Category: Uncategorized

Opening Day. Mention those words to any sports fan, and, immediately, he knows what it means and to which sport it pertains. Not football, not basketball, not hockey. OD means that another season of Major League Baseball is beginning. Baseball fans look forward to OD every year. Local newspapers step up their coverage of the local team in anticipation. Many of them even print a daily countdown of the number of days remaining until OD. In addition, OD occurs in the Spring, a season that symbolizes a new beginning and one which most people anticipate every year.

Most fans will acknowledge that baseball is no longer the most popular sport. In fact, according to TV ratings, betting interest and most fan polls, football has superseded baseball. However, baseball, which has been played in the US in some form since the 1840s, is part of the social fabric of America. Most men remember their first game of “catch” with their father or their first baseball game. In fact, I have a more detailed recall of a World Series game I saw with my father in 1956 than I do of ballgames I saw last year.

Every fan is optimistic on OD. Every team starts with the same 0-0 record. No one has lost a game yet. Every team still has a chance to make the playoffs, and as we have seen in recent years, once you make the playoffs anything can happen.  Many fans and even some reporters place undue emphasis on the opener forgetting or ignoring the fact that the season consists of 162 games. Over the course of a baseball season even the best teams will lose approximately 60-70 games. To many fans, a win OD means the season will be outstanding; a loss means the team “stinks.”

For many years, MLB had scheduled the very first game of the season in Cincinnati, usually on the first Monday in April. This was in recognition of the fact that the Reds were the first professional baseball team. The team was formed in 1869 as the Red Stockings. Incidentally, they went 65-0 that year, the only perfect season in baseball history.  However, several years ago MLB began scheduling Sunday night games to be televised on ESPN in prime time the night before the “official” OD.  This year there are three “pre-openers.”  The feature game will be the NY Mets at Kansas City,  a rematch of last year’s World Series.  Most teams will open on Monday, although two teams’ openers will be delayed until Tuesday.  Why three “ODs?”  Who knows, although a good guess would be tv.

Down through the years, OD has produced some memorable events, such as:

1. In 1907, the NY Giants, forerunner of the San Francisco Giants, forfeited the opener after rowdy fans began throwing snowballs at the players and umpires. There were not enough police on hand to restore order, so the umpires forfeited the game to the visiting Phillies.
2. In 1910 President Taft became the first President to throw out the “first ball.” In 1950 President Truman threw out the “first pitch” twice, as a righty and a lefty. In total, twelve Presidents have thrown out the “first pitch.”  Will we see President Obama do the “wave” this year?  I can hardly wait.
3. In 1940, Bob Feller of the Cleveland Indians, known as “Rapid Robert” because of his high velocity, threw the only OD day no-hitter in baseball history. As an aside, there were no radar guns in Feller’s day, so one day some officials attempted to “time” his fastball by having him throw a pitch against a speeding motor cycle.
4. In 1947 Jackie Robinson debuted for the Brooklyn Dodgers on OD becoming the first African American to play in the major leagues since the 19th Century.
5. In 1975 Frank Robinson became the first African American to manage in the Major Leagues.
6. In 1996, John McSherry, an umpire, suffered a fatal heart attack near home plate.
7. Early in the 20th Century teams would, on occasion, open with a doubleheader. Doubleheaders used to be quite common, particularly on Sundays and holidays. Now, they are rare, and when they do occur it is usually the result of adding an extra game to make up for a rain-out.
8. Tom Seaver started the most openers – 16. Walter Johnson pitched the most OD shutouts – nine.

CONCLUSION

Today’s dreary, rainy weather in NY on the eve of the baseball season is more suitable to football.  It reminds me of one of the major criticisms of baseball, that the season is too long.  Many  of the early season games will be played in cold, damp conditions and, perhaps, even snow.  We all know why that is the case – tv money.  The owners like it, because it makes them rich and less dependent on attendance for revenues.  The players tolerate it, because it fuels their astronomic salaries.  As for the fans, well, they will just have to grin and bear it.

Finally, I am reminded of that noted philosopher, Yogi Berra, who is reputed to have said: “A home opener is always exciting, no matter if it’s home or on the road.”

PLAY BALL!

