Category: Uncategorized

Sunday, most Americans will celebrate Mother’s Day. Mother’s Day is celebrated all over the world in some form. Different countries have their own way of celebrating the day and even celebrate on different dates. Some countries have replicated the US traditions – hallmark [or email (tacky)] card, flowers, chocolates, and family gatherings; others have incorporated it into other holidays honoring women or mothers; and in still others, a combination of the two has evolved. Restauranteurs claim that Mother’s Day is their busiest day of the year. Evidently, one of the perks for mothers on MD is a day off from cooking. And why not? (On the other hand, on Father’s Day the restaurants are relatively empty as many fathers are put to work barbecuing.

In the US MD was first celebrated in 1908 when a lady named Anna Jarvis held a memorial for her mother. Ms. Jarvis had been campaigning for the country to recognize a day to honor mothers since 1905 when her mother had passed away. In 1914 President Woodrow Wilson signed an official proclamation establishing the second Sunday in May as MD. It was to be a day to honor mothers and the concept of motherhood and their contributions to society.

Eventually, Ms. Jarvis became disillusioned with the commercialization of the holiday.  By the 1920’s the greeting card, candy and flower industries were marketing their products aggressively to take advantage of the holiday.  Jarvis strongly advocated that people should demonstrate their love and respect for their mothers through personalized, handwritten letters instead.  Being a person of action she organized protests and threatened boycotts of these industries.  At one point, she was arrested for disturbing the peace at a candy manufacturers’ convention.

Despite her efforts, commercialization of the day has continued to grow.  Americans, in particular, tend to demonstrate their love in tangible, material ways through the giving of gifts.  Today, MD is one of the biggest days for the sale of flowers, candy and greeting cards.  In addition, it is the third-biggest day for church attendance behind Christmas Eve and Easter.

As I stated, MD is celebrated in many countries in different ways and at different dates. For example:

1. The most common date is the second Sunday in May, which is May 14 this year. Besides the US, some of the countries that celebrate it on this date are Canada, Italy the Peoples Republic of China and Turkey.

2. Some countries, such as the UK, Ireland and Nigeria, celebrate it on the fourth Sunday of Lent. The UK incorporated it into a previously existing holiday called “Mothering Sunday.” ” Mothering Sunday” dates from the 16th Century.

3. Many Arab countries, such as Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia celebrate it on the vernal equinox (March 21).

4. Russia used to celebrate MD on March 8 in conjunction with International Women’s Day, but in 1998 the date was changed, by law, to the last Sunday in November.

5. Bolivia celebrates it on May 27, which is the date of an historically significant battle in which women played a key role.

6. Since 1950 France has celebrated MD on the fourth Sunday in May, except when the date conflicts with Pentecost in which case it is delayed to the next Sunday.

7. Hindus celebrate MD on the new moon day in the month of Baisakh (April/May).

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

MD is one of the few truly internationally recognized holidays. One of the charming features of the day is the variety of ways and dates on which it is celebrated. This is derived from the differences in customs and cultures around the world.

One thing is certain now and will remain so prospectively: on this day the mother/wife is truly in charge.

Men, all together now, let’s repeat the two-word mantra for a successful marriage:

YES, DEAR!

This is a feel-good story about the Vietnam War, which, I know, sounds like an oxymoron.   But, read on.

“Operation Babylift” was the moniker for the mass evacuation of babies and young children, mostly orphans, from South Vietnam just before the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong overran Saigon.  Over 10,000 children were airlifted from Saigon to the US, Australia and various other countries between April 3 and April 29, 1975.  Eventually, they were adopted by families all over the world.

The operation was authorized by President, Gerald Ford.  The plan was to utilize some 30 flights on military and cargo aircraft.  Several service organizations participated in this project, including Holt International Children’s Services, Friends of Children of Vietnam and the Catholic Relief Service, among others.

The project got off to an inauspicious start as the first plane to leave crashed killing 138 passengers.  However, that was the only mishap.  After a while, a shortage of military planes developed, and with the North Vietnamese closing in on Saigon more rapidly than originally anticipated,  it became necessary to supplement them with flights on commercial aircraft.  In addition, some private citizens, such as businessman Robert Macauley, chartered planes at their own expense to help.

The operation, itself, was somewhat controversial.  Some people questioned whether or not it was in the children’s best interest, since many of them were not orphans, and therefore, were being separated from a parent and/or sibling.   John Bennett, a former president of the Union Theological Seminary, summed up this argument opining it would be “better to allow the children to grow up in their home culture.”  Moreover, certain South Vietnamese government agencies objected to placing the children with foreign families.  They preferred to place them with Vietnamese families.  The net effect was to complicate and delay the operation, but, ultimately, many thousands were saved.

CONCLUSION

Some 40 years later, I believe there can be no doubt that the program was a rousing success.  Generally, those who remained behind did not fare well, especially children of mixed birth and their Vietnamese mothers.  All in all, it is estimated that the North Vietnamese murdered some 250,000 South Vietnamese and sent millions more to “labor” or “re-education” camps or worse.

