Author: webuiltitblog

The name, Garry Marshall, may not resonate with many of you, but his creations sure will.  For six decades he was one of the most influential and prolific producers, directors, writers and actors in the business, primarily, but not exclusively,  in the genre of the tv “sitcom.”  His most notable creations included the seminal and enduring Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, Mork and Mindy, and the tv version of the Odd Couple.   In addition to the shows, themselves, he created and developed such iconic characters as the “Fonz” and “Mork” played by Henry Winkler and Robin Williams, respectively.   He provided them with the platforms with which to launch their renowned careers.

Winkler was a little-known struggling actor.  His one notable film credit was The Lords Flatbush, an obscure film most notable, in retrospect, for the screen debuts of Winkler, Sylvester Stallone and Perry King.    Trivia buffs will recall that the “Fonz” was supposed to be a very minor character, but Winkler’s performance transformed it into the iconic character we all remember.  Similarly, Williams was an obscure stand-up comic in the Bay Area.  The success of Mork launched his career.

He also gave an all-but-forgotten childhood actor named Ron Howard, who those of a certain age will remember as “Opie” on the Andy Griffith Show, a chance to resurrect his career.  Howard has since become one of the more successful movie directors of our time.  Among his many “hit” movies are Cocoon, A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13, Frost/Nixon and The Da Vinci Code.  On the silver screen Marshall directed movies such as Pretty Woman, which launched the career of Julia Roberts, Runaway Bride and the Princess Diaries.

Garry Kent Marshall was born on November 13, 1934 in The Bronx, NY.  The original family name was “Masciarelli,” which his father changed to the less ethnic-sounding “Marshall” before Garry was born.  Entertainment was in his blood.  His father was a movie director and producer; his mother ran a tap dancing school; his sister, Penny, is an actress/director in her own right; and his brother Ronny, is a tv producer.  Marshall began his career as a joke writer for the likes of Joey Bishop, Dick Van Dyke, Lucille Ball, and Jack Paar.   Then, as I described above, in the early 1970s he hit his stride with the aforementioned tv “sitcoms,” and, as they say, the rest is history.

Along the way, he met another struggling actor named Hector Elizondo at a pick-up basketball game.  Elizondo recalls that during the game he inadvertently hit Marshall in the face with an errant pass.  The game stopped abruptly while Marshall gathered himself.  Elizondo feared that a physical confrontation was coming, but Marshall said to him:  “I’m Garry Marshall.  This is my court.  You’re a terrific actor,  [but] a lousy passer.  But, I’ve got a movie for you.”  The two became best friends.  Over the years Elizondo has appeared in 18 Garry Marshall films.  Perhaps, he is best known for his role as a stuffy, hotel manager who develops a soft spot for Julia Roberts’ character in Pretty Woman.  Elizondo claims, perhaps, jokingly, perhaps, not, that  he was written into all of Marshall’s contracts “whether he wanted to [actually] do the movie or not.”  That definitely sounds like Marshall.

Marshall’s acting career included various tv and movie roles.  For example, in the mid-1950s he had a recurring role on The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show as a child.  Some of his other tv credits included Murphy Brown, and Happy Days (as a drummer).  In the movies, he was in Soapdish, On the Lot, and provided a voiceover in two Simpsons movies.  But, my personal favorite of his movie roles was that of Walter Harvey, the candy magnate and baseball mogul in League of Their Own, starring Tom Hanks, Geena Davis and Madonna and directed by his sister, Penny. (The Harvey character was loosely based on Philip Wrigley, chewing gum magnate and long-time owner of the Chicago Cubs.)

CONCLUSION

Marshall has been the recipient of numerous awards in recognition of his work.  For example, he received the Women in Film Award in recognition for his role in enhancing the role of women in tv and the Laurel Award for tv writing.  In addition, he was inducted into the Television Hall of Fame in 1997, and he has a “star” on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Personally, I would like to salute Marshall for entertaining us down through the years.  His funny and sometimes politically incorrect shows helped us to laugh at ourselves, a trait that seems to be largely absent from our culture today.

Rest in peace Garry.  We will miss you.

I think all sane people can agree that terrorism is horrific beyond words, particularly when it is indiscriminate and random.  At this point, most of us that are objective about it realize who the main perpetrators are and are cognizant of their twisted motivations.  The US government’s response to these despicable acts are a matter of record.  Each of you can decide for yourself whether or not you agree or disagree with current US policy and how to resolve the situation.  The purpose of this blog is not to re-debate those matters.  In my opinion, that would be a waste of time as most people appear to have hardened their positions, and are resistant to change.