In recent years, much has been made of the super affluent – the so-called “one percenters.”  Obviously, the derivation of this term is that these are households that earn more than 99% of the rest of American households.  Many people have been demonizing OPs.  Most of the characterizations of them have been negative, such as “greedy,” “self-absorbed,” “out-of-touch with reality,” and having “too much power and influence.”   These criticisms have been promulgated by the media (movies, journalists and tv commentators), social activists, such as the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, and politicians, such as Bernie Sanders and, to a lesser extent, Hillary Clinton with an agenda.  The one percenters are generally portrayed as rich, old white men who control the financial system, exert undue influence on the government through massive political contributions, and spend their days thinking up ways to bilk the rest of Americans.

Are these characterizations accurate, or are they misleading falsehoods perpetrated by others with an agenda?  My extensive research into the OPs disclosed the following:

1. There is no universal agreement as to the income level at which one becomes a OP.  I found publications that reported the minimum annual income level for entrée to that group as anywhere from $250,000 to over $600,000.  But, the latest figures from the IRS and the Congressional Budget Office from 2009 both put the threshold at about $340,000, so I will go with that amount.  This is household income, not individual income, and for you financial “mavins” out there we are talking about adjusted gross income, not necessarily total income.
2. This low threshold may surprise some people, particularly those who live in high tax, high expense areas such as NY or San Francisco, where those who earn that amount will tell you they don’t feel rich.
3. The latest data discloses that African Americans, which comprise about 14% of the country’s population account for less than 2% of the OPs.
4. According to the IRS, in 2009 the OPs reported 17% of the total household income and paid 37% of households’ taxes.  I suspect both percentages are higher now.
5. The wealth disparity between the OPs and the other 99% appears to be growing.  In 2009 a study by the Economic Policy Institute disclosed that the average OP’s wealth was 225 times greater, which was the largest gap it had ever recorded.  This is disturbing to a lot of people, and rightly so, but I don’t believe the solution is to confiscate wealth from the rich as some have been advocating.
6. Studies show the vast majority of people in the lower echelon of the OP category do not feel they are in that august group.  As I said, they would describe themselves as “comfortable,” not rich.  According to a recent Mendelsohn Affluent Barometer survey most of them rank themselves much lower, perhaps, in the top 20%.  One possible reason for this is the financial and social circles in which they travel.  Undoubtedly, they know many people who earn the same or more than them,  so they don’t feel as rich as they really are.  It would be more accurate to say that these people identify with the 99%.  They don’t realize that the various criticisms of the superrich are being levelled at them.
7. According to the CBO, one percenters earn approximately 50% of their income from salaries, 25% from self employment and business income and the remainder from “passive” sources, such as interest, dividends and capital gains.
8. While it’s accurate that financial occupations, such as investment banking and hedge-fund management, are the fastest growing occupations of OPs, the latest data puts them second at 14%, just behind physicians at 16%.
9. Most people would be surprised to learn that membership in the club is not 100% static from year to year.  According to the “Economist,” in a typical year 25% of the OPs will drop out.
10. Yes, in order to be rich, it helps to be born rich.  Rich parents tend to provide a stable home environment, stress education and hard work and provide valuable connections.

CONCLUSION

What I learned from researching this blog, or more accurately, relearned, is not to believe everything you read and hear.  OPs are not some homogeneous group of rich, white men who were born with the proverbial “silver spoon” in their mouth, nor are they static from year to year.  They are not all greedy, self-absorbed, out of touch and power hungry.  Yes, some of them exhibit some or all of those traits.  But, many are self-made individuals, men and women both, who started at the bottom rung and worked their way to their present station.  These would include three of the men running for president in this election cycle – Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Marco Rubio – as well as countless entertainers, athletes and others too numerous to name whose life stories have been well documented.

One final point.  Recently, there has been much criticism of the growing income gap.  I agree that the growing gap is a problem.  Some have advocated solving that problem by confiscating assets from the rich, legislating equality as it were.  At the risk of being obvious, I would like to denote that America has been built on capitalism, free enterprise, ingenuity, self-reliance, and hard work.  In fact, the title of my blog is based on these concepts.  Smart, well-educated, hard-working people always have and always will outdo lazy, poorly educated people.

