Category: Uncategorized

Donald Trump ran an absolutely brilliant primary campaign.  When he first declared his candidacy for president in June, 2015, most people had strong doubts that he was serious.  The so-called conventional wisdom, of professional politicians, the media and the public was that it was merely a publicity stunt, a passing fancy, a means to feed his insatiable ego. He would soon tire of campaigning and move on to something else.  After all, they said, he was an entrepreneur, a deal-maker, not a professional politician.

Well, Trump fooled us all.  He began as one of 13 GOP candidates and just blew the field away.   Republican voters were drawn to his outspoken, blunt style.  In addition, he struck a nerve by seizing onto the key issues that people most cared about, border security, terrorism and the economy.   In addition, he portrayed himself as a Washington outsider, beholden to no one.  His pointed, sometimes personal, criticisms of the administration and his GOP rivals were very effective.  His support grew steadily, regardless of his sometimes outlandish comments and actions both in the debates and on the campaign trail.  It also helped greatly that one by one each of the other candidates displayed fatal flaws and weaknesses that turned off the voters.   Despite growing opposition among the professional politicians to stop him at all costs he won the nomination handily.

Then, the general election campaign began, and Trump stumbled.  He failed to adjust his tactics.  What had worked in the primaries did not in the general election campaign.   Despite the fact that according to the polls over 75% of the voters believe the country is going in the wrong direction, and he is running against an extremely unpopular candidate, he is behind in the polls and running out of time.

In my opinion, his candidacy has been gravely wounded primarily by:

1.  His mouth.  When attacked, he cannot resist firing back.  From the beginning, the Dems have unleashed vicious personal attacks against him, focusing on his supposed “unsuitability” to be president.  Many, if not most of them, have been exaggerated, if not false.  Such is the nature of political campaigns.  The Dems know they cannot win on the real issues (see above), so they continue to attack him personally hoping for a negative reaction.   Rather than focusing on the issues Trump has fallen into the trap of wasting time and energy defending himself.
2. Failure to disclose his taxes.  In my opinion, he should have “bit the bullet” and released them.  I said so in a recent blog.  Given his team of tax advisors it is inconceivable to me that they contain any “smoking guns.”  So, he used the tax code to minimize his tax liability.  So what?  Doesn’t everybody?  What moron willingly pays more than he has to?  This is a bogus issue, especially when compared to the real issues.
3. The Access Hollywood tape and allegations of sexual abuse by various females.  There is no excuse for the language on the tape, no acceptable defense.  That said, Trump, having apologized, should have just moved on.  Stop talking about it.  Stop talking about Bill Clinton’s transgressions.  Everybody knows what he did.  At this point, few people care.  Regarding the allegations, they are just that.  No one ever filed a complaint.  No legal action was taken.  Who knows what is true, and what is false.  Also, some of them were 20 years ago.  What’s next, a story that he bullied a little girl when he was six?

CONCLUSION

The demographics of the country are such that any GOP presidential candidate would face an uphill battle.  The problem is not so much the popular vote, but the electoral votes.   Most polls agree that in order to win the required 270 electoral votes Trump probably would have to win virtually all of the so-called “battleground” states, most notably Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and some of the western states like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.  According to most polls he is either behind or even in all of them.

I believe that his last chance to win will likely be in the last debate tomorrow.  It will be his last chance to speak before a national audience.  He must “win” it convincingly, but moreover, he must somehow take advantage of it to reduce his 20 point deficit among women voters.   Otherwise, Clinton will win and, perhaps, in a landslide.  If so, look out.

If you thought that last night’s full moon appeared to be larger than usual, you’re right.  It so happens that all full moons are not created equal.  October’s full moon, aka “Hunter’s Moon,” is the largest full moon of the year.  There are very technical scientific reasons for this, but the short answer is that the moon is now at the perigee of its orbit around earth, i.e. position closest to earth.  Therefore, this month’s full moon, the Hunter’s Moon, is also known as a “supermoon.”

Full moons occur when the earth is located completely between the sun and the moon, and, thus, the moon is fully illuminated by the sun.  In popular lore, full moons are often associated with maladies such as insomnia, insanity and other odd behavior (hence, the terms “lunatic” and “lunacy”).  However, most psychologists debunk any correlation, although, as most of us know, full moons do affect the tides.