Rather, I want to discuss a new and disturbing development.   As I have feared and predicted, terrorists have begun attacking “soft” targets, such as schools, shopping malls, and places of worship, among others – e.g. a school in Connecticut, a nightclub in Orlando, a pedestrian promenade in Nice.   Yes, a  successful attack on a high profile venue, such as the Super Bowl game or Times Square on New Year’s Eve, would result in more physical damage and produce substantial bragging rights, but these venues are so well protected that the chances of success are remote.  Indeed, it’s safe to say terrorists have tried many times with no success.   On the other hand, it can be argued that a successful attack on a “soft” target, that has minimal or no security, can be far more damaging psychologically and emotionally.

Those attacks tear at the very root of our daily lives.  Most of us will never go to a Super Bowl or Times Square on NYE, so we can tell ourselves that as horrific as those attacks were, they happened to “other” people.  But, most all of us have sent our kids off to school, shopped at malls, and walked down a busy boulevard without a second thought.  When we send our kids to school every day, we expect that they will return home at the end of the day safe and untraumatized; when our wives go to the mall, our biggest fear should be that they will spend too much, not that they will be murdered in a terrorist attack; and when we go on vacation we expect to relax and have a good time, not have to keep “looking over our shoulder” or be victimized in a random attack.  Yet, this is rapidly becoming the new reality.

Among the nearly 100 anonymous dead in Nice were two Americans from Texas – Sean Copeland and his son,  Brodie.   They are not anonymous to us, nor should they be.  They were real people, with a family, friends and real lives, which were snuffed out randomly, carelessly and prematurely.  Any one of us could have been them.  Sean was a corporate executive.  Brodie was a typical fifth grader who liked baseball and acting.  They were just normal, everyday people like you and me, whose only “crime” was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  They were enjoying a European vacation, celebrating the birthdays of two other family members.  They had just been in Spain where they had witnessed the famed “running of the bulls” in Pamplona.  Now, they were enjoying the Bastille Day celebration on a beautiful, peaceful boulevard in Nice.  Who would have thought that the latter would turn out to be more dangerous than the former?   The sheer randomness of this whole thing is sickening, but that is the state of the world now.

CONCLUSION

There are signs that some countries have finally had enough and are advocating aggressive action.  As we know, a significant chunk of Americans want to take tighter control of our borders and initiate stronger vetting of immigrants and refugees from certain areas.  This idea has been ridiculed by some, but with each terrorist attack, it looks increasingly attractive.

The Brexit vote in the UK was primarily about controlling immigration, rather than economics.  France has been subjected to more than its fair share of terrorism, and its  political leaders are speaking out.  Premier Holland has “declare[d] war” on “radical Islam.”  French Prime Minister Manuel Vallis vowed his country will take “exceptional measures” to combat terrorism.  It remains to be seen what these “exceptional measures” will be, but one possibility under discussion is a “national indignity” law, which essentially would strip those who commit a terrorist act of various civil and political rights.

Political leaders in other smaller countries, such as Poland, Slovenia and Hungary have also been speaking out.  These low-population, low-GDP EU members are very concerned that they will be overwhelmed economically, culturally and socially by the result of the EU’s current lax illegal immigration policies.  Regarding terror attacks, in general, and the Nice terror attack, in particular, Hungarian Cabinet Office chief Antal Rogan opined that “illegal immigration and terrorism go hand in hand.”  Furthermore, in his opinion, it is “quite clear” that “the terrorist perpetrators” were “illegal immigrants.”  He called for the EU to enact significant changes to stop allowing unfettered “mass migration.” He went so far as to say that “migration to Europe should now be halted,” (sound familiar?) and suggested  that this opinion was gaining traction in other European countries as well.  Hungary will be holding a national referendum on immigration later this year.

Whether or not all this rhetoric will result in significant action is anybody’s guess.  In the meantime, each of you will have to decide whether to go on “living your life” or “hide under your bed.”  Personally, I choose the former.  Otherwise, the terrorists win.

The other day I was intrigued by a newspaper story about a couple who had died on the same day.  Irving (87) and Charlotte (84) Diton had been married for 63 years and died just hours apart at separate assisted living facilities on Long Island.  In a scenario reminiscent of the movie, Dirty Dancing, Charlotte and Irving had met at a Long Island resort while she had been vacationing with her family, and he had been employed as a busboy.  They were married in 1953 and were inseparable thereafter.