The constitution guarantees us equal OPPORTUNITY to succeed; it does not guarantee that all of us will succeed equally.  That, my friends, is up to each individual.  The idea is not for the less fortunate to confiscate from the rich to drag them down to some median level.  That would be Socialism, which, it has been demonstrated time and again, does not work.  Rather, it is for the poor to strive to become rich themselves.

Many professional Republicans disagree strongly with Donald Trump’s comments, political views, and lack of their perception of political correctness.  They are prepared to say and do anything to thwart his nomination.  They are afraid he would lead their party to a devastating defeat in the general election.  They are desperate to find a more “suitable” candidate.  Some party insiders have been floating the idea of a third party candidate.  I get all that.

Nevertheless, history tells us that running a third party candidate would be extremely foolhardy.   Third party candidates have run for election many times.  Often, their primary purpose was to highlight a particular issue that they feel both major parties had ignored, such as states’ rights in the cases of John Breckenridge and George Wallace or consumer activism in the case of Ralph Nader.  Other times, it was to promote an extreme agenda, either far right or far left, that was outside the political mainstream.

None of them has ever come close to winning.  Even the popular and successful ex-President Teddy Roosevelt failed in 1912.   Dissatisfied with the performance of his hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft, he ran under the Progressive (nick-named “Bull Moose”) Party.  Although he was the most successful third-party candidate in history winning 88 electoral votes, all he really accomplished was to swing the election to Woodrow Wilson.  Incidentally, for you history trivia buffs, Taft is chiefly remembered for three things: (1) his considerable bulk, (2) initiating the “seventh inning stretch,” albeit by accident, and (3) being the only person in history to have served as both President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

There have been many third-party presidential candidates, too many to list here.  Some have even achieved modest success.  For example, as mentioned above, TR garnered 88 electoral votes in 1912.  Breckenridge won 72 in various southern states in 1856 on the eve of the Civil War.  Finally, Wallace won 46 in 1968.  He was the last one to win any.

Curiously, there have been three presidents who did not have any major party affiliation (great quiz question).  Think about it.  The answer will appear below.

Although there has been much bloviating about a third-party candidate this year, in reality, in my opinion, the chances are remote for the following reasons:

1. The winner-take-all electoral system strongly favors the major party candidates.
2. The procedural hurdles in some states to even get on the ballot result in many third-party candidates failing to become eligible in all 50 states.
3. Who would the GOP run?  The voters have already rejected resoundingly obvious candidates such as Bush, Rubio, Christy, etal.   Cruz and Kasich, the only alternatives to Trump still alive for the nomination, will likely also fall short in the voters’ minds.  Romney is a proven loser.  Bloomberg does not want to run, and any other Republican would have to overcome a late start, lack of funds and minimal name recognition.
4. Trump supporters, who already harbor a deep distrust of politicians, would perceive the nomination to have been “stolen” from them and would be unlikely to support anyone else.
5. I believe that such a decision would fracture the GOP for the foreseeable future.

By the way, does anyone remember back last summer when the big issue was whether or not Trump would support the GOP nominee?  If memory serves, that very question was the first one asked at the first debate.  How ironic that the situation has completely reversed itself because of Trump’s unexpected success.

CONCLUSION

The answer to the quiz is George Washington, John Tyler, and Andrew Johnson.  Of the three, only GW was elected and served out his two terms as an independent.  He was such a hero and consensus choice he didn’t need a party, and in any case I don’t believe the infant nation had any, certainly not as we know it.  In the cases of Tyler and Johnson there were extenuating circumstances.  Neither was elected in his own right.  They were both VPs who ascended to the office upon the death of the President.  In addition, both had been booted out of their party, and, for the record, both proved to be among our worst presidents.

The bottom line is that in this quirky election year, the voters have spoken.  They have rejected the political establishment of both parties.  They feel angry, frustrated, and betrayed.  (Recall the famous line from the movie, “Network.”)  They don’t want a traditional politician.  They want a massive change, and that’s that.  How else would one explain the widespread appeal of Trump and Bernie Sanders’ surprising challenge to Hillary Clinton?  Trump has a hardcore support of 30-40 percent, not a majority, to be sure, but a solid plurality.  They will support him regardless of what he says or does.  Ironically, according to Gallup he also has the highest disapproval rating of any candidate ever surveyed.  The same polls have disclosed that Clinton also has a high negative rating, so we will likely have an election between two “high negatives,” as it were.