Full moons have actual names, which date back thousands of years.  Most every culture had its own set of names, but the ones in most common usage in the US are those of the Algonquin Indians, which inhabited much of present-day New England.  Native Americans used full moons to keep track of the seasons, and the names reflect the characteristics of the particular month in which they fall.  For those of you interested in such trivia, the names are as follows:

January – Wolf Moon, February – Snow Moon, March – Worm Moon, April – Pink Moon, May – Flower Moon, June – Strawberry Moon, July – Buck Moon, August – Sturgeon Moon, September – Harvest Moon, October – Hunter’s Moon, November – Beaver Moon, December – Cold Moon.

In addition, most of you have heard the name “blue moon,” as in the expression “once in a blue moon.”  Basically, a blue moon is an extra full moon.  Most seasons have three full moons, one per calendar month.  But, since a lunar cycle is only 29 days, on rare occasions a month will have two full moons.  This supernumerary full moon is known as a blue moon.  The name dates back to the 16th century, although in the US the term became popularized following its publication in the Farmers’ Almanac in the early 19th century.

There is some evidence that the period around a hunter’s moon is beneficial to hunting, particularly, deer hunting.   For example, the foliage and fields have been thinned out due to the harvest and paucity of leaves on the trees, thus enhancing animals’ visibility to hunters.  Secondly, the brightness of the hunter’s moon makes it easier to see prey.  Thirdly, the does tend to be in “heat” during full moons.  Therefore, bucks and does are more apt to congregate and be easier to find.  Finally, the bucks employ rubbing and scraping noises to attract does, which may tip off the hunters as to their location.  Realizing this, many hunters swear by hunting according to the moon’s cycle.

CONCLUSION

For all of you “skygazers” the “supermoon” will be visible for the next few nights, but it will peak tonight.  The moon will appear to be approximately 16% larger than the average full moon and 30% larger than the smallest.   Because of the proximity of the moon to earth (“just” 222,365 miles) it will be the largest full moon visible so far this century.

Memo to Donald Trump:  Hey shmendrik, the tax [non]issue is killing you.  I don’t care what your high-priced attorneys are advising you.  Release the d..n tax returns, already!  They can’t possibly be as bad as the public is speculating them to be.  It is very likely that the tax returns of someone as high profile as yourself with access to the best CPAs and tax lawyers does not have any irregularities.

Anyone who is not braindead knows that one is entitled to take every tax deduction the law allows so as to minimize his taxes.  Moreover, a public corporation is obligated to do so for the benefit of its shareholders.  No one pays more than they have to voluntarily.  Clinton knows this.  The Dems know this. The media knows this.  Most of the public knows this.  However, the Dems and their media surrogates will keep hammering you on this matter because they have no valid issues to exploit.  They are forced to dig up lies, half-truths, and exaggerations, and this is the latest example.  If some woman were to claim that you pulled her pigtails on the playground when you were six, they  would label you a bully and a misogynist.   Extricate yourself from this “rabbit hole,” and pivot to the real issues that voters care about.

In summary, if you want to be president release the returns in a spirit of full disclosure, and then insist that Clinton release her health records and foundation information, and that she and her aides testify truthfully and fully with respect to the missing emails and Benghazi.  Furthermore, do it before the next debate.  Time to play offense.

CONCLUSION

As I said, Clinton and the Dems are on very weak ground.  The latest Gallup poll has disclosed that 74% of voters think the country is heading in the wrong direction.   Who has been President of the country for the last eight years?  Obama.  Who was Secretary of State?  Clinton.  Who has stated she intends to continue Obama’s progressive agenda?  Clinton.

The same poll identified the three most disliked and mistrusted groups as politicians, congress and the government.  Clinton is a politician; she has been a member of congress; and she has been in government service since  the 1990s.  You are none of those.

Focus on the issues that people care about:  the economy, terrorism/border security, and immigration.  If someone asks you about anything else, pivot right to those issues.  Be a politician like your opponent.  Respond to a question without answering it.