According to one of their daughters, Irving lacked the funds for a diamond engagement ring.  So, for 30 odd years he secretly saved a small sum of money each week until he had accumulated enough for a nice ring.  Then, he arranged a family gathering at which he ceremoniously surprised Charlotte with it.

Irving worked as an electrical engineer, and he was very handy and ingenious.  Two stories will illustrate this point:

1.  He took a “selfie” of Charlotte and him by tying a string from his big toe to the camera’s shutter.  Remember, this was in the early 1950s.
2. He used his skills to keep the same washer and dryer operational for 40 years.  I know machines were made better then, but 40 years …?   Perhaps, more surprising was the fact that Charlotte put up with the same ones for 40 years.

Reading this story got me thinking about other couples who may  have died on the same day and whether or not there is any scientific basis for this phenomenon.  Well, it turns out that this occurs more often than you might think.  Some notable examples:

1. Former NFL quarterback Doug Flutie’s parents, Richard and Joan, married for 56 years, died hours apart.
2. More intriguingly, Kent and Diana Kraft (nee Schroder) not only died on the same day right next to each other, but also they had been born on the same day as well .
3. Finally, though not married, two former US presidents, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, died on the same day in 1826 (on July 4, no less).  Ironically, unaware that Jefferson had predeceased him by a few hours, Adams’ last words were “Thomas Jefferson survives.”

Further research disclosed that there is some scientific basis  for this phenomenon particularly among the elderly.  Consider some of the findings of various studies, such as one by Dr. Nicholas Christakis, MD and PhD at Harvard Medical School:

1. Severe emotional distress brought on by the serious illness or death of the spouse takes a significant toll on the survivor, particularly if he or she is suffering from pre-existing health problems.  Scientists call this the “bereavement effect,” but a more common slang term is what laymen call “heartbreak.”  The greatest risk is immediately after the death of a loved one, but even for as long as a year the risk of death is 20 percent higher.
2. Some diseases take a greater toll on the other spouse than others.  Christakis’ study revealed that diseases that impair the physical and mental functioning of the patient, such as dementia and emphysema, have a more profound effect than a disease like cancer.
3. The significant impairment or outright loss of a spouse, especially a longtime companion, deprives the other spouse of social, financial and/or emotional support on which he or she has come to rely heavily.
4. According to Judah Ronch, a geriatric mental health expert for Erickson Health, sometimes widows are ostracized by their friends who view them as an unwelcome reminder of what could happen to them and even as a rival for their husbands’ affections.
5. People with similar traits, hobbies, and ethnicity tend to pair up.  In addition, longtime married couples often develop and share similar habits, both good and bad, e.g. smoking (or not), drinking (or not), overeating (or not), or exercising (or not).
6. Ronch even goes so far as to say that sometimes the survivor just decides to “let go.” He admits it’s not very scientific, but adds “we see it more and more.”

CONCLUSION

Perhaps, you have been exposed to similar situations among family  and friends.  If so, I would be interested in your comments.

What is the likelihood that you have a sister you have never heard about, never met, never knew existed, and, furthermore, this sister just happens to be a famous person you have idolized and emulated virtually your entire life?   Not a chance, you would say.  That may happen in a fantasy, but not in real life.  In fact, if it were a movie script, Hollywood would reject it out of hand.  But, in point of fact, recently, that very scenario occurred for a young woman named Jennifer Bricker.  This is a very inspirational story on many levels.  Some of you may have read or seen it on 60 Minutes or ABC News, or read about it in the NY Daily News or one of various on-line news services, but for those of you who have not, read on and be amazed.

Jennifer Bricker was born on October 1, 1987.  She was born without legs and immediately placed for adoption by her biological parents.  In plain English, they took one look at her physical condition and rejected her.  Luckily, her adoptive parents provided a loving, supportive environment for her.   From early childhood, Jennifer refused to believe that her handicap would prevent her from doing anything.  Running?  No problem.  Basketball?  No problem.  Swimming, gymnastics, tumbling?  Check, check and check.  In fact Jennifer became so proficient at tumbling that she became Illinois’ first handicapped high school tumbling champion.  Following that success, she placed fourth in the 1998 AAU Junior Olympics in power tumbling.  Moreover, she won the organization’s Inspiration Award, no doubt an easy and obvious choice.