Meanwhile, those who were rescued did just fine.  For example, take the case of Michael Marchese.  He was transported from a South Vietnamese orphanage to the US at the age of three.  Today, he is married with a family working as a successful real estate broker in New Jersey.  He knows he was very lucky and is very grateful.  “I can never thank Holt [International] enough.  Without the babylift, [I] would have either died or grown up on the streets. ……The Vietcong were gathering up boys who didn’t look fully Vietnamese, [and with an American father Marchese definitely did not], and taking them to camps or actually shooting them.”  Marchese was attempting to find his older sister and his mother for many years.  In a further happy twist, Marchese’s older sister had also been adopted by a US family and was also looking for him.  They re-united in 2000, and later found their mother.  Obviously, it was a very poignant reunion.  Marchese said his mother kept apologizing to him for sending him away.  His response: “There’s nothing for you to apologize about.  You …saved my life.”

And, then there is the story of Victoria Sharma and her adopted Vietnamese sister.  Sharma, an eight year-old American citizen living in Saigon with her parents, remembers the harrowing experience of getting her sister out of the country.  Her father, a US government employee was in San Francisco.  They did not have a Visa or passport for the little girl and the North Vietnamese were closing in.  At the last minute, her mother wrote the necessary contact information on the four year-old-child’s  body and literally tossed her into the waiting arms of one of the airplane’s crew members.  All she could do was hope that the baby would be delivered to the father in San Francisco.  She was.  Sharma and her mother left on a commercial flight later.  The foregoing are but two examples of the harrowing and, ultimately, uplifting stories associated with the airlift.

At the present time, a Vietnamese agency called Operation Reunite is busily attempting to match adoptees with their families using DNA, so, perhaps, there will be many more happy reunions.   In addition, there is now a memorial in Holmdel, NJ commemorating Operation Babylift.  The project was a very positive ending to a dark period in our history.

 

 

Wartime tends to produce many heroes.  Usually, such heroes are ordinary people who, finding themselves in exigent circumstances, accomplish extraordinary things.  Most of the time, these heroics go unrecognized at the time by the general public.  Recognition, if it comes at all, follows years later.  Such was the case with Florence Finch.  Probably, most of you have never heard of Ms. Finch, which kind of proves my point.

Finch was a major hero during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines during WWII.  Due to the circumstances of her actions and her own modesty, her deeds were not known to the general public for some 50 years afterwards.  They remained buried in obscurity.  Only her family was cognizant of her exploits.  Her story is very inspiring and deserves to be told.

Loring May Ebersole was born in Santiago on Luzon Island in the Philippines on October 11, 1915.  Her father was an American who had fought in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War and remained there afterwards.  Her mother was Filipino.  After graduating high school Finch secured a job as a stenographer at Army Headquarters in Manila.  She married Charles Smith, a US sailor.  Unfortunately, Smith was KIA soon after WWII broke out.

Due to her mixed heritage Finch was able to “pass” for Filipino with the occupying Japanese.  She was able to secure a position writing rationing vouchers for distributing food, medicine, clothing, gas and other supplies to the Japanese Army units in the area.  She proceeded to divert as much as she could to the Underground whose members were desperately in need of those items.

Eventually, she was captured, imprisoned and tortured.  The Japanese wanted crucial information from her regarding her associates, and they did not treat her lightly because she was a woman.  When it came to torture, the Japanese did not discriminate between the sexes.  One of the many techniques used to get her to talk was electrical shocks.  To her credit, she never talked.  When she was finally liberated in February 1945 she weighed a mere 80 pounds.  She became the first woman to be awarded Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Ribbon in recognition to her contributions to the war effort.

After her liberation she moved to Buffalo, NY where her father had some family living.  She joined the Coast Guard Women’s Reserve, aka SPARs, to, as she put it, “avenge her husband.”  In 1947 the government awarded her the Medal of Freedom, the predecessor of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is the highest medal that can be awarded to a civilian.

After the War she endeavored to live a quiet, if not secluded, life.  She enrolled in secretarial school, met and married her second husband, an Army veteran named Robert Finch, raised a family, and worked as a secretary at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY.  As I said, her friends and neighbors never realized her special background.

Eventually, however, the US government “discovered” her.  In conjunction with plans to construct a memorial honoring women in military service in Washington, DC, the government sent a questionnaire to all female veterans, including Finch.  Once she had completed the questionnaire detailing her exploits, the “jig was up.”   Finch was back in the limelight.

In 1995 the Coast Guard named a building on Sand Island, Hawaii in her honor.  In conjunction with that event, Finch’s daughter, apparently not as shy as her mother, alerted the news media and Finch’s story became known to much of the public.

CONCLUSION

Finch passed away in December at the age of 101.  Consistently with the way she had lived her life she died quietly in the Ithaca nursing home in which she had been living.  At first, news of her passing was reported solely in newspapers in upstate NY.  Wider dissemination only occurred after the Coast Guard recently announced she was to be interred with full military honors in an upstate NY military cemetery.  Why the five-month delay?  Well, again, it was due to Finch’s modesty.  When she sensed she was near the end, she had made it clear that she did not want her funeral to interrupt her relatives’ Christmas holidays or to force them to travel to upstate NY during the winter.  (Who thinks of that?  Remarkable.)

Why was Finch so unassuming regarding her war exploits?  Perhaps, it was just her nature to be modest.  Or, perhaps, one can glean understanding from the following quote.  When asked to describe her exploits of heroism, Finch had replied “I feel very humble, because my activities in the war effort were trivial compared with those of the people who gave their lives for their country.”

