required to contribute $100 billion per year to “undeveloped” countries to assist them in attaining their goals starting in 2020 for a period of six years.  Obama pledged $3 billion, of which the US has contributed $500 million so far.  What is the likelihood of other “developed” nations “ponying up” their share?   So, once again, the US will be “footing the bill.”
8. The adverse effects on the US economy would be considerable, to wit:

a.  According to the National Economic Research Associates consulting group the accord will result in the loss of 440,000 manufacturing jobs in the US.  The coal, iron and steel industries would be particularly decimated.

b.  According to Christine Harbin of the Washington Examiner most of the lost output and jobs in these and other manufacturing industries would be transferred to other countries, such as China and India.  Thus, in essence, the US would be subsidizing the economies of these and other countries.  President Trump has derided this as a “massive redistribution of US wealth to other countries,” and I am inclined to agree.  Additional government regulations required to enforce this accord would constitute a further drag on business and industry.

d.  Energy prices would likely increase, making it costlier to heat one’s home and run one’s car.  In addition, businesses would likely pass on their increased energy costs to the consumer.

CONCLUSION

Under this plan:

1.  We will not be able to evaluate its effectiveness and member compliance for five years.
2. We will not be able to compel participants to meet their voluntary goals.
3. The plan’s goals, even if met, will be inadequate.
4. The US will be “footing the bill.”

I fail to see how the US would benefit from this accord.  Our emission standards are among the highest of any industrialized nation, and we are fully capable of policing ourselves.  As I see it, the primary results would be (a) we shell out billions of dollars annually to fund other countries’ compliance programs, (b) we put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis other countries, (c) we eliminate thousands of blue collar jobs, and (d) we significantly weaken our economy.

So, tell me, do you still think this was a good deal for the US?  Once one removes politics and emotion from the equation and analyzes the deal and its ramifications, it becomes apparent that President Trump made the right call.    I don’t know about you, but I think we could find better use for the $3 billion per year within the US.  With a $20 trillion deficit our financial resources, though substantial, are not unlimited.

I welcome your thoughts and opinions.

The meteoric rise and precipitous fall of Tiger Woods has been astounding to watch – like a modernized version of “Chutes and Ladders.”   From 1996, when he first became a professional golfer to Thanksgiving Weekend, 2009 he had it all – fame, fortune, adulation and, yes, envy.   He was not only “Mr. Golf,” but his fame and influence transcended his sport.  Woods was viewed as a strong role model, especially for African Americans, and according to Golf Digest he had earned in excess of $1 billion in his career.

Virtually singlehandedly, he had revitalized the sport of professional golf.   His focus on weight training revolutionized the way golfers trained.  Physically, he looked like an NFL safety as much as a golfer.  Record numbers of people took up the game.  Corporations fought for the right to sponsor the telecasts.  Tournament operators competed with each other to lure him to their venues.  Millions watched him on tv.  Even non-sports fans followed his exploits.  You might love him; you might hate him.  You watched to see him win, or you watched to see him lose.  But, you watched.  He was the best golfer in the world, and, perhaps, the best ever.  He was so much better than the rest of the field that some tournaments became anti-climactic.  He didn’t just win.  Often, his margins of victory set records.  Many opponents were beaten before the match even began.  He was challenging Jack Nicklaus’ all-time record of 18 victories in majors and Sam Snead’s all-time record of 82 tournament wins.  (Now, he appears to be “stuck” at 14 and 79, respectively.)

And, then, suddenly, it all came crashing down.  Suddenly, we learned that he was an uncontrollable womanizer.  His cool, aloof, at times, arrogant demeanor, which fans had overlooked in view of his outsized success, became problematic.  He suffered one injury after another – his back, his knee, his shoulder.  His swing deserted him.  He parted ways with his longtime caddy.  He changed swing coaches multiple times.  In his mind, they were to blame for his sudden lack of success.  He went through a very public and messy divorce.  Suddenly, he went from the unbeatable, best golfer in the world to one who could not win a tournament or even compete on a regular basis.

And, then came the DUI, not from alcohol, but from excessive and ill-advised use of various prescription medications.  We are all familiar with the story.  A policeman found Woods parked in his car asleep at 2:00 am last Monday morning.  When the policeman awakened him Woods was not cognizant of where he was and how he had arrived there.  Furthermore, his speech was slurry.  At first, he appeared to be inebriated, but it was later determined that his impairment was due to a reaction to a combination of prescription medications. Either way, his situation appears to be serious.

Eldrick Tont (“Tiger”) Woods was born on December 30, 1975 in Cypress, CA.  His father, Earl, was African American, and his mother, Kultida, is of Thai descent.  He is their only child, although he does have one half-brother and one half-sister from a previous marriage of Earl’s.  According to Kultida, the name, “Eldrick,” was derived from the first letter in Earl’s and Kulida’s names (“E” for Earl and “K” for Kulida).  Tont is a traditional Thai name. The nickname, “Tiger” is an homage to a friend of the family, Col. Vuong Dang Phong, who was also known as “Tiger.”

Earl was a single handicap golfer, and he exposed Tiger to the game at an early age.  Tiger became a golf prodigy.  Before the age of three he appeared on The Mike Douglas Show where, in a piece that became famous, he putted against comedian Bob Hope.  At age five he appeared in Golf Digest and on That’s Incredible.  By age seven he was winning “age” tournaments against older competitors.  He was an All-American at Stanford and turned pro at age 20.