If that were the end of the story, it would still be amazing.  But, there’s more.  Jennifer grew up idolizing Dominique Moceanu, a member of the 1996 gold medal-winning US Olympics women’s gymnastics team, the so-called “Magnificent Seven.”  She harangued her parents about Moceanu constantly.  “I wouldn’t shut up about her…,” says Bricker.  “I knew she was Romanian” (like Bricker).  “I knew we looked alike”  [I was} her biggest fan.”

When she was 16 Jennifer’s parents shockingly revealed to her that Moceanu was, in fact, her biological sister.  Four years later, Bricker finally got up the courage to write a letter to Moceanu with the startling news.  She was afraid that Moceanu would dismiss her as a “nut,” but luckily she was able to provide records that documented their relationship.

Moceanu recalls that the news was “the biggest bombshell of my life.”  Her first thought was one of rage, that she had a sister her parents had never told her about.  When she confronted her parents they confirmed that they had given a baby girl up for adoption immediately after birth when Dominique was six.  Dominique’s mother, Carmelia, seems to regret the decision now.   She lamented to Dominique “I never saw my baby.  I never held her, never touched her, never even smelled her.  I desperately wanted to, but your father told me we had to give her up, and that was that.”

As gymnastics fans will recall, Dominique had had a rocky relationship with her parents.  They had both been athletes, though not famous ones, and it appeared that they were determined that Dominique would achieve the fame that had eluded them.  They entered her into a gymnastics program at the age of three and some would say, force-fed the sport to her.  Eventually, Dominique divorced herself from them legally claiming that they had been “abusive,” manipulative,” had “repressed” her and “squandered” her money.  Subsequently, she had taken out a restraining order against her father, claiming he was stalking her and, perhaps, had even ordered a “hit” on two of her close friends.   They reconciled shortly before his death, but given this history one might argue that despite the stigma of being “given up” Jennifer had had a better home life with her adoptive parents than she would have had with her biological ones, particularly given her handicap.

CONCLUSION

Dominique accepted Jennifer with open arms.  Today, they have a close, warm relationship.  They marvel at their similarities, such as their voices, their handwriting and the manner in which they laugh and chuckle.  “It’s mind-blowing, “says Moceanu.  Indeed, it is.

Last week, the world lost one of its most enduring champions of human rights.  Elie Wiesel was a Holocaust survivor, professor, political activist, Jewish historian, author, and Nobel Laureate, but, above all else, he was one of the most steadfast and vociferous chroniclers of the Holocaust and one of the world’s most renown human rights advocates.   He lent his considerable influence and support to combat injustice wherever and whenever he encountered it whether it was anti-Semitism, Apartheid, genocide in Sudan or oppression in places like Nicaragua.

Eliezer (Elie) Wiesel was born on September 30, 1928 in Sighet, Romania (Carpathian Mountains area).  He had three sisters, two of which, Beatrice and Hilda, survived WWII.  The third sister, Tzipora, did not.  In March 1944 the Germans invaded, and in May, at the age of 15, Wiesel and all the other Jews in the area were deported to Auschwitz.  Approximately 90% of them, including Wiesel’s mother and youngest sister, were exterminated upon arrival.  Eventually, Wiesel and his father were transported to Buchenwald where he remained until the camp was liberated by the US Army on April 11, 1945.

Wiesel described the personal horrors he endured in his book, Night.   Although he wrote dozens of books, Night is considered, by most, to be his singular work.  Published in the early 1950s, for millions of readers the compelling first-hand account was their introduction to the horrors of the Holocaust.  Night has since been translated into 30 languages, and over 10 million copies have been sold in the US alone.  According to Rabbi Perry Berkowitz, president of the American Jewish Heritage Organization and a former assistant of Wiesel’s, Night spawned a “global remembrance movement that is very vital today.”   Berkowitz echoes the feelings of many that books such as Night are very important for remembrance purposes.  Without them, as the Holocaust survivors die out, their stories will die with them, the lessons of the Holocaust will fade, and anti-Semitism will resurface.

After the War Wiesel studied and worked as a journalist in France for several years.  It was there that a friend convinced him to write about his “harrowing” experiences in the camps.   People needed to know what had happened.  In the late 1940s he spent some time Israel.  One of his jobs was as a translator for the Irgun.  In the 1950s he emigrated to the US.  He married, raised a family and wrote some 40 books, mostly non-fictional describing the Holocaust on a very personal and compelling level.  In fact, some historians credit Wiesel with being responsible for popularizing the term “Holocaust.”

