Category: Uncategorized

Few people in history are so recognizable that with the mere mention of their initials one instantly knows about whom you are talking.  Such is the case with John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States.  He flashed across our lives like a comet, brilliant but brief.  He was only president for 1,000 days before he was assassinated, yet, even today, people remember him and recognize his name.

Today, November 22, marks the 53rd anniversary of his assassination.  Almost anyone over the age of 60 remembers vividly where they were and what they were doing when they first heard of it. For example, I, a freshman in college, was walking to a history class. (Yes, I did attend classes, even on a Friday afternoon.)   I heard some other students talking about the President having been shot. I wasn’t sure I had heard correctly, but unfortunately, I had.

What was strange about the whole incident was the lack of reliable information. It wasn’t like today when news is known and disseminated instantaneously. Communication between New York, where, at the time, all communication was centered, and Dallas was sketchy. Even worse, Dealey Square was not close to the addresses of the network news’ Dallas offices. Reporters on the scene had to communicate by telephone, when they could find one. Often, competing reporters ended up sharing telephones. No iPads; no cell phones. Information was incomplete and contradictory. Eventually, however, we found out the horrible news. No one will ever forget the grim look on Walter Cronkite’s face as he removed his glasses, stared into the camera, and told a shocked, confused and scared nation that the President was dead. When we heard it from “Uncle Walter,” we knew it was true.

The purpose of this blog is not to relate the details of the day’s events, nor do I wish to get bogged down in the various conspiracy theories, some of which persist to this day. Many books have been written on the subject, and I can’t possibly cover these topics in a short blog. Suffice to say, it was a surreal experience. Many emotions swirled through my head – disbelief, denial, fear and uncertainty. Who did it? Why? Was it a single gunman or a conspiracy? Was it part of a larger plot?  Would we go to war?  These and other questions came to mind.

Most everyone was glued to their television sets for days while events played out – Lyndon Johnson sworn in as the 36th President of the US, Jackie standing beside him still in shock and wearing the blood and brain-stained pink suit she had been wearing in the limo, Oswald arrested, Oswald shot live on national tv while under police escort (How in the world did Jack Ruby get access to that corridor, anyway?), JKF’s funeral procession, the “riderless” horse, John Jr’s salute. The assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy followed soon after. It was the end of innocence.

JFK had won the Presidency by the narrowest of margins over Vice President Richard Nixon. He had received 49.7% of the popular vote to Nixon’s 49.5% and won several states by the slimmest of margins. In that relatively primitive era of communications the end result was not known until the next morning. Many people, caught up in the drama, stayed up all night to await the results. JFK was young, handsome, bright, vibrant, dynamic, scion of a famous and wealthy family, and a war hero. He and his beautiful, glamorous wife, Jackie, seemed like American royalty to many Americans. He gave us hope and optimism. In the eyes of his supporters he was the one to transform America. During his inaugural address he uttered the famous line that symbolized the great hope that he would lead us to “A New Frontier,” as his campaign had promised (“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”). Those words still resonate today.

JFK got off to a rocky start with the Bay of Pigs fiasco. But, he seemed to make up for it when he faced down the Russians and Nikita Khrushchev in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Most of us did not realize how close we came to nuclear war, but in the end Kennedy won that round and showed he was learning on the job. His administration was dubbed “Camelot” after the description of the mythical King Arthur’s court.

Unfortunately, Kennedy made a lot of powerful enemies. Many Republicans thought he had “stolen” the election. Indeed, there had been whispers about voting irregularities, notably in Chicago, but, in the end nothing came of that – no media exposes, no court challenges. Yes, times have certainly changed.
Many conservatives thought he was too soft on communism and too aggressive on civil rights issues. He had made powerful enemies among organized crime and at the FBI and CIA, among others. Fidel Castro hated him for the Bay of Pigs attack as did many Cuban ex-Pats, who thought he had betrayed them by not intervening militarily to support the invasion when it fell apart. All in all, he had a plethora of powerful enemies with the motive, means, opportunity and funds to plan and execute a Presidential assassination and cover-up. In retrospect, one should not have been surprised.

CONCLUSION

A favorite speculation has been how American and world history would have been different had JFK not been assassinated. Would he have pulled us out of Viet Nam as has been speculated? If so, would there have been an anti-war movement in the 60’s with the attendant protests, turmoil and violence? Would MLK and RFK still have been assassinated? Would the civil rights movement have progressed differently, more peacefully? We will never know. There have been many books written about this topic, including one by Stephen King called “11/22/63” about a fictional time traveler who journeys back to 1963 to try to prevent the assassination, which makes fascinating “what if” reading.

Through it all, a cloud of conspiracy still hangs over the assassination 60 years later. Books have been written and movies produced dealing with the conspiracy theories. Did Oswald act alone? Was he tied to the KGB or the CIA? How did Ruby get close enough to kill Oswald from point-blank range? Was there anyone on the grassy knoll? Why was Ruby killed in prison? What of the roles, if any, of mobsters, like Sam Giancana, Head of the Chicago mob, and Carlos Marcello, Head of the New Orleans mob, as well as the CIA, the FBI and/or Castro? Were the Warren Commission’s findings accurate or part of a cover-up?