CONCLUSION

To paraphrase the opinions of some sports talk radio hosts, reporters and commentators, such as ESPN host, Dave Rothenberg, WFAN host Mike Francessa and many others, Woods has become a tragic figure.  Regardless of one’s previous opinion of Woods, now, one can almost feel sorry for him.  At the other extreme, some other people still feel animosity towards Woods, particularly because of his uncontrollable womanizing.  They feel no pity for him.  In their opinion, he is getting what he deserves.

In any event, I think most of us would agree that his current problems transcend the game of golf.  Rather than being concerned with whether or not he can regain his golf skills and surpass Nicklaus’ and Snead’s records, we should root for him to regain his health.

I know the title sounds like an oxymoron.  No doubt, you are thinking how could anything positive have emanated from the horrific and cowardly attacks of 9/11?  Read on, and you will see.

I would guess that not many of you have heard of Gander, Newfoundland, and even fewer of you are cognizant of the role this small Canadian town played in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.  You may recall that immediately following the attacks that brought down the World Trade Center towers everything was in total disarray, if not out and out panic mode, especially air travel.  No one knew what, where and when other terrorist surprises were planned, and there were hundreds of planes airborne, which made them and their passengers extremely vulnerable.  One of the top priorities was to somehow clear the skies.  Anything airborne was considered a potential target, as were the major airports, themselves, in both the US and Canada.  Both the FAA and its Canadian counterpart were frantically searching for less vulnerable locations to which they could divert these airborne planes.

One chosen destination was the Gander International Airport in Newfoundland, Canada.  Few people had heard of Gander, much less could find it on a map.  As I said, that’s probably true today as well.  Gander was a small town of some 10,000 people located at the northeastern tip of Newfoundland.  Despite its small size, it happened to have an international airport capable of servicing large jets.  I think it’s fair to say that Gander owes its very existence to its strategic location and value as a military and civilian air base.   The town has a rich aviation history, and, indeed, many of its streets bare the names of famous aviators, such Eddie Rickenbacker, Amelia Earhart, Charles Lindbergh and Chuck Yeager.

The airport was first constructed in the mid 1930s to provide a fueling and maintenance stop for military planes flying between North America and Europe.   Its value expanded greatly during WWII.  After WWII, it became a civilian airport, again as a refueling stop.  Remember, at that time, planes generally did not have the capacity to fly across the Atlantic non-stop..  It became such a popular stop that it became known as “The Crossroads of the World.”   Over the years, the town of Gander grew up around the airport.

Fast forward to 9/11.  As I mentioned, Gander International Airport was selected as an emergency destination.  As part of what was dubbed Operation Yellow Ribbon, a total of 42 planes carrying some 6,600 passengers and crew descended on a town of 10,000 with only some 500 hotel rooms and limited resources.  (As an aside, one of the American Airlines pilots was Beverley Bass, who was the first female pilot in the airline’s history.)  In addition, the planes were carrying a wide variety of cargo that had to be stored and maintained, including two chimpanzees that were bound for the Columbus, Ohio zoo.  Furthermore, no one was sure how long it would be until normal operations would resume.

How could the town possibly accommodate all these people, the cargo and the equipment?

1.  First, the town’s mayor, Claude Elliott, declared a “state of emergency.”  Then, everyone pitched in.  “I didn’t go home for five days,” Elliott remembered.
2. The hotels were, of course, overwhelmed, so the town converted public buildings, such as schools, into temporary dormitories to lodge the overflow.  In addition, some residents took in borders, free of charge (no small accommodation in a town where people were used to not having to lock their doors at night).
3. Red Cross and Salvation Army volunteers provided free meals, as needed.  Some of the “guests” had special dietary needs, such as kosher meals for Jewish people, that had to be accommodated.
4. The town’s hockey rink was donated for use as a giant walk-in refrigerator to store perishables.
5. Local hospitals, doctors, and nurses provided free medical services.  A local veterinarian cared for the various cargo animals, including the aforementioned chimps.
6. Shortages in basic goods had to be resolved.  For example, Elliott later recalled that the town literally “ran out of underwear.”  Replenishments had to be trucked in from St. John, which was over 200 miles away.
7. Gradually, many “guests” became integrated into the town’s customs.  For example, Newfoundlanders have a custom known as “screeching in.”  The inductee “wears a yellow “sou’wester,” eats hard bread and pickled bologna, kisses a cod on the lips, and, then, drinks the local rum, called “screech,’ while onlookers bang an ‘ugly stick’ covered in beer bottle caps.”  Sounds delightful, but I’ll pass.

After five days, the crisis was over and the flights resumed.  By that time, as Elliott put it, “we started off with 7,000 strangers, but we finished with 7,000 family members.”

CONCLUSION

Some final points:

1. Gander’s residents really rose to the occasion.  They exhibited the finest in human spirit during a terrible crisis, and did so out of the kindness of their hearts.  Afterwards, the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, in recognition of their contributions, told them “You did yourselves proud… and you did Canada proud.”

2.  The two chimps made it to the Columbus Zoo in good health.  A few years later they had a baby chimp named, you guessed it, Gander.

3.  The story is now being portrayed in a Broadway play called “Come from Away.”  Elliott and others attended the opening, met the cast, and got to take a bow on-stage.  A nice and fitting tribute.  I have seen the play.  It captures the “can do” spirit of the townspeople and the camaraderie that developed between them and their “guests.”  It is most uplifting.  I recommend it.