In addition, he became a professor of Humanities at Boston University, which established the Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies in his honor.  He helped establish the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. and the NY Human Rights Foundation.  Moreover, as mentioned above, he became very active in human rights causes all over the world.  For his continuing efforts in this area he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986.  The Nobel Committee described him as a “messenger to mankind,” adding that he had delivered a message of “peace, atonement, and human dignity” to mankind.   The Los Angeles Times characterized him as “the most important Jew in America.”

CONCLUSION

Wiesel was the recipient of countless awards and honorary degrees, far too numerous to list here.  In many ways, he was a living reminder of the horrors suffered by Jews in the Holocaust and the foremost champion of and advocate for human rights sufferers all over the world.  Perhaps, Wiesel’s philosophy was summed up best at his memorial by Ronald Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress and a long-time friend and associate.  He remembered that Wiesel had once told him: “The opposite of love is not hate.  It’s indifference.  It was indifference that brought anti-Semitism to Germany, and it was indifference that brought the Holocaust.”   Those who have studied history know that it does tend to repeat itself, so it is absolutely critical that we never forget those important lessons.  Let’s be prepared for next time, for it will surely come.

Wiesel died on July 2, 2016 at the age of 87.  Rest in peace Elie.  You will be sorely missed.

Monday, July 4 will be the 40th anniversary of the daring rescue by the Israeli Defense Force of 102 hostages being held at Entebbe Airport in Uganda by members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist group.  In my opinion, considering the extremely low number of injuries and fatalities of hostages and rescuers and the complicated nature of the operation this was one of, if not the, most successful hostage rescue operations.  Contrast it with other notable botched rescue attempts, such as the Olympics hostages in 1972 and the FBI at Waco.  It is hard to believe that 40 years have passed.

To refresh our memories as well as to edify those who are too young to have lived through it, the situation was as follows:

1. On June 27, 1976 two terrorist members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine hijacked an Air France jet that had originated in Tel Aviv and was bound for Paris.  There were 248 passengers on board.
2. The hijackers’ stated objective was to exchange the passengers for 40 Palestinian terrorists imprisoned in Israel and 13 other affiliated terrorists being held in four other countries.
3. The hijackers flew the plane to Entebbe because they would be under the protection and support of Idi Amin, the dictatorial ruler of Uganda.  It was reported that Amin greeted them personally both on their arrival and periodically throughout their stay to reaffirm and reinforce his support.
4. The hijackers separated the Israelis and other Jewish passengers from the rest of the group and moved them to a separate room.  The reason for this ominous move was pretty obvious.  Soon after, they released the other passengers, retaining only the flight crew and the Jews, whom they threatened to kill if their demands were not met.  The Israelis took this threat very seriously, and began to plan a rescue attempt.
5. A successful rescue was an extremely daunting undertaking.  Meticulous planning was essential to avoid a disaster.  Israel was over 2,500 miles from Uganda.  The planes would have to be refueled.  At first, no country would give permission for the Israelis to land in order to refuel, and the Israelis did not have the logistical capacity to refuel up to six aircraft in the air.  Eventually Kenya gave permission for them to overfly its airspace and refuel at Kenyatta Airport.
6. Mossad provided very critical intelligence, such as the number of hijackers, their location and the stationing of the Ugandan troops and aircraft.
7. Various attempts to reach a diplomatic solution were unsuccessful.  Even Yasser Arafat tried to intercede, to no avail. The terrorists had threatened to execute the remaining hostages at noon on July 4 if their demands had not been met by then.
8. Meanwhile, the Israelis, not willing to rely solely on diplomacy and not willing to take a chance that the terrorists were bluffing, determined that it would be necessary to conduct a raid to rescue the hostages.  Various scenarios were considered and discarded before the final plan was formulated.  One such plan called for dropping commandos into Lake Victoria, but that had to be scrapped when it was ascertained that the lake was infested with crocodiles.
9. The Israeli cabinet approved the rescue plan on the evening of July 3.  The task force included 29 commandos under the command of Lt. Col. Yonatan Netanyahu, the brother of future Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The raid was a huge success on many levels, although not without casualties.  Taking off from Sharm el-Sheikh the task force flew under the radar of potentially hostile countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and arrived undetected.  The commandos surprised the hijackers and managed to kill them all.  However, unfortunately, three of the hostages were killed in the cross-fire, and Netanyahu, the commander was also killed.  The entire operation took only 90 minutes – 30 of which was the assault, itself.  In addition to the hijackers, 45 Ugandan  soldiers and several Ugandan air force fighters were destroyed on the ground (precluding their being able to pursue the Israelis on their return flight).  The Israelis refueled in Nairobi, Kenya on their return flight to Israel.