The GOP establishment  may not want Trump as its party’s nominee, but they are stuck with him.  If he closes the deal in Cleveland I would suggest that they hold their nose and support him, for better or for worse.

For many years, he was one of those familiar movie actors you would often recognize but not know his name.  Then, he hit it big with “Cool Hand Luke,” winning an Oscar as Best Supporting Actor for playing a tough chain-gang convict opposite Paul Newman in the title role.  Then, seemingly overnight, everyone knew who he was.

I’m talking about George Kennedy, who passed away recently at the age of 91.  Although most people only know Kennedy from his roles in “Cool Hand Luke, ” “Dallas,””Airport,” and “Naked Gun,” he appeared in over 200 films, tv shows, and stage productions in a career that spanned nearly 90 nearly years.  That’s right, I said 90.

George Harris Kennedy, Jr. was born on February 18, 1925 in New York.  He was born into a “showbiz” family.  His father was a musician and an orchestra leader; his mother was a ballet dancer.  His father died when George was only four years old, so he was raised by his mother.   He debuted on stage at the ripe old age of two in a play called “Bringing Up Father.”   At seven he performed as a NY DJ.  He spent 16 years in the military before a back injury forced him to retire.  So, back to the family biz.

At first, like most beginners, he then bounced around for many years, appearing in small supporting roles.  The movies and tv shows were well known (“Spartacus,” “Hush..Hush, Sweet Charlotte,” “The Phil Silvers Show,” ” Gunsmoke,” ” Bonanza,” to name a few), but Kennedy was not.  Chances are, you don’t remember him in most of those roles.  Then, as I said, he hit it big with “Luke.”  Other big roles followed – the “Airport” and Naked Gun” series, “The Dirty Dozen,” and “Dallas,” among others.  He wrote three novels, including his autobiography.  He has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

But, in my mind all of these accomplishments are secondary to his greatest role.  In addition to his two biological children, he and his last wife, the late Joan McCarthy, adopted four children.  One of them was actually the daughter of one of their other adopted children who was fighting drug addictions.  I guess that would make her his adopted granddaughter.

CONCLUSION

I maintain that when a loving family, even one that is not rich and famous, adopts a child, it is literally giving him or her the gift of life.  Normally, these children come from severely disadvantaged backgrounds – poverty, physical, sexual or drug abuse, etc.    We are all familiar with the stories.  Their life prospects are exceedingly dim.  Adoption is a life saver to them.  It is hard enough to raise one’s own children.  Anyone who voluntarily takes on the responsibility of four additional children truly has a big heart.  I was unaware of this aspect of Kennedy’s life, and I suspect many others of you were as well.

Rest in peace George.  You will be truly missed, not only by your many fans, but also by your extended family as well.

Jesse Owens was generally considered to be the best sprinter and long jumper and one of the most famous athletes of his time.  He won countless awards, trophies and championships.  In 1935, at the Big Ten collegiate track and field championships he set three world records and tied a fourth all within a span of 45 minutes, a remarkable achievement.  Furthermore, in 2000 a panel of experts at ESPN ranked him as the 6th best athlete of the 20th Century.

That said, his most remarkable performances came at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin.   Those games were very significant and controversial not only athletically, but also politically and socially.  As most of you know, 1936 was a time of considerable turmoil in the world.  America was still in the grips of the Great Depression; racism and anti-Semitism were alive and well; Nazism was on the rise in Germany; and war was in the air in Europe.  The Nazis were intent on using the Olympics to display Aryan supremacy to the world.  But, Jesse single-handedly dashed any pretense at Aryan athletic supremacy.  He won gold medals in the 100 and 200 meter dashes, the long jump and the 4X100 meter relay.  An interesting footnote: one of the sprinters he beat in the 200 was Mack Robinson, the older brother of Jackie Robinson.  Yes, THAT Jackie Robinson.