At this time, as we mark the passage of another anniversary of JFK’s assassination, we are reminded that these issues, and others, have still not been resolved to many Americans’ satisfaction. As time passes, it seems they probably never will be.

For you readers of a certain age, what are your memories of the assassination and its aftermath? I would like to know.

We are all familiar with Oskar Schindler, who was made famous by the 1993 Steven Spielberg movie Schindler’s List starring Liam Neeson.  But, I would posit that few of you have heard of Irena Sendler.  Sendler was a Polish woman whose feats arguably exceeded those of Schindler.  Read on, and be astounded.

Irena Krzyzanowska was born on February 15, 1910 in Warsaw into a middle class family.   Her father was a physician, who, unfortunately, died from typhus that he contracted while treating patients.  Sendler always credited her parents for imbuing in her a desire to help those less fortunate. From an early age she exhibited an activist bent that she maintained her entire life.   For example, she was expelled from the University of Warsaw for repeated public protesting.

She married and divorced three times, twice to the same man, Mieczyslaw Sendler.  She had three children.

During WWII Sendler joined a Polish resistance group called Zegota.  Through Zegota, she obtained a job working for the Department of Social Welfare in Warsaw, a job that afforded her the opportunity to assist Jews.  As most of us know, the Nazis were extremely motivated to exterminate Jews and devoted much of their resources to that objective, even to the detriment of their overall war effort.  Accordingly, anyone caught aiding and abetting Jews was subject to death.  This penalty extended to their family and household members as well.  Although these penalties were in effect in all Nazi-occupied territories, they were applied most vigorously in Poland.  Obviously, these extreme measures failed to deter many Good Samaritans, including Sendler.

Basically, Sendler and her group operated in the following manner:

1.  Her job afforded her access to the Jews in the ghetto under the guise of inspecting the sanitary conditions and other pretexts.  Disease and starvation were rampant in the ghetto and presented a serious health hazard not only within the ghetto, itself (which would have hardly bothered the Nazis), but to the rest of the city as well.
2. She managed to secure an official pass to enter the ghetto from the city’s Contagious Diseases Department.  This unfettered access enabled her and her cohorts to smuggle out babies and small children.  They would hide them in various ingenious ways – in ambulances, coffins (under dead bodies), small packages, sewer pipes, suitcases, and even in toolboxes..
3. The children were placed in orphanages, Catholic convents or with friendly Polish families.
4. The group kept detailed records, because their hope was to unite the children with their families after the War.  They maintained lists of the children in glass jars, which were buried in secret locations.  Unfortunately, however, in most cases they were unable to re-unite the children with their parents, because so few of the parents survived the War.

According to the eminent Deborah Dwork, Rose Professor of Holocaust History and Founding Director of the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University in Worcester, MA., Sendler was the “inspiration” and “prime mover” of a  network that saved some 2,500 Jewish children, roughly double the number of Jews saved by Schindler.  Furthermore, Sendler smuggled out some 400 by herself.

Inevitably, Sendler was caught.  Even though the Gestapo beat and tortured her she refused to divulge any information.  She was sentenced to be executed, but members of Zegota rescued her at the last minute.  She continued to be an active member of the resistance for the remainder of the War.

After the War she continued her resistance efforts as a member of the Home Army (AK), an anti-communist group.   In 1948 she was arrested by the communists for anti-government activities.  After one year, she was released.  For the rest of her life she remained active in various activist and social ventures in Poland.

She died in 2008 in Warsaw at the age of 98.

CONCLUSION

We now know that Sendler was one of the most heroic figures in WWII with respect to saving Jews.  Unfortunately, for many years her extreme heroism had gone largely unrecorded and unrecognized.  One reason may have been the antipathy of the post-war Polish government towards her due to her continued ties to the anti-communist resistance following WWII.

Another may have been her modesty.  When asked why she did what she did, she simply stated “I was brought up to believe that a person must be rescued …. regardless of religion and nationality.”  She also stated that the hardest part of her operation was persuading the parents to let go.  Often, they would beseech her: “Can you guarantee they will live?”   Her response: “No, but if they stay here [with the parents] I guarantee that they will die.”

There are many touching stories of Sendler babies who survived the war and have gone on to lead productive lives and raise families of their own.  One such baby was Elzbieta Ficowska.  She was only a few months old when she was secreted out of the ghetto in a workman’s toolbox.  She survived the war and is still alive today.  Her only momento of her real mother is a tiny silver spoon with her name and birthdate inscribed on it, which her biological mother had give to Irena.  She claims she had three mothers – her biological one, the one who raised her, and Irena.

Eventually, word of Irena’s exploits spread.

1.   In 1965 Yad Vashem designated her as one of the Polish Righteous among the Nations.

2.  In 1991 Israel made her an honorary citizen.

3.  In 1999 some school students wrote and produced a play based on her exploits called Life in a Jar.  The play was shown on tv with Anna Paquin portraying Irena.

4.  In 2003 Pope John Paul II sent her a letter of praise.

5.  She has won various awards, such the Order of the Smile, Humanitarian of the Year and the Audrey Hepburn Humanitarian Award.  In addition, she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three years running, 2006-2008.