CONCLUSION

On July 4 the world awoke to the pleasant and uplifting surprise of the successful raid and rescue.  Personally, I remember feeling extremely gratified the Israelis had taken such a bold and decisive action and that the terrorists had “gotten theirs.”  I remember many of my friends had felt similarly.   We were all sick and tired of governments’ indecisiveness and incompetence in dealing with these terrorist situations.

The world’s post-raid reaction was typical and predictable.

1. The Chairman of the Organization of African Unity (whatever that was) condemned the raid as an “act of aggression.”
2. UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim (he of the suspected Nazi background in WWII)characterized the raid as “a serious violation of the sovereignty of a Member State of the UN” (blah, blah, blah).
3. The Ugandan UN representative claimed that a peaceful, political resolution had been near, implying that the raid was premature and unnecessary.  The Israeli representative denied that assertion and denoted that Uganda had been “directly complicit” in the hijacking in the first place.
4. The UN Security Council convened to discuss these complaints and others, but Western nations, such as the US, UK, France and West Germany were supportive and blocked any official UN action.  Their support was not surprising, but even the Iranians praised the Israelis for their success and extended condolences for the “loss and martyrdom” of Netanyahu.

There have been various books and movies chronicling this raid.  I think the best one was the 1977 movie, Raid on Entebbe, starring Peter Finch and Charles Bronson.

On this July 4 take a minute out of your day to toast the brave men who, rather than submitting to terrorism, took brave and decisive action to effect a daring rescue.

Today, July 1, is Canada Day, the national day of Canada.  It is equivalent to Independence Day in the US.  It is a celebration of the enactment of the Canadian constitution (aka the British North America Act), which occurred on July 1, 1867.  CD is a federal statutory holiday in Canada.  If the date happens to fall on a Sunday the holiday is celebrated on July 2.

Prior to July 1, 1867 Canada was part of the British Empire.  It consisted of three colonies – Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the Province of Canada.  On that date, as a result of the passage of the British North America Act, aka the Constitution Act, those colonies became united as the Dominion of Canada.  The event was marked by fireworks, military displays and other celebrations.  Technically, it was not a complete separation from Great Britain.  The British parliament and cabinet maintained limited control over Canada, which was reduced gradually over time until 1982 when it was eliminated entirely.

No formal holiday was established until May 15, 1879 when it was promulgated as Dominion Day.  There were no formal, official annual celebrations until the golden anniversary on July  1, 1917.  Average Canadians did not really embrace the holiday until the centennial in 1967.   Then, in the 1980s it really caught on.  The central government began to promote it aggressively, and various celebrations popped up all across the country.  Furthermore, the name of the holiday was changed from Dominion Day to Canada Day as the former was viewed by many as an unpleasant reference to the colonial era.  Around this time, “O Canada” became recognized as the national anthem of Canada.

Canada Day is marked by various modes of celebrations, such as parades, carnivals, festivals, barbecues, air and maritime shows and other similar activities.  It is celebrated not only in Canada, but also throughout the world by Canadian “ex-pats.”  For instance, celebrations of “Canada D’eh” in Hong Kong are held of June 30 at Lan Kwai Fong; in China they are held by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai; and in Afghanistan the Canadian troops celebrate it on their base.   According to Jennifer Welsh, professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford, “Canada Day, like the country, is endlessly decentralized.”

CONCLUSION

In the US we Americans generally do not pay much attention to this holiday, although some of us may see it designated on our calendars and wonder about its significance.  I believe Americans should have at least some knowledge of this holiday.  After all, the two countries have many similarities, and we share a common border of some 5,500 miles, the longest international border in the world.

Well, now you know.  Happy Canada Day!

Today, the world of college basketball mourns the loss of an icon.  Pat Summitt, longtime coach of the University of Tennessee women’s basketball team (the “Lady Vols”), passed away earlier today of Alzheimer’s disease at the age of 64.  Summitt coached the lady’s basketball team at UT from 1974-2012.   In 38 years she never had a losing season.   She won 1,098 games, the most by any college basketball coach, male or female, and her teams won eight national championships and appeared in 18 “Final Fours.”