I began writing this blog in 2012.  My wife convinced me to do it, because I was constantly griping about the economic and political state of the country and the way it was being governed.  She said something like:  “You like to write.  If you feel so strongly about current events, why don’t you start a blog?  Also, it will keep your mind sharp.”  Well, like most of us, I almost always listen to my wife, so I did it.

You may recall that at the time, much of the electorate shared my dissatisfaction, and the 2012 presidential election was very contentious (although not as much as this one).  My original intention was to use the blog as a means of venting my frustrations.  I planned to focus on politics, but, along the way, I branched out into quizzes, history, humor, and eulogies of famous people.  Some of my favorite blogs have been eulogies about Ed Koch, Yogi Berra, Margaret Thatcher, and Muhammed Ali.

Many of you have commented on the blogs, which I appreciated even though we may have had a difference of opinion.  Some of the common comments have been 1) political disagreements, 2) the quizzes are too hard; and 3) on the plus side, that you have learned “stuff.”  I appreciate all your comments, whether positive or negative.

CONCLUSION

When I stared, I didn’t expect to attract many viewers, but this week I passed 10,000 views.  In addition, viewers located in 85 countries have read the blogs, and they are being published in The Times of Israel.

I am very grateful for your support.  I know some of you read the blogs because you agree with most of what I say, but others read them because they disagree and want to see what inane comments I may have made.  No matter.  As the late Dick Young (popular, but controversial sports columnist) once said, and I paraphrase to clean it up:  My goal is to entertain, and it doesn’t matter to me whether you agree or disagree with me as long as you read it.

Hopefully there will be many more blogs coming, and you will enjoy them.

The current presidential campaign has been characterized by more intensive vitriol, half-truths and misdirection than any other in my lifetime.  Both candidates have very high “unfavorables,” the highest ever polled.  Clinton supporters view Trump as misogynistic,  racist, boorish and ignorant of the issues.  Trump supporters view Clinton as dishonest, a political clone of Obama’s, question her judgement and feel she is hiding serious health issues.  Also, they question the objectivity of most of the media.  Every little thing the two candidates say and do is twisted by the opposition to support the above preconceptions.  Many voters view this election as a “Hobson’s choice.”  Some are so dissatisfied that they have insisted they will “sit out” the election rather than vote for one or the other candidate.

In the 1980 presidential campaign Ronald Reagan famously asked the voters “are you better off today than you were four years ago?”  Some people sniggered, but it was a brilliant question.  It forced people to look past the campaign rhetoric into their own lives objectively.  For those of us who remember the disastrous 1970s under Jimmy Carter – double digit interest rates, runaway inflation, gas lines and Iran holding Americans hostage – the answer was obvious, and it virtually sealed the election for Reagan.

Well, this year I would like to ask you a similar question.  How’re you doin?  Are you satisfied with your job?  Do you even have a job?  Were you “encouraged” by your last employer to “retire” early?   If so, were you able to find meaningful, satisfying, challenging work, or any work at all?  How’s the quality of your healthcare since the advent of “Obamacare?”  Is it overly expensive; are the coverages adequate?  Can you afford to fill your prescriptions at the local pharmacy?  If you’re a recent college graduate have you been able to find a job in your field, or are you waiting on tables or working in a deli “temporarily” to make ends meet?  Hourly workers, have your hours been reduced.  How do your “real wages” stack up?  Have you received an increase recently?  Office workers, has your workload increased substantially, because your employer is loath to hire additional employees?  Are you a recent medical school graduate in your 30s who invested ten additional years of your life and racked up a mid-six figure student loan debt only to end up working for a relatively modest salary in an Urgent Care Clinic instead of in a lucrative private practice?  If you’re a recent law school graduate, have you actually found meaningful work as a lawyer?

If your answer to these questions is “no,” you are not alone.  Most likely, if I didn’t describe your situation, I did describe that of someone you know.  The latest Gallup poll reveals that 74% of Americans are dissatisfied with the “direction” in which the country is going.  That may be a vague, general characterization, but, to me, it denotes that people are frustrated, “pissed off,” and starving for a leader who will “fix” things.   They may not be able to identify specifically what should be done, but they know something should be done that is different from what has been done for the last eight years.