6.  In addition to the above mentioned play she has had documentaries and a book written about her life.

Irena was fond of saying “the world can be better if there’s love, tolerance and humility.”  No doubt, she possessed all three in abundance.

We all recognize that peaceful protest is a time-honored American tradition guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.  That said, from what I have read and seen, many of the protesters have crossed the line from peaceful, respectful, legal protest to rioting, damaging property and assaulting Trump supporters.  Thus, whatever valid points they are trying to convey to the mainstream public have become obscured.

Most of the protesters appear to be millennials (ages 18-34) who are disappointed and disillusioned by the results of the election.  Fair enough, but they are coming across as nothing more than “sore losers.”   It’s like, “I played the game, I lost, but I don’t like the result.  Like a whiny five year old, “no fair.”  I want a “do-over.”  Well, there are no “do-overs” in elections.

Some college students even went so far as to tell their professors they were too distraught to take scheduled exams or even attend classes.  And, in many cases, they were excused by sympathetic professors or school administrators.  What kind of life lesson is that?  Boo hoo!  Tell me, what are they going to do when they’re out in the real world, and things don’t go their way.  They don’t get the job they want.  Their girl friend turns down their marriage proposal.  Are they going to grab a sign and demonstrate in front of their boss’s or girl friend’s home?   When I compare them to the 20-year olds who were fighting the Germans or Japanese in WWII, it’s downright embarrassing.

Statistics denote that approximately one-third of millennials did not even bother to vote, probably either from apathy, laziness or overconfidence.  In that case, I say they have no valid complaints.  By itself, one vote may not make a difference, but if millions of people all over the country all reach the same conclusion and don’t bother to vote, that becomes significant.  If one is displeased with the election result, the appropriate answer is not to sulk, not to riot, but to work within the system to try to win the next election.  Traditionally, that is what voters on the losing side have done.

Unfortunately, many of the demonstrators have been infiltrated by “professional agitators,” who, basically, have hijacked the protest.  These people are not interested in the issues at hand.  Rather, their goal is to undermine the system, create mayhem.  They continually seek out situations to exploit for their own aggrandizement.  Their goal is not to improve the system but to destroy it. We have seen a lot of this in recent years, for example, “occupy Wall Street” and Ferguson.   It would be nice if President Obama could show some leadership and tell these folks that while it is acceptable to demonstrate they should refrain from violence.

When approached by reporters many of these protesters have refused or been unable to articulate their reasons for protesting.  Others have stated that they “hate” Mr. Trump and do not want him to be president (“not my president”).  My response to them is while it is acceptable to hate the man and not want him to be president, to be fair, don’t protest what you think he may do.  Give the man a chance.  Anyone who has been paying attention would realize that since the election Mr. Trump has toned down his rhetoric considerably.  Moreover, he has repeatedly expressed his desire for “inclusion,” to be the president of all the people.  That would be a nice switch from what we have had for the past eight years.  Let’s wait and see.

CONCLUSION

First and foremost, let’s remember that Mr. Trump won the election fair and square.  He not only defeated his Democratic opponent, but he also had to overcome a biased media and the antipathy of many professional politicians in his own party.  One of the primary reasons why he did so was that there is a “silent majority” (hello, Spiro) of voters who feel disaffected, ignored and lied to by the current administration.  They want change, and they want Mr. Trump to bring it about.   The protesters, though vociferous, are in the minority.

Dems would do well to realize the extent of Trump’s mandate.  Yes, Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, but that is misleading and irrelevant.  Also, the distribution of the popular vote is telling.  Clinton’s popularity was highly concentrated in a few areas, such as California and various urban areas, for example, NYC, Philadelphia and Chicago.  Trump prevailed in most of the rest of the country and won the electoral vote, which is what counts, decisively.  Furthermore, the GOP retained control of both Houses of Congress, and 31 states have GOP governors, including 25 in which the GOP controls both houses of the state legislature as well.

The people have spoken.  Change is coming.  Deal with it.  To quote president Obama, “elections have consequences.”

Robert Francis Vaughn appeared in well over 100 movies, tv and stage productions in both the US and Great Britain in an entertainment career that spanned some 60 years.  He co-starred with some of the most iconic names during that period, such as Paul Newman, Charlton Heston, Yul Brenner, Steve McQueen and Angela Landsbury.  He portrayed US Presidents Franklyn Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Woodrow Wilson.  He won an Emmy  and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor (for his portrayal of “Chester Gwynn” in The Young Philadelphians in 1959), and was also nominated for several Golden Globe, BAFTA, Laurel and Photoplay Awards.  Yet, for all of that, he is remembered primarily for one role –  his portrayal of “Napoleon Solo” in the tv series The Man from U.N.C.L.E. 

U.N.C.L.E., an espionage show, ran from 1964 -1968.   Vaughn played smooth, suave, debonair Napoleon Solo, a spy modeled after James Bond.  He co-starred with a young Scottish actor named David McCallum.  Young fans may know McCallum as the medical examiner “Duckie” on NCIS.  Few people had heard of Vaughn before then, but he and the show became very popular, particularly with young fans.  It was a top-rated show for five years, and it spawned a spin-off show, a movie and considerable merchandising worldwide.