In addition, she won an Olympic silver medal in 1976 as a player and coached the women’s team to a gold medal in 1984.  In 2009 the Sporting News ranked her # 11 on its list of the 50 Greatest Coaches of All Time (all sports, both male and female), the only female coach on the list.  Moreover, she has won numerous coaching awards, such as the Naismith Basketball Coach of the Century, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Arthur Ashe Courage Award (at the 2012 “Espys”), and many others too numerous to mention.

Patricia Sue Head was born on June 14, 1952 in Clarksville, TN.  She had two older brothers and one sister.  She grew up playing sports with (and against) them.  That was probably where she honed her intense competitive nature.  Pat was a standout basketball player, but her local high school did not have a lady’s basketball team.   Consequently, her family moved to an area where she could play – Cheatham County.   In those days, girls’ high school basketball in Tennessee was played the old-fashioned way.  You either played offense or defense.  A player could not cross half-court.  Also, there were no athletic college scholarships for women.   Head paid to play at UT.  She was so accomplished that she made all-America and co-captained the 1976 women’s Olympic basketball team that won the aforementioned silver medal.

There was no women’s pro league in those days, so after graduation it was on to coaching.  In 1974 she became a graduate assistant at UT, but after the head coach suddenly and unexpectedly quit the school needed a new head coach exigently.  Pat was available and, thus, was hired at the tender age of 22.  Of such serendipity is history often made.  It was not exactly a dream job.  It included a lot more than coaching.  Summitt often said her ancillary duties included washing the uniforms and driving the team van.  Moreover, on road trips, the accommodations were not exactly deluxe.  The night before one game, the team had to sleep on the floor of the home team’s gym in sleeping bags.

Summitt was an aggressive recruiter and a very demanding coach.  One story is that while nine months’ pregnant with her son, Tyler, she, nevertheless, went on a recruiting visit.  As told by the player, who ended up going to UT, she and her parents were concerned Summitt was going to deliver the baby right there in her living room, but they were extremely impressed by her tenacity and dedication to show up in the first place.  As a coach, she demanded the best, and when she felt a player wasn’t giving it, she would fix her with an “icy stare” that would thoroughly intimidate and produce the desired result.  On the other hand, she also provided a role model and developed countless teenage girls into young women.  She was so successful and highly respected that in 1997 and 2001 the school extended her the singular honor of asking her if she would like to coach the men’s team.

CONCLUSION

Summitt was diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer’s in 2011.  Nevertheless, she coached through the 2011-2012 season, albeit in a reduced role.  She passed away on June 28.

Summitt no longer holds the record for most championships.  Her mark has been superseded by UConn coach Geno Auriemma, who has won eleven.  But that has not diminished her legacy.   She was about more than wins and titles.  The conventional wisdom is that she was a women’s basketball coaching pioneer, and one of the greatest coaches ever, not just women’s basketball coaches, but coaches period.  Tributes have been pouring in from her former players and assistant coaches.  Her legacy is enhanced further by the fact no less than 25 of her former players and assistant coaches, plus her son, have become coaches and/or basketball administrators in their own right.  In my opinion, that is her most enduring legacy of all.

We never know when greatness will be thrust upon us.  We never know when we will get the chance to do something that will have a truly significant impact, not only on us personally, but also on history, itself.  The vast majority of us will never have that opportunity or, perhaps, may not seize it when it presents itself.  But, for 80 young men, most of which were barely out of their teens, that fateful opportunity came on April 18, 1942.

I am referring to the daring, many thought foolhardy or ill-advised, bombing attack on mainland Japan, what is commonly referred to as the “Doolittle Raid.”  Permit me to “set the scene,” so to speak.  It was early 1942.  The Japanese had just executed a daring, dastardly, and devastating sneak attack on our naval base at Pearl Harbor in which they had essentially wiped out our military capabilities in the Pacific and thrust the US headlong into WWII.  Americans were shocked and scared, and morale was extremely low.  Japan, which had been terrorizing east Asia for a decade, was perceived to be a mighty and invulnerable fighting machine.  FDR and the senior military leadership conceived a plan to bomb the Japanese mainland to boost American morale and to demonstrate to the Japanese and the rest of the world that they were not invulnerable.