According to that same poll, the three biggest objects of their dissatisfaction are Congress, politicians, and the government as a whole.  They don’t like them, and don’t trust them.  They realize that those entities, through their actions or inactions, have failed to provide the climate for hardworking people to succeed.  Well, guess what.  Trump is neither of those, and Clinton is all of them.

CONCLUSION

Americans say they want change:  Clinton represents more of the same, a virtual third term for Obama.  So, I challenge Clinton supporters to look past the campaign rhetoric and media prejudices that are meant to obscure and mischaracterize the really important issues.  I think (hope) most of you are too smart to be deceived.  Please explain something to me.  Logic indicates that if Clinton is elected she will continue the progressive policies that have put us in the situation we are currently in.  Most of you say you are not happy with the current situation and want changes made.  Trump represents change.  Most of you may have reservations about some of the changes he espouses.  But, we have been trying things a certain way for eight years, and it’s not working.  What would be the harm in trying things another way?

And, I say to Republicans/conservatives/moderates who are thinking of staying home or voting for Clinton, because they hate and/or mistrust Trump, consider this:  if a Trump presidency fails we can vote him out after four years.  If Clinton wins she will likely be able to appoint up to five liberal Supreme Court justices.  FIVE.  That will put a huge liberal majority on the Court for the next 30 years.  Consider that.  If you think America is going in the wrong direction now…..

Shimon Peres was a fixture in Israeli politics.  His career spanned some 70 years, during which period he held, at one time or another, virtually every political office.  He served as Israel’s Prime Minister on two occasions, interim PM on two other occasions, its president and also in a host of lesser political offices.   In his youth, he was a protégé of the legendary David Ben Gurion, and he played an active part in Israel’s fight for independence.  He was the last link to the founding fathers of the country, and his life closely paralleled that of Israel, itself.

Symon Perski was born on August 2, 1923 in Wiszniew, Poland.  His father was a wealthy timber merchant; his mother was a librarian.  One of his cousins was Betty Joan Persky, whom we know as Lauren Bacall.  As a young boy he longed to be a shepherd or a poet, and he often displayed some talent in the latter area, but events conspired to alter those plans.

In 1934 Peres and his immediate family emigrated to Palestine, joining his father who had emigrated in 1932.  It turned out to be a prescient move, since all of the family members who remained in Poland perished in the Holocaust.

In the 1940s as a member of the Haganah, led by Ben Gurion, he became heavily involved in Israel’s fight for independence.  For the next 70 years  he was heavily involved in Israeli politics and served the country in a plethora of ways.

Like most politicians, Peres was cognizant of the existential threat Iran represented to Israel.  Taking Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s threat to “wipe Israel off the map” seriously, he compared him to Adolph Hitler, who had made similar threats in the 1930s.  In 2006 he was quoted as saying that “the President of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map.”  Nevertheless, he preferred economic sanctions enforced by a coalition of nations, rather than military action.

Some of his major activities and accomplishments:

1. In 1947 Ben Gurion, in anticipation of the prospective war with their Arab neighbors, tasked him with the critical responsibility of weapons procurement.
2. In 1948 he was put in charge of the new nation’s navy.
3. In 1954, as Director-General of the Ministry of Defense, he coordinated with Great Britain and France in planning the 1956 abortive takeover of the Suez Canal.
4. He commenced his political career in 1959 when he was elected to the Knesset.  As mentioned above, over the next 50 years he was a fixture in the Israeli government and held, by either appointment or election, a wide variety of political offices.
5. Perhaps, the crowning achievement of his career came in 1993 when, after extensive secret negotiations with the PLO’s leader, Yassir Arafat, Israel and the PLO signed what became known as the Oslo Peace Accords.  A second treaty was signed in 1995.  In addition, Peres negotiated the Israel-Jordan Peace treaty in 1994.  These achievements earned Peres the Nobel Peace Prize.

CONCLUSION

Peres continued to write his songs and poetry, sometimes even composing them during cabinet meetings.  Perhaps, he viewed them as a diversion, as a way to relieve the various stresses he was under.