Vaughn was born in New York City on November 22, 1932.  Both of his parents were actors – his father on radio and his mother on the stage.  His parents soon divorced, and Vaughn was raised by his grandparents in Minneapolis, MN.  After high school he briefly attended college at the University of Minnesota, then moved to LA to live with his mother to pursue a career in entertainment.  It should be noted that he also continued his education, eventually earning a Ph.D. in communications from USC in 1970.

Vaughn made his screen debut in the 1956 epic The Ten Commandments.  It was not a particularly momentus role.  It was uncredited.  He appeared in the background in two scenes – as a “golden calf idolator” and in the chariot race.  One would have to look really carefully to find him.  But, I suppose you have to start somewhere.  His break-through role in Philadelphians came just three years later, and he was off.

Vaughn was a high profile political activist.  He was an early critic of the Vietnam War.  Furthermore, he was very active in the anti-war group “Another Mother for Peace” and was a co-founder of another anti-war group called “Dissenting Democrats.”  In addition, he was a strong supporter of and campaigner for anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy and both JFK and RFK.

CONCLUSION

Vaughn passed away on November 11 from acute leukemia.   Rest in peace Robert.  We will miss you.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering, U.N.C.L.E. stands for “United Network Command for Law and Enforcement,” quite a mouthful.

Today, November 11 we celebrate Veterans Day. To many people, VD is merely a day off from work or a chance to spend time with family or friends. They do not stop to reflect on the significance of the holiday, its history, and the sacrifices endured by millions of people to make it all possible. Like so many things, we tend to take it for granted.

VD originated at the conclusion of WWI, which was the most devastating war up to that time. WWI lasted from 1914 to 1918. In those pre-WWII days, it was called “The Great War.” There were 37.5 million total casualties on both sides, including 8.5 million people killed. The countries with the largest number of casualties were Germany, Russia and France. The US’s casualties were relatively light, 116,000 killed and 323,000 total casualties, because it joined the war late (1917).

Most people know that the immediate cause of the war was the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, by a Serbian nationalist, Gavrilo Princip. However, every war has underlying causes as well. The underlying causes of WWI had been building for many years. They were:

1. The proliferation of mutual defense treaties. All of the major European powers, Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary were bound by interlocking treaties. This insured that if one of these countries were to go to war all the others would be drawn in as well.

2. Imperialism. This was nothing new. Imperialism had been an issue since the 16th century. In the early 1900s it had risen to a new level. The European powers were all vying for pieces of Africa and Asia, primarily for their raw materials.

3. Militarism. The militaries in each of these countries were aggressive, bold and influential.

4. Nationalism. Various ethnic groups, notably the Slavs in Austria, wanted independence from the imperialist countries that controlled them.

Against this background, it is easy to see how a world war could break out. All that was needed was a spark, and the abovementioned assassination provided it. The principal antagonists were Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire on one side and Great Britain, France, Russia and the US on the other, although the Russians were forced to withdraw in 1917 with the advent of the Russian Revolution.

After four years of fighting, from 1914 to 1918, the combatants were finally able to agree on an armistice. It took effect on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, 1918. Eventually, it was ratified by the Treaty of Versailles, which was signed June 25, 1919 at the Palace of Versailles. November 11 became known as Armistice Day. In 1919 President Woodrow Wilson made it official by proclamation. Armistice Day was officially changed to VD in 1954.

The “Father of Veterans Day” is a WWII veteran named Raymond Weeks. It was his idea to expand Armistice Day to include all veterans, not just those of WWI, and he became the driving force to effect this change. He petitioned General Dwight Eisenhower, and he led a national celebration every year from 1947 until his death in 1985. President Reagan honored him with the Presidential Citizenship Medal in 1982 at which time he was recognized officially as “The Father of VD.”

VD should not be confused with Memorial Day. VD celebrates the service of ALL military veterans living and dead, while Memorial Day celebrates only those who died in the service of their country.

VD is celebrated in many countries. Celebrations vary. In Canada the holiday is called Remembrance Day. In Great Britain the holiday is known as Remembrance Sunday, and it is celebrated on the second Sunday of November. In both countries as well as in many European countries, the occasion is marked by a moment of silence at 11:00 am. Also, in both Canada and Great Britain some people wear poppies in their lapels as a tribute. Red poppies became a symbol of WWI after they were featured in the famous poem “In Flanders Fields” by John McCrae.  If you are unfamiliar with the poem I urge you to google it and read it.  I am not normally a fan of poetry, but I found it very moving.

In the US we enjoy parades and other celebrations around the country. Many restaurants and other businesses offer veterans free meals or discounts on various goods and services. Additionally, there is a special ceremony in Washington, DC which features the laying of a wreath at the “Tomb of the Unknowns” at Arlington National Cemetery.

CONCLUSION

So, today, as you enjoy the day take a few minutes to recognize and show respect for the veterans who sacrificed so much in order that the rest of us could enjoy the freedoms that we sometimes take for granted.  Many of us do not realize how brutal and vicious war actually is, particularly when it comes down to hand-to-hand combat where it’s you vs. the other guy, and it’s literally kill or be killed.  So, if you encounter a veteran, thank him or her for their service. It would mean a great to him or her to be so recognized.