Rest in peace Florence Finch.  You were a true American hero, and you will be sorely missed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Americans seem to have accepted the practice of evaluating our presidents based on their accomplishments in the first 100 days of their term in office.  100 days seems rather arbitrary to me.  Why not 90 days or six months?  But, I’ll play along.

Saturday was President Trump’s 100th day in office, so below please find my analysis, which, due to time and space, I have limited to the key issues.  What have been his successes and failures?  To what extent has he fulfilled his campaign promises?  I have tried to summarize his performance objectively, although I’m sure many of you will disagree with me.

1.  Supreme Court Vacancy – In my opinion, beyond a doubt, his greatest success was securing Senate approval of Neil Gorsuch as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.  Since Justice Scalia’s untimely death the court had been functioning with only eight justices raising the specter of 4-4 decisions.  Gorsuch has impeccable credentials, and I believe he will be a superb justice.  Moreover, I believe he will generally support a conservative agenda, and, best of all, he should be on the court for many years.
2. Economy/Jobs –  He has taken several actions designed to boost the economy and job market.  (a)  He has proposed deep and radical tax cuts.  Critics have denigrated his plan as favoring the rich, citing the elimination of the estate tax and the reduction of the highest bracket to 35%.  Those do favor the rich, but there are also benefits for the middle class as well, such as doubling the standard deduction and eliminating the alternative minimum tax.  In addition, small business owners will benefit from the sharp reduction in the corporate income tax rate to 15%.  Historically, tax cuts have boosted the economy, and this one should as well.  The stock market has already discounted such a boost.  The Dow is up 6% already this year.  Past history tells us that the final law will be considerably different from President Trump’s proposal once Congress has weighed in, so stay tuned.  (b)  He has pressured certain large corporations, such as Carrier, into cancelling plans to relocate jobs to foreign countries.  (c)  He has approved commencement of construction of the Dakota Pipeline and withdrawn from participation in TPP.  (d) He has issued executive orders designed to alleviate the burden of excessive government regulations on business, especially small businesses.
3. Healthcare –  His bill to repeal and replace the ACA failed to pass, but he has chipped away at the ACA somewhat by executive order.  The likelihood is that the Administration will continue to try to secure passage of a comprehensive healthcare bill, but it needs to win over conservative Republicans and/or moderate Democrats to do so (a tall order).
4. Immigration/Border Security –  His policies are designed to protect Americans by controlling the flow of illegal immigrants, criminals and drugs.  For the most part, he wants to accomplish this by enforcing existing laws, which have been largely ignored by previous administrations.  Those who advocate open borders should look how well that has worked in Europe.  I view open borders as akin to leaving the doors of your house open at night.  (a)  He has issued two executive orders designed to tighten the vetting process for immigrants.  So far, he has been thwarted by his opponents, who have challenged them successfully in the ultraliberal 9th circuit.  I find it very frustrating that one liberal judge, ruling based on personal politics rather than the law, can thwart the wishes of a majority of Americans, but it has happened twice.  (b)  Similarly, his executive order to defund sanctuary cities that refuse to obey Federal law has also been challenged successfully in the 9th circuit.  Hopefully, the government will ultimately prevail in the Supreme Court.   (c)  Congress has been able to block funding for the Border Wall.
5. Foreign Relations – (a)    He has exhibited strong, decisive leadership, which was sorely lacking in the previous administration.  (b)  He has been very aggressive with terrorist organizations.  He authorized the extensive bombing of Syria after Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, including on babies and children. Furthermore, he authorized the use of a MOAB, “mother of all bombs” on suspected terrorist hideouts in Afghanistan. (c)  He has met with the heads of state of several countries, such as Japan and China, to establish rapport and establish a basis for cooperation.  (d)  He has enlisted the support of China, hopefully, to reign in North Korea.  (e)  He has reiterated the US’s strong support of Israel.

CONCLUSION

Has President Trump been perfect so far?  Has he delivered on all of his campaign pledges?   No and no.  But, in my opinion, there have been more positives than negatives.  In my opinion, his biggest negative has been his inability to convince Congress to support him, notably, with respect to healthcare and funding for the Border Wall.  He is reputed to be a superb negotiator.  He has to demonstrate this ability prospectively in order to have a successful presidency.   (The rulings in the 9th District are not his fault.  Thanks to the system of checks and balances imbedded in the Constitution the President cannot control the courts.)

It is important to keep in mind that he has been dogged by a hostile Democratic party, which, incidentally, has shown far more unity against him than it did during the election campaign.  In addition, many in his own party have been opposing him.   And, then, of course, there is the media, which continues to slant and exaggerate the news against him.  His use of twitter has helped him in this area.  It is almost a modern version of FDR’s “fireside chats” in the 1930s.

I remain optimistic that things will work out.  We shall see.

Ted Kennedy was likely on track to become president of the United States until the evening of July 18, 1969 when he was involved in a one-car accident on Chappaquiddick Island, Martha’s Vineyard.  The accident resulted in the tragic death of a young staffer, Mary Jo Kopechne, and derailed any national political aspirations Kennedy may have had.  I do not wish to make light of the tragic situation, but Kennedy violated the oft-repeated mantra of politicians – “never to be caught with a dead woman or a live boy.”   The events leading up to the accident, the accident, itself, and the aftermath were extremely suspicious, and nearly 50 years later we still don’t have all the answers.