Peres’ political views and philosophy underwent a significant metamorphosis during his life.  As a young man, as illustrated by his activities in the Haganah,  he was a “hawk” and was strongly influenced by the likes of Ben Gurion and Dayan.  Furthermore, in the 1970s he was a strong advocate of establishing settlements on the West Bank, which was considered, by many, to be an overly aggressive provocation.

However, later in life he became more of a “dove.”  He became a strong advocate of negotiation and economic cooperation (as evidenced by the abovementioned treaties he negotiated).  Moreover, he spoke out in favor of “territorial compromise” vis a vis the West Bank and Gaza.

On September 13 Peres suffered what his doctors called “a massive stroke.”  He died on September 28.  He will be sorely missed.  May he rest in peace.

The Great Debate, the event that voters have anticipated for months and months, the event that was supposed to settle the outcome of this presidential election once and for all, has come and gone.  And, what did it really resolve?  In my opinion, not much.

Over the past two days,  I have listened to over a dozen commentators, analysts and spin doctors, on various tv channels, expound ad nauseam.  One network even provided the opinions of a focus group consisting of undecided voters.  As we know, the 15% or so undecided voters will really determine the outcome of the election, and both sides have been courting them relentlessly.  (For the record, this focus group gave a slight edge to Clinton.)

After all this, my conclusion is that who “won” the debate is largely in the eye of the beholder.  For the most part, people begin with their own political preferences or prejudices and tend to view the debate through their own prism.  Thus, if one is a Clinton supporter, she cleaned his clock.  Trump was boorish, bullying, vague, prejudiced, had no knowledge of the issues, and demonstrated, once and for all, that he is unfit to be president.

If one is a Trump supporter, he “won.”  He, an amateur politician, went toe to toe with a seasoned politician for 90 minutes, debating the issues, and held his own.  The moderator’s choice of questions and topics favored Clinton.  Holt spent too much time on the “birther” issue, which Trump had already conceded, and Trump’s taxes, and there were no questions on Benghazi, border security, Syrian refugees, and Clinton’s, emails, her foundation or her health.  Clinton repeated the same old tired policies we have heard for years and years, policies that sound good but don’t work.  Trump demonstrated that he will be the agent of change, and the country does need things to change, big time.  Like I said, eye of the beholder.

In my opinion, there was no “aha” moment, no gaffe that people will remember, such as Nixon’s glowering image and “5 o’clock” shadow, Reagan’s “there you go again Mr. President,” Benson’s admonishing Quayle that he is “no Jack Kennedy,” or Dukakis’ whiffing on a rape question.  I don’t believe there was anything said or done that will have a significant or lasting impact, much less swing the election.  If you feel differently, I would like to hear it.  So, it’s on to the next debate.

CONCLUSION

Remember, this was not a real debate where points are awarded and scores are recorded.  Winners and losers are not determined by factual accuracy or debate points.  It’s not about who “won” or “lost” the debate.  After all, this is an election, not an intercollegiate debate competition.  It’s all about the polls.

Did either candidate do or say anything to move the polls significantly?  History has demonstrated that the “winner” does not always benefit in the polls.  There have been many instances where candidates have “lost” the debate, and risen in the subsequent polls, and vice versa.

The post-debate polls will be published in the next few days.  They will determine who really won or lost.  Don’t expect a major shift.

Before there was Tiger Woods, before there was Jack Nicklaus, there was Arnold Palmer.  From the mid 1950s through the 1960s AP was golf’s most popular star, and, arguably, one of the most popular athletes in any sport worldwide.  He is generally credited with transforming the sport of golf from a “boutique” sport enjoyed primarily by a small number of wealthy people at exclusive clubs to a mainstream sport enjoyed by middle and working class people.

Arnold Daniel Palmer was born in Latrobe, PA on September 10, 1929.  His father, Milfred (Deacon) Palmer, was employed as head pro and greenskeeper at Latrobe Country Club.  AP learned the game from him and honed his skills on that course.  He attended Wake Forest University but left after three years.  After a short stint as a paint salesman, he joined the Coast Guard.  However, he continued to work on his golf game.  In 1954 he won the US Amateur.  He turned pro the next year, and golf would never be the same.