James Cleveland Owens was born on September 12, 1913 in Oakville, Alabama, the youngest of ten children.  He was nicknamed JC.  His parents were sharecroppers.   When he was nine his family moved to Cleveland, Ohio (part of the so-called Great Migration of southern blacks seeking a better life up North).   Supposedly, when his teacher asked him his name on the first day of school due to his heavy southern accent his “JC” sounded to her like “Jesse,” and the moniker “stuck.”  He was “Jesse” from then on.

He was a track star in high school and at Ohio State.  Known as the “Buckeye Bullet,” he  won eight individual NCAA championships in his two years there.  For some reason, he did not have a scholarship, so he worked his way through school.  He made the 1936 US Olympic team as a sprinter and long jumper.  Also, on the team were two Jewish sprinters, Marty Glickman and Sam Stoller.  More on them later.

The Games were marred by two controversies, which still resonate today.

1.  Hitler appeared to snub Jesse intentionally.  Briefly, it was his custom to congratulate each gold medal winner personally with a handshake.  It was reported at the time that Hitler deliberately left the stadium early to avoid congratulating Jesse.  Given Hitler’s well-known views towards blacks, this was very believable.  Albert Speer, a well-known Hitler intimate, had shamelessly denoted that Hitler had said of blacks: “[their] antecedents came from the jungle [and were] primitive.  Their physiques were [naturally] stronger than those of civilized whites and hence [they] should be excluded from the Games.”  On the other hand, it should be noted that at the time Jesse, himself, had said that as he passed by Hitler’s box , he “waived at me and I waived back.”   Owens always maintained that “Hitler didn’t snub me.  It was [FDR] who snubbed me.  The president didn’t even send me a telegram.”  Also, in 1936 the Baltimore Sun reported that Hitler sent Owens a commemorative inscribed photograph of himself.  Then, in 2009 Siegfried Mischner, a German journalist, claimed he had seen a photograph that Jesse carried around of Hitler shaking his hand.  In addition, in 2014 a highly decorated British fighter pilot named Eric Brown stated in a BBC documentary that he actually witnessed Hitler shaking Owens’ hand and congratulating him.  So, there are two sides to this story.  You can decide for yourself.

2. Perhaps, more significant was the treatment of the aforementioned Messrs. Glickman and Stoller.  Glickman was a football and track star from Syracuse University.  Stoller was a track star at Michigan.  They had earned the right to run in the 4X100 relay.  Yet, on the day of the race US track and field coaches informed them that they would be replaced by Owens and Ralph Metcalfe.  Supposedly, the coaches were concerned that the Germans would be adding two world class runners to their relay team that they had been hiding.  Nobody was fooled by this sham.  World class athletes had been competing against eachother for years.  They all knew eachother.  Glickman supposedly said “Coach, you can’t hide world class sprinters.”   When Owens told the coaches to “let Marty and Sam run.  They deserve it,” the coach retorted “you’ll do as your told.”   The American team won handily, so, Glickman and Stoller were deprived of running and winning a gold medal.  Obviously, the US Olympic officials, led by Avery Brundage, replaced them so as not to embarrass Hitler by having two Jews win a gold medal.  Years later, Glickman said he was able to find out that  Joseph Goebbels had told Brundage that Hitler “would be very displeased if Jews were to race in ‘his’ Olympic Games,” and Brundage took it upon himself to order the coaches to replace Glickman and Stoller.  This was an early example of Brundage’s callous attitude toward Jews (See the 1972 games in Munich.).

CONCLUSION

After the Olympics, Stoller continued to run track in college.  He dominated the 1937 season and was named an “All-American.”  After college, he became an entertainer.  He acted and sang in several movies with modest success.  He became known as “Singin Sammy Stoller.”  He died in 1985 at the age of 69.

Glickman graduated college in 1939.   After brief careers in both professional basketball and football, he went into sports broadcasting.  He enjoyed a long and distinguished career, becoming one of the most versatile and accomplished broadcasters ever.  He became the voices of the NY Knicks (His signature “call” when a Knicks player made a basket was goooood! like Nedicks!) and NY Football Giants.  At various times he also broadcast NY Rangers games, major league baseball, college wrestling, roller derby, track meets and, believe it or not, marbles. He did it all.  Furthermore, he was a mentor to many accomplished announcers, such as Marv Albert, Spencer Ross and Johnny Most (the longtime Boston Celtics announcer). He is a member of the announcers wing of the Basketball Hall of Fame.  Glickman died in 2001 at the age of 83.