Briefly, the situation was as follows:

1. Kennedy had hosted a party for some female staffers who had served on his late brother, Robert’s 1968 presidential campaign.  The staffers were affectionately called the “Boiler Room Girls,” because they had worked in a loud, window-less area.
2. The women were all young, attractive and single.  Also, in attendance were six male friends and business associates of Kennedy’s who, like him, were older and married.  Kennedy had a reputation of being a hard partier and a womanizer.  Regardless of what may have occurred, the optics were all wrong.
3. Shortly after 11:00 pm Kennedy left with Kopechne, ostensibly, to drive her to the ferry.  Curiously, he did not have his chauffeur drive them, and Kopechne did not bring her purse or hotel key with her.
4.   When approaching the Dike Bridge to Chappaquiddick Kennedy claims he took a wrong turn in the dark and drove off the bridge into the channel.  He claimed he was able to escape the car, but, despite repeated attempts, he could not rescue Kopechne.

5.  Kennedy did not report the accident to the police for some ten hours, although to do  so would have been any reasonable person’s first reaction.  His explanation was he “panicked.”

6.  Two fishermen found the car and Kopechne’s body the next morning.

7.  To add to the tragedy, the diver who recovered Kopechne’s body later testified that she had not drowned.  Rather, she had found an air pocket in the car, had lived for three or four hours, and eventually died from suffocation.  He added that “I could have had her out of that car 25 minutes after I got the call.  But, [Kennedy] didn’t call.”

8.  Oddly, the medical examiner cited accidental drowning as the cause of death and indicated as such on the death certificate.  He did not order an autopsy, which would have seemed to be a logical step.  Later, when the District Attorney sought to have the body exhumed to be autopsied his efforts were blocked by a judge and the Kopechne family.

9.  Ultimately, Kennedy pleaded guilty to a charge of “leaving the scene of an accident causing bodily injury.”  He was sentenced to two months’, the statutory minimum, which was suspended.  Most of the public were astounded that more serious charges, such as manslaughter, were not brought.,  Their not unreasonable conclusion was that the Kennedy name, money and influence had played a significant role.

So, who was Mary Jo Kopechne?  She was born on July 26, 1940 in Wilkes-Barre, PA to a middle class family.  Her father was an insurance salesman; her mother was a homemaker.  She was an experienced professional.  Before working on Kennedy’s campaign she had been a teacher and a secretary and had worked on other campaigns as well.  Those who knew her described her as possessing a “demure, serious, ‘convent school’ demeanor, rarely drank much, and had no reputation for sexual activities with men.”  She had “hero-worshipped” Robert.  To be fair, she didn’t seem to be the kind of person who would have engaged in an illicit relationship with Kennedy or anyone else.

CONCLUSION

The resolution of the affair left many unanswered questions, such as the following:

1.  Why were six mature, rich, powerful, influential men at a private party with six young, single, unattached, attractive women.   Like I said, even if nothing untoward  happened, the optics were all wrong.

2.  Why did Kennedy, who must of known he was impaired, leave with Kopechne and without his chauffeur.

3. What really happened after the crash.  Kennedy’s actions as he described them, seem irrational and mendacious, if not criminal.

4. Why did the medical examiner insist the cause of death to be accidental drowning, particularly in view of the positioning of Kopechne’s body and the testimony of the diver?

5. Why did the judge block the DA’s exhumation request.

6. Why didn’t the Kopechne family actively seek the truth?

One obvious answer to all of the above would be the Kennedy name, influence and money, particularly in Massachusetts.

The fallout was far-reaching and permanent.  Although Massachusetts voters accepted Kennedy’s explanation of events and returned him to the Senate with large majorities, it was a different story on a national level.  Tainted forever politically by the specter of Chappaquiddick,  Kennedy never did win the presidency, an office that had appeared to be his for the taking.  Many people continued to question his honesty, courage, integrity and judgment, and felt he had used his power, money and influence to his advantage.  He was even unable to become the Senate minority whip.  Politically, he was forced to settle for the role of elder statesman.

On a personal level, he focused on his role as uncle to his dead brothers’ children.  Tragically, his wife, Joan, who had been pregnant, suffered a miscarriage, which was largely attributable to the stress of the accident.

As for the public, some 50 years later we still do not know the whole truth and, likely, never will.  Young people may have little or no awareness or interest in Chappaquiddick, but if you do have an interest I refer you to a series on the Kennedy family currently being shown on cable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yesterday, April 24, was International Holocaust Remembrance Day.  IHRD is marked (“celebrated” does not seem an appropriate designation) annually on the 27th day of the month of Nisan by the Hebrew calendar in honor of the anniversary of the uprising of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, which commenced on that date in 1943.  (For those of you who are interested in learning more about the ill-fated, but brave, uprising, it is superbly chronicled in the book “Mila 18” written by Leon Uris.  If you have not read it, I urge you to do so.)