In the 1950s televised sports was in its infancy.  Few events were televised and those that were, did not normally attract a wide audience.  Except, perhaps, for the US Open, few fans watched golf on tv at all.  AP came along at just the right time.  He was a natural for tv.  In addition to his outsized talent and his go-for-broke, come-from-behind playing style, he was handsome, rugged and telegenic.  Furthermore, in contrast to most golfers of the day, he came from a humble background, so the average, everyday fan could relate to him.  He quickly became golf’s first tv sports superstar.  In the 1960s AP, along with Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player became known as the sport’s “Big Three.”

On the course, fans would follow him from hole to hole, anticipating something exciting, imploring him to make one of his patented “charges.”  These fans became known as “Arnie’s Army.”  Many times he gave them what they wanted.   For example, in 1960 he came from seven strokes behind to win the US Open after driving the green on the opening hole, a 346 yard par 4.  He shot 65 and won by two strokes.  Moreover, even on those occasions when he did not win, he gave the crowd the excitement it craved.

Most golf historians credit him for making the PGA Tour what it is today in terms of popularity and money.  In AP’s day, the prizes were paltry by today’s standards.  In his entire Tour career, AP earned less than $2 million on the course, although he earned many times that off the course.  Today, even average Tour golfers routinely earn more in a month!   Additionally, when he turned 50 he joined the Seniors Tour.  At that time it was struggling, primarily for lack of name recognition and public interest.  His presence guaranteed its success.

In addition, he played a significant role in elevating the status of The (British) Open to “major” status.  In the early 1950s few American golfers deigned to play The Open.  The travel was arduous; the prizes were small; and the links style was unfamiliar and unappealing.  AP changed all of that.  In 1960, at the urging of his agent, he entered The Open in Scotland.  AP had already won the 1960 Masters and US Open.  His agent convinced him that if he could add the Open, matching the legendary Walter Hagan, Bobby Jones, Sam Snead and Ben Hogan, it would make him a worldwide sports star.  AP lost a thriller by one stroke, but he became a worldwide sports star nonetheless.  For all of the above reasons he earned the sobriquet “The King,” and deservedly so.

It is said that the most telling opinions are those of one’s peers.  The following are a few examples from fellow golfers, which will illustrate the esteem in which AP was held:

1. Lee Trevino  – “I used hear cheers go up from the crowd around Palmer, and I never knew whether he’d made a birdie or [merely] hitched up his pants.”
2. Sam Snead  – “Palmer went to bed at night with charisma, and the next morning he woke up with more.”
3. Tiger Woods – “If it [weren’t] for Arnold golf wouldn’t be as popular as it is now.  If it [weren’t] for him and his excitement, his flair, the way he played, golf would not have had that type of excitement.  And that’s why he’s ‘The King.’ “
4. Martin Kaymer – “He inspired millions of people.  That’s what we, as humans, should try to do.”
5. Phil Mickelson – (Upon AP’s death.)  “There’s a hole in the game that can’t be filled.”

CONCLUSION

AP won 62 PGA tournaments during his stellar career, including seven “majors.”  He retired from tournament golf at the conclusion of the 2006 season.  AP died on September 25, 2016 at the age of 87.

Some further points of information:

1.  AP enjoyed an extremely diverse and lucrative career off the course.  For example, he helped found the Golf Channel; he designed and built golf courses, including the first one in the People’s Republic of China; he owns the Bay Hill Club and Lodge, which is the venue for the PGA’s Arnold Palmer Invitational; and he was a long-time pitchman for various products on tv, most notably Pennzoil.
2. He played on six Ryder Cup teams, all of which the US won.
3. He overcame a fear of flying to become an avid pilot, holding a pilot’s license for some 50 years.
4. AP was a personal friend of former President Dwight Eisenhower, an avid golfer.  They played together on many occasions, and Eisenhower was often a guest in his house.  A painting autographed by the former president hangs in his house.
5. For many years he was an “honorary starter” for the Masters Tournament.
6. In 1974 he became one of the 13 original inductees into the World Golf Hall of Fame.
7. In 2000 Golf Digest ranked him as the sixth greatest golfer of all time.
8. In 2004 he became the first golfer to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  In addition, he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 2009.
9. He is one of the few celebrities to have had a drink named after him.  The “Arnold Palmer” is a non-alcoholic drink that is three parts iced tea and one part lemonade.  (According to popular lore, a woman overheard AP order the concoction at a bar and requested “that Palmer drink.”
10. AP’s grandson, Sam Saunders, is also a professional golfer.