Also, be cognizant of the inadequate medical services we provide our veterans, especially the significant delays in receiving medical care and other benefits. It is truly a national scandal that has received scant attention in the mainstream media and one that needs to be rectified asap. Let’s hope that President-elect Donald Trump follows through on his campaign promise to rectify the situation asap.

November 8, 2016.  Historians will remember that date as when Americans took back their country.  Hyperbole?  Perhaps, a little, but not much.

When the night began, the common theme was that Trump was the decided underdog.  The conventional wisdom was that even though the gap in the popular vote was only a few points, and he had momentum, the demographics of the country worked against him in the Electoral College.  He had a very narrow path to 270.  He had to win all of the states that Romney had, plus he had to win Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio, all of which, according to the latest polls, were virtually even, plus he had to pick off a few states from the so-called “blue wall,” such as Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin.  The attitude of most experts was that it was, at best, a long shot.  It was just as likely that Trump could lose in an electoral landslide.  To make matters worse, early returns from Florida indicated a very high turn-out among Hispanics.

Then, as the evening progressed, the tide turned.  One by one, the dominoes began to fall, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin.  Suddenly, it was Trump who had the clear path, and Clinton who had the narrow path.  The tv analysts began to entertain the real possibility of a Trump victory.  The odds published on betting websites began to shift in favor of Trump.  The financial markets, which wanted Clinton to win, “tanked.”  The tv pictures of the scenes in the candidates’ headquarters – joy and jubilation in Trump’s, stunned shock in Clinton’s – told the story.  Finally, in the wee hours off the morning Pennsylvania put him over the top.

As is often the case, we can see things clearly in retrospect.  For example:

1. Throughout the campaign, all the polls showed time and again that a majority of Americans, as many as 75%, did not approve of the direction in which the country was going.   A clear majority of them felt like the character in the movie, Network, who famously declared he was “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.”  Clearly, voters wanted “change.”
2. The late Vice President Spiro Agnew, was right in that there is a “silent majority” in the electorate.  These are normal, everyday people, like you and me.  They don’t attend protests; they don’t appear on the news with signs spouting slogans;  they’re too busy working, earning a living, providing for their families, doing what needs to be done to survive on a daily basis.  They just want government to leave them alone, and let them live their lives as they see fit.
3. Voters, or at least a majority of them, are not as stupid as those in the government and the media apparently believe.  In the end, they rejected the feds telling them how to act, what to eat or drink, what to do, how to live their lives.  Political correctness is running amok.  Men can use women’s rest rooms.  (Would you want your daughter to share a restroom with some creepy guy?  Really?)   The absurdity of the “common core” curricula.  The abject failure of “Obamacare.”  Excessive regulations and red tape that inhibit business development.  The list of intrusions goes on and on.
4. For the most part, Republicans “came home” and supported Trump.
5. A good portion of Sanders’ supporters, realizing the primary process had been “rigged” by the Clinton campaign and the Dem insiders, either supported Trump or stayed home.
6. Voters want a real country, with real borders.  They don’t want a border that is a sieve through which drugs, criminals, terrorists and other “deplorables” can enter at will.  (If you doubt the stupidity of an open border, just take a look at France, the UK and the rest of Europe.  All of those countries have open borders, and all of them are suffering through a myriad of social and economic problems as a result.  This is not racist; it is fact.)  As Trump has said, “either you have a country, or you don’t.”
7. We realize the existential threat that ISIS and other Muslim terrorists represent.  Not only do we want to call them what they are, we actually do want to do whatever it takes to defeat them.  We are tired of living in fear and uncertainty.  When a loved one leaves home for school, work or shopping we want to know they will return safe and sound.
8. The level of corruption had reached its tipping point.  Clinton’s nefarious activities go back over 20 years, and I need not recount them all here.  Nothing seemed to “stick” to her, but I believe the recent actions of the FBI and Justice Department with respect to her emails and Clinton Foundation finally convinced voters that enough was enough.
9. The pollsters and media analysts must re-assess their methodologies.  They failed miserably.  This was much worse than their failure to predict Harry Truman’s famous upset victory over Thomas Dewey in 1948, because polling is supposedly more sophisticated now.  Moreover, polling is now conducted right up to and including Election Day, including the use of “exit polls,” which was not the case in 1948.  How did they not see the truth?
10. Perhaps, most of all, the voters did not buy into the fiction that the economy is improving.  Everybody knows a middle aged person who was laid off, cast aside by his employer, or a college graduate who is forced to wait on tables or make sandwiches at the local deli while living in his parents’ house because he cannot find a job that befits his level of education.  Workers know that their “real” wages are the same or worse than they were four years ago.
11. This election will be analyzed and re-analyzed for years to come, but those are my initial thoughts.

CONCLUSION

Now comes the hard part for Donald Trump.  He must bring a sharply divided country together.  He must realize what President Obama did not, that he is the president of all the people, not just those who supported him.  He must tone down his rhetoric, be gracious and inclusive, not harsh and divisive.  He must develop a working relationship with Congress.  Can he do it? Time will tell, but we all better hope that he can.

What billy goat?  What black cat?  Steve who?  What curse?