One of the many events marking this day was the “March of the Living,” in which thousands of people, not all of them Jews, gathered at the site of Auschwitz, in my opinion, the most notorious of the Nazi-run death camps, and marched from there to the site of the nearby camp at Birkenau.  The March is a sober, somber event that serves as an annual reminder of the horrors visited upon Jews and others by the Nazis during WWII.  Over 1 million were murdered at those two camps alone.

Furthermore, IHRD is a time of reflection.  It serves as an annual reminder that anti-Semitism is still with us some 70 years later.  Indeed, it has always been present throughout recorded history, sometimes overtly, as with the infamous pogroms in Poland, Russia and other locales throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s, at other times, more covertly.  Rulers always found Jews to be a convenient “whipping boy” for the ills of their domain.  Failed crops, not enough jobs, blame the Jews.  Throughout history, that particular tactic has always served as a means to divert the attention of the masses from the real problems, which was invariably ineffective or corrupt leadership.

Additionally, the day shines a spotlight on the sad fact that many countries have been less than diligent in their efforts to restore confiscated or stolen property to its rightful owners.  As most of you know, the Nazis and others plundered substantial amounts of property – such as land, money and artwork – from Jews during WWII.  Pursuant to the Terezin Declaration of 2009 most European countries pledged their best efforts to identify and return this property to its rightful owners or their heirs.  A study conducted by the European Shoah Legacy Institute has concluded that most countries have been diligent in their efforts and have “substantially” complied with their respective pledges, but others, notably Poland and Bosnia, have not.  One might characterize this failure as the “final indignity” visited upon Holocaust victims.

Most disturbingly, IHRD provides a focus on the very serious and foreboding problem of the rise of anti-Semitism worldwide.  I have blogged on this topic before, and I don’t wish to present a detailed reiteration of it at this time.  But, in view of recent developments I believe a brief summary would be appropriate.  Simply put, various surveys and statistics have denoted this trend in recent years.  For instance:

1.  According to the Anti-Defamation League there was a 34% increase in anti-Semitic incidents during 2016 compared to 2015.  Moreover, there was an additional 86% increase during the first quarter of 2017.  These included threats, harassments, vandalism, physical assaults, cemetery desecrations and bomb threats.  ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt is particularly disturbed by the sharp upward trend.  He opines that “public discourse in the US on anti-Semitism [is] at its worst point since the 1930s.  Clearly we have work to do and need to bring more urgency to the fight.”
2. A separate survey conducted jointly by the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel Aviv University and the European Jewish Congress found a 12% decrease in global anti-Semitism in 2016 but a 45% increase in the US.
3. Pro Publica, an investigative journalism nonprofit, has chronicled over 300 anti-Semitic incidents in the US during the first quarter of 2017 alone.  These incidents include spray painting of swastikas, and other acts of vandalism and have occurred all across the country, particularly on college campuses.
4. The Southern Poverty Law Center reported over 100 incidents in just the first ten days following Donald Trump’s election.
5. The NY Police Department cited nearly 50 incidents in NYC in the first month after the election.
6. Seth Frantzman, a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies and the op-ed editor for the Jerusalem Post, denotes that there were in excess of 7,000 anti-Semitic incidents under former President Obama, and many of them were ignored or down-played by the media.  He denotes that this increased trend has continued under President Trump, noting that during January-February 2017 almost 100 Jewish community centers and day schools have received anti-Semitic-related threats.
7. Much of the media has sought to blame President Trump for this increase.  Some have even gone so far as to imply he an anti-Semite.  They denote that he was not quick enough to denounce KKK leader David Duke, the attacks on JCCs, and those of his supporters who had exhibited anti-Semitism during the campaign.  In addition, Frantzman has characterized the Trump Administration’s response to anti-Semitism as “tepid, at best.”
8. Malcolm Hoenlein, Head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, opines that “anti-Semitism is taking on potentially ‘pandemic’ dimensions globally.”  He adds, “we saw [it] in Britain, we saw it in France and now we see it’s spreading everywhere.”  In this regard, he cites recent events in Germany and Scandanavia.  With respect to the US, he notes the recent paintings of swastikas on college campuses in the US, the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, and bomb threats to Jewish community  centers.  Finally, with respect to President Trump, he emphasizes that “any accusations that [he] is an anti-Semite are unfounded.”  I strongly agree with Mr. Hoenlein.    President Trump has been in the public eye for over 40 years.  His life is an “open book.”  To invoke the words of former President Obama, in all President Trump’s business and personal dealings there has never been a “smidgen” of anti-Semitism.

CONCLUSION

I believe it is misleading and irresponsible for the media or anyone, for that matter, to blame the increase in anti-Semitism on any one person or event.  Most of the media persists in blaming President Trump for all the world’s ills, even the weather (as a result of his stance on the Global Warming issue).   After a while, their rants against him become so much “white noise.”  If they continue, they will lose whatever credibility they have left with the American people.

I view the current iteration of anti-Semitism as emanating from a variety of sources, among them (1) the ongoing conflict in the Middle East in which Israel is increasingly being portrayed by its enemies and in the media as the “bad guys,” (2) the increasing power and influence of Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS and Boko Haram, (3) the poor economic climate in most of the world, which leads many to blame others (i.e. Jews) for their problems, and (4) latent anti-Semitism, which has always been there and always will be ready to come to the fore.  I am sure I have omitted other causes.  Feel free to denote them to me.