In my opinion, AP had as much an impact on his sport as any other athlete, except, perhaps, for Babe Ruth and Muhammed Ali.

Rest in peace Arnie.  You will be missed.

I love people that can make us laugh.  Among other things, they have the ability to make us forget our problems for a while.  I figure we could all use a break from all the problems and bad news in the world today.  This is the first of a series I will write about famous  comedians.

One of my favorite types of comedy is slapstick.   Everybody has his or her favorite comedians.  One of my favorites is The Marx Brothers.  Of particular interest is the derivation and meaning of their nicknames.  Read on.

The MB comedy group consisted of five brothers.  We all know them as Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo and Zeppo.  Very few people know their real names – Leonard, Adolph, Julius Henry, Milton and Herbert Manfred, respectively.  Chico, Harpo and Groucho are generally considered to have been the core of the group.  Harpo and Chico retired in 1949; Groucho went on to a third career in television.  He is the best known of the brothers.

The MB were all born in NYC, sons of Jewish immigrants from Germany and France.  They came from an artistic family on their mother’s side.  Originally, their act was musical, not comedic.  Harpo became proficient at six musical instruments.  His best was the harp, from which he got his nickname.  Chico was an outstanding pianist; Groucho played the guitar and sang; and Zeppo was a vocalist.

Supposedly, their comedy act evolved due to happenstance.  One night in a small town in Texas their musical act was interrupted by a commotion outside the theatre.  Apparently, there was a runaway mule, and much of the audience rushed outside to see what the commotion was about.  (You can’t make this up!)  When order was restored , the audience returned and the act continued.  Groucho, annoyed at the interruption, made some funny and sarcastic comments about the audience.  Rather than being offended, they laughed, and the rest was history.  As the act evolved, Groucho added his trademark stooped walking and greasepaint mustache.  Harpo began tooting a taxi horn in lieu of speaking and donned a red wig.  Chico cultivated a fake Italian accent, while Zeppo, who the brothers considered to be the funniest, became the “straight man.”

The prime years for the MB were 1905 – 1949.  From the 1920s on, they were considered one of the country’s favorite comedy acts.  They starred first in Vaudeville and then in the movies.   They made over a dozen movies, although not all the brothers were in all the movies.  The American Film Institute has ranked two of them (Duck Soup and A Night at the Opera) in the top 12 comedy movies of all time.  In addition, the AFI included the MB on its list of the Top 25 American male screen legends of Classic Hollywood.

The origin of their nicknames is generally credited to a monologist named Art Fisher who supposed made up the names during a poker game with the brothers.  He just blurted them out one by one, and they “stuck.”  I already explained about Harpo.  Chico is short for “Chick-o,” as he was a ladies man, and “chicken” was a popular slang word for women.  Gummo is derived from the fact that he crept around the theatre like a  detective or “gumshoe.”  The derivation of Groucho’s name is less clear.  One version is simply that he was “grouchy.”  Another version is that he was named for a character of the same name in a comic strip.  Zeppo likely was named for a chimpanzee named Mr. Zippo.  Whatever, the nicknames stuck, and the brothers’ given names were no more.

CONCLUSION

The MB’s comedy has endured through the years.  Many television shows and movies have incorporated references to them. For example:

1.  Animaniacs and Tiny Toons have featured their jokes and skits.
2. Alan Alda’s character on M*A*S*H occasionally performed a Groucho imitation to cheer up patients.
3. In one episode of All in the Family Rob Reiner and Sally Struthers imitated Groucho and Harpo.
4. In Welcome Back Kotter the “sweat-hogs”  employed MB imitations.

Finally a few famous quotes from Groucho:

1.  “I don’t care to belong to any club that would have me as a member.”
2. “Last night, I shot an elephant in my pajamas.  How he got into my pajamas, I’ll never know.”
3. “I never forget a face, but, in your case, I’ll be glad to make an exception.”