In 1998 Glickman and Stoller got the last laugh on Brundage, etal.  The then-president of the US Olympic Committee, William Hybl, presented them with a commemorative plaque “in lieu of the gold medals.”

Unfortunately, Owens’ later life was not so glamorous or successful.  At first, he was able to capitalize on his fame with some commercial opportunities.  But, when he skipped a post-Olympic tour the US athletic poohbahs became irate and stripped him of his amateur status, effectively ending his track career.   Thereafter, he bounced around trying this and that.  Occasionally, he would race against horses, but nothing clicked and he went bankrupt.  Finally, the US appointed him as a goodwill ambassador, and his fortunes improved.  Sadly, he contracted cancer and died in 1979 at the age of 66.

Owens’ story, focusing on the 1936 Olympics, is being depicted in the movie,”Race,” now playing nationally.  I have seen the movie.  It is a fairly accurate portrayal.  I recommend it.

“He looks just like my Uncle Oscar!”  So said Margaret Herrick, the Executive Secretary of the Academy in 1931 when she first laid eyes on the statuette.  Fortuitously, columnist Sidney Skolsky was within earshot.  He memorialized the comment by including it in his byline, and the moniker “stuck.”  To be sure, that sourcing is not universally accepted.  For example, according to one of Bette Davis’ biographies, she named the statue after her first husband, band leader Harmon Oscar Nelson.  However, the Herrick story sounds like the most plausible, so I am going with it.  In any event, the Academy adopted the name officially in 1939.

The Academy Awards, aka the Oscars, is hosted annually by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.  The winners of AAs are selected by the Academy’s membership.  It is the oldest and most prestigious of the awards.  This year’s awards will be presented on Sunday, February 28 .  The host will be Chris Rock.

Some little-known facts about the awards:

1. The initial awards were presented in 1929 at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel before an audience of approximately 270 persons.  This year, by contrast, the awards will be televised and streamed live to approximately 40 million people around the globe.  Moreover, as has been customary, they will be preceded by a elaborate ceremony, which will feature celebrities parading before their fans, the media, and a television audience on the “Red Carpet.”
2. In 1929 the award winners, 15 in all, were disclosed to the media three months ahead of time.  For a few years, beginning in 1930, the winners were disclosed the night before.  Since 1941, however, the identitities of the winners have been sealed in envelopes and guarded like the proverbial “crown jewels” until they are disclosed at the ceremony.
3. Since 1950 the ownership of the statuettes has not been unencumbered.  Legally, neither the winners nor their heirs are free to sell them on the open market without first offering them back to the Academy for $1.  Their value on the open market would be substantial.  For example, a few years ago, a pre-1950 statuette sold via on-line auction for $861,542.
4. The voting membership of the academy is approximately 5,800, roughly 94% Caucasian, 77% male, and 54% over the  age of 60. More on that later.
5. In order to be eligible for the Best Picture Award, a film must be a minimum of 40 minutes long and must have opened in LA County by December 31 of the previous year.
6. Other than Best Picture, only the members of each branch vote for the nominees in that category.  For example, only directors nominate candidates for Best Director. The entire membership votes for the winners, as well as for Best Picture.
7. For many years, the awards were presented in late March or early April.  Beginning in 2004, however, they were moved up to late February or early March.  The major reason for this was to shorten the intense lobbying and advertising campaigns of the Oscar season, which had become excessive.  In addition, the late February-early March period is devoid of competing extravaganzas, such as the NCAA men’s basketball tournament in late March, which has grown very popular.  ABC, which televises the event, receives an additional benefit in that February is a “sweeps” month.