Some points of information about the raid:

1. The commander, Lt. Colonial Jimmy Doolittle, had been a well-known test pilot and aeronautical engineer before the war.
2. The raiding party consisted of 16 B-25 bombers and a total crew of 80 persons.  The planes, would be launched from an aircraft carrier, which would get as close to the Japanese mainland as practicable without being spotted.  Nevertheless, these planes would not have enough fuel to be able to return to the carrier.  Therefore, the plan was to have them try to reach parts of China that were not under Japanese control.  Failing that, they would have to crash-land or “ditch” with the crews taking their chances on survival.
3. The bombers would not have fighter escorts and, furthermore, in order to reduce weight and increase range, they would not have a full complement of armament.  Essentially, they would be defenseless against enemy fighters.  Not exactly a suicide mission, but close.
4. The group succeeded in bombing multiple targets in Tokyo, Osaka and other cities.  None was shot down
5. Following the raid, 15 of the 16 bombers proceeded toward the designated landing areas in China.  (The 16th  was extremely low on fuel and had to head for eastern Russia, which was closer.  When it landed near Vladivostok, the plane was confiscated and the crew detained.)   The Chinese resistance was supposed to guide them in using homing beacons and provide refueling.  Due to a miscommunication between the American brass and the Chinese resistance, however, the Chinese were not expecting them.  In any event, despite a strong tailwind, none of the 15 was able to reach the designated airfields.  They were all forced to bail out or crash-land near the Chinese coast.
6. Thanks to assistance from Chinese civilians and guerilla fighters, most of the crewmen survived.  Of the 80 crewmembers only three were killed in the mission, itself, and four more perished in POW camps.  Many of the others were even able to return to service.
7. In retaliation for helping the Americans the Japanese launched a brutal campaign against the Chinese in the area (Operation Sei-go) in which upwards of 250,000 Chinese were slaughtered, mostly civilians.
8. Initially, Doolittle had thought his mission to be an abject failure, because all 16 planes had been lost and the damage inflicted had been minimal.  In fact, James Scott, journalist and author of the book “Target Tokyo,” an account of the mission, opined that the raiders inflicted merely a “pinprick” of damage to Japan’s war capabilities.  But, Doolittle had misjudged the tremendous morale boost it provided.  He was promoted two grades to Brigadier General, and he and many of the others received various medals.

CONCLUSION

One historical footnote: many historians, including Scott, maintain that the success of the raid goaded the Japanese into attacking the US at Midway later that year in retaliation.  Our decisive victory in that battle was the turning point of the war.

The surviving Doolittle raiders held a reunion almost every year through 2013.  The highlight of the reunions was the roll call and subsequent toast saluting those who have died during the previous year.

As I said in my opening paragraph, most of these heroes were just ordinary men who volunteered for a bombing mission not realizing the significance.  For example, consider David Thatcher, who passed away this week at the age of 94:

1. He was one of ten children born and raised on a dairy farm in rural Montana.
2. He joined the army right after graduating high school before Pearl Harbor.
3. He volunteered for the mission without a second thought.  As he related to a reporter from the Lincoln Star Journal in 2013 “we didn’t think it [the bombing mission] was important then.  We thought it was just another mission.”
4. When his plane crash-landed on the Chinese coast he became a hero.  Luckily he was not as severely injured as the others, so with the assistance of some local villagers he tended to them.  He made sure pilot Ted Lawson got to a local hospital (where his severely injured leg was amputated).  He was awarded the Silver Star for his actions.  Ironically, Lawson later authored the definitive book on the raid, 3o Seconds Over Tokyo, which was later made into a movie starring Spencer Tracy and Van Johnson.
5. He eventually returned to combat, flying 26 missions over North Africa.
6. After the war he returned home to Montana where he worked for the post office until his retirement in 1980.

The last surviving member of the raiders is Colonel Richard Cole who served as a gunner on one of the planes.

The raiders have been celebrated in various books and movies.  The best and most extensive display of raid memorabilia is at the National Museum of the US Air Force in Dayton, Ohio.

Doolittle, Thatcher, Lawson, Cole and the others were just ordinary guys who did an extraordinary thing when the opportunity arose.  Let us not forget them nor the considerable significance of their achievement.

On Sunday, June 19, 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.

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:

1. 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.
2. Canada – Very similar to the UK.  Popular activities would include going to the park, the zoo or eating out in a restaurant.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 baseball we have the unexpected bonus of Game 7 of The Finals.  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.