It turns out that all it took to end the Cubs’ 108 year drought was an owner who was patient and willing to delegate control and a knowledgeable general manager who would hire the right manager and assemble a team with the talent, resourcefulness and resiliency to win.  And, this years Cubs’ team fit the bill.  Any sports fan knows that during any game bad things are likely to occur.  In baseball it could be a “cheap” hit by your opponent, you hitting an “at ’em” ball at a crucial time,  or an umpire missing a key call.  A bad team lets that destroy them; a good team will overcome.

Steve Bartman interferes with a foul pop-up?  So what, you’re still up 3-0 in the 8th inning.  Your still up in the series three games to two.  Don’t blame the fan.  Hitch up your big-boy pants and get the guy out on the next pitch?  Or, get the next batter, or the next, or the next.  Rally the next inning, or win the next day.  What did the Cubs do?  They gave up eight runs in the inning, lost the game, and then lost the next day as well.

A black cat passes by your dugout?  Is that why you blew a 9 1/2 game lead to the upstart Mets in 1969?  Really?  A tavern owner/fan who is kicked out of a World Series game because of his pet billy goat puts a curse on the team that lasts for over 70 years.  Really?  (By the way, who brings a pet goat to a baseball game anyway?)   Those Cubs teams were simply not good enough.  They lacked the talent, resourcefulness and resiliency that I’m talking about.

This Cubs team was assembled patiently through good drafting and smart trades.  Furthermore, since most of the key players are still in their prime the team should contend for many years to come.

CONCLUSION

Congratulations to the Cubs.  They had the best team over the whole season and deserved to win.  They came back from being down three games to one against a gritty Indians team and survived a classic game 7, which had innumerable twists and turns – key hits, physical and mental errors, questionable managerial strategy, and even a bad call by an umpire at a pivotal moment.  Both teams had their chances to win.

In my opinion it is on the short list of the best World Series game ever.  I put it up there along with game 7, 1960 (Pirates beating Yankees 10-9 on Bill Mazeroski’s walk-off homer) and game 7 of the 1991 Series in which the Twins beat the Braves 1-0 in 10 innings.  You may have your own favorites.  Let me know.

Now, in one “fell swoop” the Cubs have gone from lovable, sympathetic underdogs to favorites.  It will be interesting to see how they and their fans handle it.

At last, the end is near.  At this point, I am sure that, like me, you are fed up with the 2016 presidential campaign.  After more than two years of lies, deceit, insults, exaggerations  and half-truths, we all just want it to end.  Well, next Tuesday, for better or for worse, we will all get our wish.  Polls have demonstrated repeatedly that Trump and Clinton are the most disliked candidates ever.  Both have demonstrated traits that make many of us extremely uneasy.  That said, one of them will become our next president.

In the meantime, below please find some little-known presidential election facts, which , hopefully, you will find interesting and informative.  First, two quiz questions.  They are not particularly difficult.  In fact, those of you who have been reading my blogs regularly will likely know the answers.

1.  Who was the only person to run for president without being a member of a political party?
2. Who was the only person to serve as both president and vice-president without having been elected to either office?

The answers appear at the end.

Now, some little-known facts:

1.  We all know that Election Day is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  But, why?  In a nutshell, the reasons are weather, harvest, worship and travel.  In the 1700s the country was mostly agrarian.  The harvest was crucial.  Early November was viewed as a good time of the year, because the harvest was in and the weather was not yet too cold and inclement to travel.  Moreover, most people attended church on Sundays and had to travel some distance to reach their polling place, usually the county seat or a large, centrally-located city, and they did so by horse and buggy.  Monday was needed as a travel day.
2. Voters do not elect the president directly.  They vote for electors.  These electors are “pledged” to a certain candidate, and in January, they formally vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.  Technically, these electors may vote for whomever they want, although these so-called “faithless electors” are very rare.
3. Originally, the Constitution stated that the second place finisher would become the vice-president.  Therefore, the president and vice-president could be from different political parties.  This provision was changed by a constitutional amendment after the 1800 presidential election ended in an electoral college tie between Jefferson and Burr.  (The House decided the winner.)  Burr always thought that Alexander Hamilton unduly influenced the vote in the House.  Many historians feel that this was one of the major causes of the bad blood between the two, which eventually culminated in their famous duel.
4. On four occasions the winner did not receive the most popular votes (John Quincy Adams – 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes – (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and Bush 43 – 2000).
5. With respect to prior experience, 16 presidents served in the Senate, although only three, Harding (1920), Kennedy (1960) and Obama (2008) went directly from the Senate to the White House.
6. Many presidents served in the House of Representatives, but only James Garfield (1880) went directly from there to the White House.  Incidentally, it was not a lucky move for him as he was assassinated just a few months into his term.
7.  Many view the office of vice-president as the primary stepping stone to the presidency, but only 14 of them have become president.  Nine of those did so due to the death or resignation of the president; only five (John Adams – 1796, Thomas Jefferson – 1800, Martin Van Buren – 1836, Richard Nixon -1968, and George H. W. Bush – 1988) won election in their own right.
8. 26 presidents were attorneys; 22 had military experience, including nine generals.
9. What do ex-presidents do, besides write books and give speeches?  Howard Taft served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; John Quincy Adams served in the House; and Andrew Johnson served in the Senate.
10. The states with the most presidents are NY, Ohio and Virginia with six each.
11. Five presidents were related to former presidents.  John Quincy Adams was John Adams’ son; Benjamin Harrison was William Henry Harrison’s grandson; FDR was Teddy Roosevelt’s fifth cousin; Bush 43 was Bush 41’s son; and Bush 43 was the fourth cousin five times removed of Franklyn Pierce.