From time to time, some critics have accused the Academy of bias, for example:

1. Favoritism toward romantic dramas, historical epics, family melodramas, and historical biographies (Shakespeare in Love, Chariots of Fire, the Best Years of Our Lives, Annie Hall) at the expense of action films or sports films.  Often, these so-called “Oscar-bait” movies have won at the expense of more popular films such as Star Wars, Goodfellas, Hoosiers and Raging Bull.  I have long felt that there has, at times, been a disconnect between the Academy voters and the general audience.
2. Sentiment has, sometimes, led to awards for popular entertainers or those who have been denied in the past.  Also, some awards have been given more for a distinguished career than for the most recent individual performance.  One example would be John Wayne winning for his performance in “True Grit” in 1969.  Wayne had been one of the most popular performers for three decades, but he had never won an Oscar.
3. This year, the absence of nominations such as “Straight Outta Compton”for Best Picture and Will Smith for Best Actor in “Concussion” have resulted in accusations of racial bias.  Critics have denoted the composition of the voting membership, as noted above, as being problematic.  I’m not sure.  Through the years there have occasionally been curious snubs, such as Eddie Murphy being passed over (in favor of Alan Arkin) for his superb performance in “Dreamgirls.”  I did not see “Compton,”so I can’t comment on that.  Smith’s performance was worthy of a nomination (although, which nominee would he replace?).  However, I don’t believe those omissions are cause for protests and boycotts.  I am definitely not in favor of a quota for nominations of minorities.  As long as the nominations and Oscar voting are subjective, there will always be some that are overlooked.  Our society is too PC as it is.  Part of life is dealing with disappointments.

I would like to denote few puzzling choices for Best Picture in past years, cases in which the winning picture was soon forgotten and an also-ran or two became a classic or at least substantially more popular or memorable.  For example:

a.  1977 – “Annie Hall” beat “Star Wars.”  Unless you’re a big Woody Allen fan chances are you don’t remember “Annie Hall;”  “Star Wars” was a mega-hit and spawned several sequels as well as ancillaries such as toys and games.

b.  1941 – “How Green Was My Valley” beat “Citizen Kane.”  “Valley” has been long forgotten, and “Kane” is on many people’s short list of the best movies ever.

c.   1990 – “Dances with Wolves” beat “Goodfellas.”   I saw “Dances.” It was a nice movie, but “Goodfellas” is a classic gangster film with an all-star cast (DeNiro, Pesce, Liotta) and is on tv frequently.

d.  1940 – “Rebecca” beat “The Grapes of Wrath,” a powerful drama about the Depression-era California migrant workers starring Henry Fonda, among others.

e.  1998- “Shakespeare in Love” beat “Saving Private Ryan.”  “Shakespeare” was soon forgotten and is now no more than the answer to a trivia question, whereas “Ryan” was a classic WWII movie with an all-star cast headed by Tom Hanks and Matt Damon).  Who can ever forget the classic D-Day landing scene?

f.  1946 – “The Best Years of Our Lives,” which few recall and is never on tv, beat “It’s a Wonderful Life,” which is a Christmas classic starring Jimmy Stewart and which is on tv annually.

I could go on.  In fact, I could write an entire blog on just this sub-topic, but you get the idea.

CONCLUSION

Finally, I know you are all anxiously awaiting my predictions, so here they are:

Best Picture – “The Revenant” with honorable mention to “Spotlight.”

Best Actor – Eddie Redmayne – “Danish Girl.”  A long shot, but I thought his performance slightly edged out those of Di Caprio and Cranston.  Di Caprio will likely win.  There is some sentiment for him as he has had many outstanding performances throughout his career.

Best Actress – Brie Larson – “Room,” although I will be rooting for Jennifer Lawrence (“Joy”).

Best Supporting Actor – Sylvester Stallone (“Creed”).  Not known for his acting ability, but was outstanding in this role.

Best Supporting Actress – Alicia Vikander – “Danish Girl,” although honorable mention to Jennifer Jason Leigh – “Hateful 8.”

Enjoy the awards show as well as the “Red Carpet,” although I strongly recommend using a DVR to get through the many “dead spots.”

As you undoubtedly know by now, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly during the night of February 12.  The circumstances of his death were unclear.   He was in a remote area of Texas; he was not in the company of a physician, federal marshals, or any other witnesses; his death was pronounced as being due to “natural causes” (whatever that is) by a justice of the peace over the telephone; the JP did not physically examine the body; and, at the request of the family, no autopsy was performed.  Although all of this is legal under Texas law, Mr. Scalia’s prominence raises questions, which will likely never be resolved satisfactorily.  Anyone who has seen CSI on tv is aware that there are many ways to murder someone and make it appear “natural.”  The conspiracy theorists will have a “ball” for years to come.