What is the solution?  I am not sure there is one.  Mr. Hoenlein has suggested more discourse in the form of a worldwide forum.  Perhaps, but I also think the world’s leaders have to become more actively involved.  I mean, not only political leaders, but also others who command the respect of the average person and are in a position to exert a positive influence on them, such as clergy, entertainers and athletes.

We are better than this.  It is time to demonstrate it.

Erin Moran, a child actress best known for her role as Joanie Cunningham on the hit tv  sitcom, Happy Days (1974-1984) has passed away at the age of 56.  As I write this, a cause of death has not yet been published.  I don’t want to speculate, but she was not known to be suffering from any specific illness, so drugs and/or alcohol are distinct possibilities.

Erin Marie Moran was born on October 18, 1960 in Burbank, CA., the fifth of six children.  She demonstrated an interest in acting at a very young age.  She landed her first role at the age of six in the tv series Daktari.  She followed this up with a series of movie roles,  such as How Sweet It Is with Debbie Reynolds, and various guest appearances on tv, on shows such as My Three Sons and The Courtship of Eddie’s Father.

Her big break came in 1974 when she was cast as Joanie Cunningham in the hit tv sitcom, Happy Days.  The show ran until 1984.  It depicted a somewhat idealistic version of life in the 1950s and 1960s and was very popular among teens and young adults.   Although it was most notable for renewing the career of Ron Howard, originally famous for the role of “Opie Taylor” on The Andy Griffith Show (1960-1968) and for introducing “The Fonz,” one of the most iconic characters in tv history, played by Henry Winkler, Moran acquitted herself well as Howard’s teenage sister.  Later, she starred in a spin-off series, Joanie Loves Chachi with Scott Baio, which, unfortunately, only lasted a few years..

After that show was cancelled Moran’s life and career went into a sharp decline.  She married, divorced and remarried.  Acting roles dried up.  In recent years she suffered from depression, her house was foreclosed and she was living in her mother-in-law’s trailer home in Indiana, where she was found dead.

CONCLUSION

Moran’s story is not uncommon in Hollywood, where successful child actors are often unable to cope with life as adults.  In recent years, there have been dozens of instances of out-of-control entertainers, such as Drew Barrymore (drugs, multiple stints in rehab) and Lindsay Lohan (drugs and alcohol abuse)  as well as premature deaths, such as Heath Ledger (prescription drug  overdose) and Lee Thompson Young (suicide).

One would hope that others who are heading down the same path would learn from this and get control of their lives before it is too late.  But, unfortunately, I don’t believe most of them will.

 

 

Yesterday, Fox News announced the termination of Bill O’Reilly, host of its top-rated news show, The O’Reilly Factor, since 1996.  O’Reilly’s ouster was precipitated by the slew of sexual harassment charges brought against him by various women who had worked for him, for the network, or appeared on his show over the years.   His 8:00 pm time-slot will be filled by Tucker Carlson, who is currently the host of Tucker Carlson Tonight, currently shown at 9:00 pm on Fox..  (The Five, currently broadcast at 5:00 pm, will move to 9:00 pm, and a new show hosted by Eric Bolling will air at 5:00 pm.)  Carlson may not be familiar to some of you.  More on him below.

In my April 15 blog on this matter I had cautioned against a rush to judgment.  Many were calling for his immediate ouster, including advertisers, various women’s groups and James and Lachlan Murdoch, the sons of principal owner, Rupert Murdoch, who manage Fox’s day-to-day activities.   I had urged waiting until the completion of independent investigations that were being conducted by the Manhattan DA’s office and the law firm, Paul, Weiss, which had been hired by Fox.  Apparently, the evidence uncovered by Paul Weiss’ internal investigation as well as various external factors, left Fox with no choice.

Below please find a brief timeline of events that led to this blockbuster decision:

1. April 1 – The New York Times published a story detailing payments to five women over several years to settle allegations of harassment and sexual misconduct.

2.  April 4 – Advertisers began cancelling their ads.  Eventually, some 60 of them did so.

3.  April 9 – Fox announced the hiring of renowned law firm, Paul, Weiss, to conduct an internal investigation of the allegations.  This is the same firm that Fox had hired to investigate the Roger Ailes allegations, which had resulted in his termination.

4.  April 11 – O’Reilly went on a vacation that he claims was scheduled last autumn.

5.  April 18 – Another woman comes forward with allegations that were particularly damaging.  She claims he would “leer” at her and refer to her as “hot chocolate,” adding a racial element to the sexual harassment allegations.

6.  April 19 – A poll conducted by Morning Consult reported that 46% of Americans, including 23% of Factor viewers, favored Fox cancelling the Factor. Only 22% favored retaining the show, with the rest undecided.

7.  April 19 – Fox announced the O’Reilly will not be returning, and NPR broke the story about Carlson replacing him.

Tucker Carlson was born on May 16, 1969 in San Francisco.  He graduated from Trinity College.  He has had a varied career as a reporter, commentator and journalist.  Among the highlights:  He has been a columnist for New York and Reader’s Digest.  He broke into television in 2000 on CNN as co-host of The Spin Room.  In 2005 he moved to MSNBC where he hosted various news shows until 2009 when he became a Fox News contributor.  He has appeared on, co-hosted and hosted various shows on Fox, the latest being the aforementioned Tucker Carlson Tonight.  I like his style, and I think he will be successful, although, perhaps, not as much as O’Reilly was.