CONCLUSION

In my opinion, this will be a watershed election.  Due to the possibility of five Supreme Court vacancies over the next few years, it will determine how America will be governed for a generation.  Putting personal issues aside, the two candidates have vastly different visions of America.

In addition, a substantial amount of animosity and division has developed among the people, more so than I can ever recall in my lifetime.  Therefore, regardless of who wins, approximately one-half of the populace will be extremely unhappy.  The winner will have to deal with this matter as well as various serious issues abroad, and, perhaps, a hostile and divided Congress.

Good luck!

Quiz answers:  (1)  George Washington and (2) Gerald Ford.

Most all of you have heard of the “Underground Railroad”(“UR”) and are generally cognizant of its purpose.  It has been portrayed, to some extent, in countless books, movies and tv productions, often inaccurately.   What, exactly, was it, how did it function, how successful was it, and was it really a railroad?  Some of the answers may surprise you.  Read on.

The UR was not a railroad, per se, and it did not operate under the ground, like a tunnel.  Rather, it consisted of a loosely organized network of secret routes and “safe houses” designed to guide runaway slaves from the southern slave states to “free” states in the North or to Canada.   The operation was highly localized.  All an agent, or “shepherd” would know was his small part.  Thus, he might be responsible for hiding a few runaways in a barn, a cave, or a cellar for a few days, then transporting them to the next stop.  After he handed them off, his role was finished, and the “cargo,” as it was called, became someone else’s responsibility.

Most of the travelling was done at night.  Individuals or small groups were preferable as they were easier to keep hidden and transport, although one notable conductor, Charles Turner Torrey was reputed to have guided groups of as many as 20 at a time.  Women, children and the elderly or infirmed were a liability as they often had trouble keeping up.  Also, women escapees were not common.  It was more difficult for women to escape, because they were rarely allowed to leave the plantation alone in the first place.  Furthermore, children tended to be noisy and/or difficult to manage.

Many of you are familiar with the name, Harriet Tubman, as she is slated to replace Andrew Jackson as the face on the $20 bill.   An escaped slave, she was one of the most daring and famous conductors, aka “abductors.”  She would often venture into slave country, even onto a plantation, to “abduct” female slaves and help them escape.  In UR parlance, an abductor was one who would approach slaves with the intent of convincing them to flee.   As a black female she would have been subject to severe penalties, up to and including enslavement or death, if she were caught.  Nevertheless, she was able to escort some 70 female slaves to safety via the UR.

A name you probably are not familiar with is William Still.  Many historians consider him to be the “Father of the UR.”  Still was an AA living in Philadelphia.  A strong abolitionist, he was Chairman of the Vigilance Committee of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society (quite a mouthful).  He would often operate as a middleman between escapees and their loved ones who had remained behind, for example, forwarding correspondence between the two groups.  In addition, he made it his business to gather and maintain written biographies of various escapees and memorialize accounts of their experiences on the UR and afterwards.  In 1872 he published a book entitled The Underground Railroad: Authentic Narratives and First-Hand Accounts, which is generally considered to be the most comprehensive written record we have of the UR and those who utilized it.

The term, underground was derived from the fact that it was hidden from sight.  (Think of the “underground” resistance that operated in European countries controlled by the Nazis during WWII.)  The term, “railroad” emanated from the use of railroad terminology.  For example, meeting points were “stations,” and guides were “conductors.”  Conductors could be clergy, transplanted northerners, free blacks or anyone else who was sympathetic.

Other terms:

1. Shepherds – those who helped runaways utilize the railroad.
2. Station masters – those who hid runaways in their homes or barns.
3. Passengers/cargo- escaped slaves being transported
4. Stockholders – financial benefactors

Methods and locations were constantly being changed in an effort to stay one step of the slave catchers, who were very aggressive,  resourceful and ruthless.  Furthermore, under the law they were entitled to the assistance of local law enforcement, even in the “free” states.

Although a primitive version of the UR operated as far back as the late 17th century, with Spanish-owned Florida as the destination, the peak period was between 1850 and 1860.  Although precise numbers are unknown, primarily because recordkeeping was very haphazard and few written records were maintained, it is estimated that as many as 1,000 slaves per year were able to escape via the UR during this period alone.  As I mentioned above, the ultimate destination was Canada, but many escapees settled in northern states.

Although those numbers seem high they amounted to a drop in the bucket compared to the total slave population in the South, and the economic impact was insignificant.  So then, why did the slave owners try so hard to recapture them?  Why post rewards in the newspapers?  Why retain slavecatchers or bounty hunters?    The owners considered slaves to be their property.  It was a blow to their pride and authority, and they wanted to make an example of escapees in order to dissuade others from trying.   Those who were caught were beaten and/or hung publicly, with their bodies remaining on display for all to see.