Just when you thought that this cycle’s presidential election couldn’t get more bizarre, it has.  You could not make this up.  Even Oliver Stone, the conspiracy king, would not make this movie.   The latest episode with Hillary’s health has brought up the intriguing and unprecedented question of the procedure of replacing her on the ticket.  According to Dan Fowler, former head of the DNC under President Clinton, the committee should at least be considering a contingency plan, and, perhaps, it is.

Who has the authority to do it?  What are the procedures?  Who would be her replacement?  What would be the impact on the election?  All good questions.  I had the same ones, so I followed the advice of the late Casey Stengel.  I looked it up.  Read on for the answers.

The purpose of this blog is not to debate the worthiness or health of the candidate, except that I wish she and her inner circle were more forthcoming about what, if anything, is wrong with her.  My main focus is on the answers to the above questions, of which all voters should be cognizant.  So, here we go:

1. We would be in uncharted territory, as we have never had a presidential nominee die or withdraw before the election, nor a president-elect do so before taking the oath of office.  Therefore, most of us will learn as we go.
2. The first, and most important, fact is that Hillary would have to relinquish the nomination voluntarily.  According to Elaine Kamarck, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, no person or committee has the authority to wrest it from her.
3. Officially, Hillary would not be able to select her replacement.  According to Article 1, Section 3 of its bylaws, that authority and responsibility falls to the DNC.  The chairman would call a special meeting at which the majority present, in person or by proxy, would select the replacement.  Of course, the committee may choose to consult with Clinton, and probably, would do so.
4. The DNC consists of 350 members, all political “insiders.”  Roughly 200 are chosen by the individual state party apparatuses; the remainder consists of various party leaders.  Thus, ironically, the nomination would be determined in the proverbial “smoke filled room” by a group of political elites, just what we have been trying to get away from.
5. The nomination would not automatically fall to Bernie Sanders, as the second place vote-getter, nor to Tim Kaine, as the VP nominee, as some have speculated.   Theoretically, anyone could be selected, although the committee would likely choose someone whom they felt would have the best chance of defeating Trump.  In my opinion, that would be an experienced politician with a high profile who is well-liked, or at least not disliked.
6. The only two Dems I can think of who fit that criteria are Joe Biden or John Kerry, although there may be others.
7. If Kaine were to be selected, the committee would then choose another nominee to replace him as VP.
8. Bernie Sanders would likely stake his claim, and his supporters would be most vociferous in their support.  The committee would likely take this into account, and, in the interest of party unity, if it were to bypass Sanders, it would be well advised to ensure that its choice would at least be acceptable to his supporters and him.
9. Many of you may not realize that technically the voters do not choose the president and vice-president directly.  Rather, they vote for electors who are pledged to those candidates.  Furthermore, in some states those electors are not legally required to follow through and vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.
10. Confused yet?  There’s more.
11. If a vacancy were to occur after the election but before the Electoral College meets to vote officially (generally, in December) the party can still select a replacement.
12. If a nominee were to die or step down after the Electoral College has voted but before the new president has been sworn in the VP elect would become the president elect, but there is a further wrinkle.  If this were to occur before Congress has convened to “count” the electoral votes it could decide to invalidate some votes, or even refer the decision to the House of Representatives.
13. Thus, the will of the people could be circumvented.  Far fetched, but possible.

CONCLUSION

This situation raises the question in my mind of what the DNC knew relative to Hillary’s health, and when did they know it.  For instance, were they and key political insiders and supporters cognizant of it during the nomination process?   There is speculation to the affirmative.

That is a discussion for another day.  In my opinion, the sooner this situation is resolved the better.  The DNC should get to the bottom of Hillary’s physical condition asap.  Moreover, her health status should be reported, in full, to the American people asap.  If she has to be replaced, so be it, and the sooner the better.  We do not want to become embroiled in any of the above scenarios.  Even worse, the last thing we want or need is to elect a person who has serious health issues that will hamper her ability to fulfill the duties of the office.

This situation is bad not just for Clinton and the Dems; it is bad for the American people as a whole.  I think we all want a “clean” election that is decided by the will of the people “fair and square.”