CONCLUSION

In the end Fox had no choice.  The combination of mounting evidence, public pressure from women’s groups, the media, and the loss of advertising revenue was too overwhelming.  Ultimately, management’s primary responsibility is to protect the “brand.”  Like any company faced with scandalous behavior of its employees, Fox needed to take prompt, decisive, corrective action to demonstrate it was committed to rectify the problem.  It could not be seen as a company that tolerates workplace sexual or racial harassment.  Thus, we see yet another instance in which no person, regardless of status, is bigger than the company.

 

 

 

 

According to the New York Times and other news outlets, prominent Fox News commentator, Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor, has been accused of sexual harassment by five women.  According to multiple published reports Fox paid these women some $13 million to settle their claims.

Moreover, Wendy Walsh, formerly a regular on The Factor, who was not paid a settlement, disclosed her complaints to the Times and held a press conference.  She claimed, in part, that O’Reilly had offered to make her a “contributor” to the show if she would accompany him to his hotel suite.  She declined and was not given the spot.

In addition, she demanded an independent investigation into the matter.  (The Times reported that the Manhattan DA’s Office is investigating.  Furthermore, multiple sources have reported that Fox has retained the prominent law firm Paul, Weiss to conduct its own internal investigation.)

The complaints allege that Mr. O’Reilly’s behavior is part of the culture pervasive at Fox.  They cite the recent complaints against Roger Ailes, former Chairman and CEO of Fox News, as an example.  The Times has reported that Fox has taken corrective action by enhancing its personnel awareness and training procedures and hiring a new Director of Human Resources.

These news outlets have also speculated that O’Reilly has been suspended and is unlikely to return.  (On the other hand, both a Fox news spokesman and Mr. O’Reilly, himself, have stated that he is merely  on vacation until April 28 and that such vacation was scheduled last fall.)   Which version is true?  Your guess is as good as mine, but Chuck Barney of the Bay Area News Group has reported that the Murdoch family, which owns Fox, is still deciding upon a course of action.   Barney reported that James, the CEO, would like to terminate Mr. O’Reilly, while Rupert and Lachlan would like to retain him.

Another very significant development is that, according to Kantar Media, dozens of advertisers have pulled their ads from the show, resulting in an approximately 50% decrease in ad revenue. For example, Mercedes Benz, which spent nearly $2 million on ads last year, opined “given the importance of women in every aspect of our business, we don’t feel this is a good environment in which to advertise our products right now.”  Hyundai cited “the recent and disturbing allegations.”  Ultimately, the drying up of advertising revenue may seal Mr. O’Reilly’s fate

This story is very significant, socially, culturally and economically.  Socially, it is another instance in a long line of reputed inappropriate behavior between the sexes.  Usually, but not always, the allegations involve a rich, powerful and/or famous man and a woman under his influence and/or control.  In recent years, we have seen cases involving athletes, such as Tiger Woods, Presidents, such as Bill Clinton, entertainers, such as Bill Cosby, businessmen, such as Roger Ailes, clergy, and numerous teachers and their students.  To be fair, men have not always been the perpetrators in these cases.  We have seen women as well, particularly teachers.

Culturally, I believe it illustrates a basic flaw in human behavior.  Most of us, manage to control our wanton desires.  A few, cannot or will not, particularly if they think they can get away with it.  Not to make light of these very serious situations, I recall that former President Jimmy Carter, perhaps, tongue in cheek, once said he “lusts in his heart.”

The economic impact on Fox is enormous.  According to Kantar Media, a media research firm, O’Reilly’s show, The O’Reilly Factor, has a viewing audience of nearly 4 million per night, and from 2014 through 2016 it generated advertising revenue for Fox of some $446 million.  These numbers would likely be severely impacted without Mr. O’Reilly’s presence.  (Mr. O’Reilly is believed to earn roughly $18 million per year, just from the show, not counting his earnings from his best-selling books and tours.

It should be noted that Mr. O’Reilly has vigorously denied these allegations as “without merit.”  Additionally, his lawyer has characterized Walsh’s allegations as “patently false and highly defamatory,” and has demanded that she “cease and desist all defamation of Mr. O’Reilly’s character.”

Normally, these cases become “he said – she said” matters in which the essential facts are in dispute.  Unfortunately, Americans have a tendency to rush to judgment before all the facts have been investigated.  Often, these cases have been tried in the media, which then faces embarrassment when all is said and done.  Typically, the public remembers the original version, rather than the accurate one, which may be determined months later. Some recent examples of inaccurate rushes to judgment have been the Duke lacrosse case, the Trevon Martin case, and the Ferguson, Missouri case.  By the time the matter has been fully investigated and the real facts determined many people and the media have made up their minds and refuse to accept the truth.  The O’Reilly situation may follow that pattern.

CONCLUSION

Most of you know that I have been a staunch supporter of Mr. O’Reilly’s.  I believe his reporting and commentary to be mostly fair and balanced, and I rely on his show as my primary news source.

That said, these allegations are heinous and should not be tolerated in our society.  We’re better than this.  Let’s remember, however, that in America people are adjudged to be “innocent until proven guilty.”  I urge everyone to wait until the aforementioned investigations have been completed and all the facts are known before rushing to judgment.