As a result of their strong influence in Congress, the law, such as it was, favored the slave owners.  Pursuant to the Compromise of 1850 officials in free states were required to assist slave catchers recapture runaways, even in states where slavery was outlawed.  Sometimes, slave catchers even pursued runaways into Canada.  The law required law enforcement personnel to detain runaways and hand them over, often with little or no documentation that they were actually runaways.  Forget due process.  Accused blacks had no legal rights or means to defend themselves in court.  Often, judges would be bribed to find in favor of the slave catcher.  Certificates of Freedom or other documents were often ignored, stolen or destroyed.  Thus, as unconscionable as it may seem, from time to time free blacks were “captured” and subsequently sold into slavery.   By today’s standards, the whole process seems brutal, but attitudes were different then.

CONCLUSION

Many  escapees found it difficult to adjust to life as a free man.  For them, their life as a free man in the North or in Canada, was not the panacea they had expected.  Despite the official opposition to slavery, many northern states did not exactly roll out the red carpet.  Although discrimination was more subtle, it was still present. Moreover, some states, such as Indiana, passed a law actually barring free blacks from settling in the state to begin with.

As many as 100,000 escaped slaves settled in Canada, primarily Ontario and Nova Scotia.  Again, many of them found that even though slavery had been outlawed, discrimination was still alive and well.  Working class people viewed them as unwanted competition for jobs.  Moreover, in some areas, blacks were restricted from entering certain trades or occupations.

With the advent of the Civil War many of these runaways enlisted in the Union Army to fight.  Following the war, they stayed in the US.  Some even returned to the South to familiar territory and loved ones that they had left behind.  As those who have studied history know, despite their freedom life remained very difficult for blacks regardless of where they ultimately settled.

If you have an interest in the UR I recommend a book entitled The Underground Railroad by Coleson Whitehead.  It is an interesting and informative account of the UR as experienced by fictional slaves circa 1860.

Donald Trump beat 12 other GOP candidates to win the GOP nomination for president, despite strong opposition from virtually all of the power brokers in the party, by successfully tapping into the anger and frustration of much, if not most, of the voting public.  His candidacy has been buttressed by the fact that all polls report that approximately 75% of Americans feel that the country is “going in the wrong direction.”  These same polls have disclosed the public’s deep distrust of politicians, Congress and the government.  Trump is none of those.  Clinton, on the other hand, is a politician, has served in Congress, and has been in government for the better part of 30 years.  Furthermore, she is strongly disliked and deeply mistrusted by a majority of the voters.

So, what’s the problem?  Why is Trump several points behind instead of being far ahead?  The answer is simple and easy to discern, but, at the same time, very difficult, if not impossible, to fix (especially at this late date).  Trump’s biggest nemesis, whom he cannot seem to beat is ….Donald J. Trump, or, more specifically, Trump’s mouth.

He is his own worst enemy.  He, also, is disliked and mistrusted by a majority of voters.  More importantly, whenever a new scandal has come to light, such as the IRS’ bias against conservatives, Clinton’s emails, or the Clinton Foundation’s irregularities, any or all of which should have provided a substantial boost to his campaign, he has managed to say or do something ill-advised to counteract it.  The most obvious examples, among many others, would be his curious and ill-advised decision not to release his tax information, the Access Hollywood tape, the accusations of sexual harassment and his refusal to pledge not to challenge the election result on the basis of it being “rigged.”

In my opinion, this last one was particularly damaging.  The last debate was Trump’s last chance to turn the election around. Most people believe Trump had outperformed Clinton up to that point.  Unfortunately (for Trump), all people will remember is that comment.

For a bright, successful man, he can be very stupid.  He knows that the Clinton campaign and 90% of the media despise him.  He knows that anything he says or does can and will be twisted or exaggerated for political purposes.  So, rather than being circumspect, he runs his mouth.  I know he’s not a politician, but come on!

Regarding his taxes, in a previous blog I strongly urged him to release them.  I am sure that he has had the best tax advice available, and it is extremely doubtful that he broke the law.  As far as paying no taxes, so what?  All he has to do is denote that he followed the law, and, anyway, who would voluntarily pay more taxes than required?   It’s a non-issue, easily foiled.

In addition, the “rigged election” issue is a loser, even though history demonstrates more than a few elections with “irregularities.”  If you doubt me, research the NY governor’s race in 1793, the Chicago and Texas voting in the 1960 presidential election, and Florida voting in the 2000 presidential election (the infamous “hanging chad” election), among others.  As the late Casey Stengel was fond of saying:  “You could look it up.”

Trump’s “rigged” comment probably refers to what his supporters believe is the Dems’ and media’s white-washing of Clinton’s irregularities, if not illegalities, but such vague accusations do not advance his cause.  He should have simply said he would accept the decision of the American people, and that’s it.  He could still it challenge later.  That’s what both Gore and Bush did in 2000.  (Nixon, despite his unsavory reputation in other matters, was a stand-up guy in the aftermath of the 1960 election in that he declined to challenge either the Chicago or Texas voting.)

CONCLUSION

It appears likely that, despite being on the “right side” of most of the issues in the eyes of most voters, Trump will lose, and, perhaps, by a sizeable margin electorally.  When all is said and done, he will have no one to blame but himself.