 

 

 

 

 

ecent examples,Sometime, this resu

A few days ago, we lost a comedic icon – Don Rickles.  Rickles was an equal opportunity “insulter.”  Among his favorite greetings were “hey dummy!” or “you hockey puck!”  It didn’t matter to him whether you were a politician, celebrity, talk show host, regular fan, or mobster.  Anyone was fair game, and yet his genius was such that the target, rather than take offense, would laugh uproariously.  Many people, such as Frank Sinatra, considered it a “badge of honor” to have been insulted by Rickles.

Sinatra and Rickles were good friends.  They first met in the 1950s at a club in Miami.   Rickles was performing when Sinatra walked in with his entourage.  Everyone knew of Sinatra’s penchant for violence and suspected mob ties.  No matter.  In one of those seminal moments that could make or break a career, Rickles laced into Sinatra.  “Frank, I just saw your movie, The Pride and the Passion, and I want to tell you the cannon’s acting was great.  Make yourself at home.  Hit someone.”   Sinatra thought Rickles was so funny, he told many of his friends and encouraged them to see the comic’s act and be insulted, themselves.  Sinatra even used his influence to get Rickles invited to perform at Ronald Reagan’s Inaugural Ball in 1985, a performance that Rickles, himself, characterized as the  “highlight of his career.”

Donald Jay Rickles was born on May 8, 1926 in Jackson Heights, Queens, NY.  Upon graduating high school he served two years in the Navy during WWII.  In 1946 he received an honorable discharge and began to pursue a career as a dramatic actor.  Although he landed a few bit parts here and there, he was largely unsuccessful.  He tried selling insurance, used cars and cosmetics, but he was unsuccessful at those endeavors also.  Finally, he turned to comedy.

At first, he was not too successful at that either.  He was performing in small, nondescript clubs as a warmup act.  Normally,  the crowds were indifferent to his prepared material; sometimes, they were even abusive as they were more interested in the upcoming headliners.  One night, while he was performing at a run-down strip joint in Washington, DC, the heckling was particularly abusive, and Rickles decided he had had enough.  He began to insult his hecklers right back.  To his surprise, they and the rest of the crowd loved it.  Rickles knew he had found his niche, and he was on his way.  Many people thought Rickles patterned his style after Jack E. Leonard, a contemporary “insult comic,” but Rickles once told Larry King that it was Milton Berle.

In a career that spanned more than 60 years Rickles appeared in countless movies, tv shows and clubs.  Perhaps, his best movie was Run Silent, Run Deep, which starred Clark Gable and Burt Lancaster.  He starred in a few tv series, such as CPO Sharkey (1976-78), which were not long-term successes.

He was at his best, however, as a guest on tv variety, comedy and talk shows, which he did hundreds of times in his career.  For example, he appeared over 100 times on The Tonight Show, alone, and even guest-hosted on many occasions.   His signature introduction was a Spanish matador tune, which was intended to signal that someone was about to be skewered, metaphorically, of course.

One of his appearances in 1980 was the third highest rated Tonight Show ever.  Carson loved him.  In fact, it was Carson who dubbed Rickles “Mr. Warmth.”  In addition, he was a fixture on Dean Martin’s “Celebrity Roast” specials.  If you like comedy, these shows, starring a veritable Who’s Who of comedians, are “must see” and can be found on U Tube.

His style of humor resonated with the audiences because as he once said, the audiences knew “he was never mean-spirited.”  As I said, he was an equal-opportunity insulter.  In the days before the advent of over-the-top PC he often used ethnic humor, and his targets loved it. Patrons would often wear outlandish outfits to his shows hoping to be noticed and picked on.

Rickles met his long-time wife Barbara, through his agent.  According to his memoirs, he was attracted to her because she did not “get” his humor.  He also denoted that of all his movie and tv roles his two grandchildren liked his role as “Mr. Potato Head” the best. Go figure.

Rickles’ best friend was Bob Newhart.  They often socialized with their wives, who were also close friends.  Ironically, Newhart often remarked that, on those occasions, Rickles was the quiet one, and he, Newhart, the boisterous one.  Again, go figure.

CONCLUSION

Rickles loved performing, and he continued to do so virtually to the end.  He died of kidney failure on April 6, 2017 at the age of 90.  He was a comedic icon, and he will be sorely missed.

On a personal note, Rickles was one of my favorite entertainers.  (Many people who know me well have told me that my  personality and style of humor contain a little bit of Rickles.  Probably, so, although I admit I’m not quite as funny.)

Below please find a sample of the tributes that have poured in since his passing:

1. Jimmy Kimmel called him “a towering presence in Las Vegas” (where Kimmel was raised).
2. Seth Meyers – “There’s nothing better than getting burned by Don Rickles.”
3. Martin Scorsese (who directed him in Casino) – “Don Rickles was a giant, a legend.  He kept me doubled over with laughter every day on the set – yet he was a complete pro.”
4. Jerry Seinfeld – He belongs on the “Mt. Rushmore of stand-up comedy.”
5. And, finally, Rickles, himself –  “I’m an honest friend.  I’m emotional.  I’m caring.  I’m loyal.  Loyalty in this business is very important.”