That said, the focus is now on selecting his replacement.  Scalia was a staunch conservative, a so-called “strict constructionalist.”  He favored what is known as “originalism,” that is, when interpreting the constitution one should consider the meaning of the words as they were at the time they were written.  He generally rejected the progressive view of a living, breathing constitution that is continually evolving over time.   Scalia’s passing gives President Obama a chance to tilt the court toward the progressive point of view.

Clearly, under the constitution President Obama is entitled to nominate whomever he wants whenever he wants.  In turn, the Senate is entitled to provide “advice and consent.”  Normally, approval would be by a simple majority, but one side or the other can filibuster, in which case it would take 60 votes.   This is an example of the system of checks and balances that is an invaluable cornerstone of our system of government.  Unfortunately, in cases such as this it raises  the possibility of a stymie.

Predictably, the politicians are lining up along party lines.  Dems, such as Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Charles Schumer are insisting on selecting a replacement immediately.  Republicans such as Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio favor waiting until after the inauguration.   All of them, as well as others, can and will spin it any way they want, but we all know that the Dems want President Obama to nominate a liberal before he leaves office, while the Repubs want to wait until next year when, they hope, a Repub president will be able to nominate a conservative.  Everyone realizes that the next justice would likely swing the ideology of the court one way or the other, possibly for many years to come.  Ho hum, politics as usual.

So, what happens when there is a vacancy?  Can the Court still function?  It is not an ideal situation, but it can and has in the past.  Essentially, there are three choices:

1. Let the lower court’s decision stand but without the gravitas of a Supreme Court precedent.
2. Defer a vote until such time as a replacement has been seated.
3. Decide cases in which the vote is not 4-4, and see choice 1 or 2 for those that are.

This is not the first time a justice has died this close to an election when the Senate was under the control of the opposition party.  So, how have the other cases worked out?  The answer is, it depends.  Consider:

1.  Since 1945, 13 of the 30 nominations that were approved, 43 percent, occurred when the opposing party controlled the Senate, but most of those were not during an election year.   Some election year examples would be Louis Brandeis and Anthony Kennedy.  So, it can be done.
2. Further back, in 1828 Justice Robert Trimble died during a hotly contested election between incumbent John Quincy Adams and challenger Andrew Jackson.  After the election, the Senate approved Jackson appointee John Crittenden.
3. Perhaps, the situation that parallels the current one most closely occurred in 1844 when Justice Henry Baldwin died during the election campaign between incumbent John Tyler and challenger James Polk.  At the time, the relationship between Tyler and the Senate was very contentious (like now).  Eight Tyler nominees failed to be approved.  Finally, after two years Polk was able to get a nominee approved.

CONCLUSION

Historically, there have been many examples of Presidential nominees being both delayed and approved due to different circumstances.  In my opinion, President Obama’s best chance for getting Senate approval would be to nominate centrists with impeccable credentials  who would be acceptable to a broad spectrum of Senators.  Then, if they are not approved he can rightfully blame the GOP for delaying.  If he nominates hardcore liberals with little chance of approval, you know he is more intent on making a political statement than appointing a justice.

Let the political games begin.

DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!  So said the huge headline of the Chicago Tribune on November 3, 1948, a headline that was to become arguably the most erroneous, embarrassing and infamous newspaper headline in political history.  More on this later.

The second of my series of historically significant and controversial presidential elections was the contest between President Harry S. Truman and NY Governor Thomas E. Dewey in 1948.  This election was, without a doubt, the biggest presidential election upset in history.  From the very beginning of the campaign and right up to Election Day virtually every political commentator and analyst and all the pollsters projected Dewey as the winner.  As we will see, all the “experts” were wrong.

Dewey was the sitting governor of NY and the acknowledged head of the progressive/moderate wing of the GOP.  Dewey rose to prominence in the 1930s when, as a special prosecutor in NYC, he vigorously and relentlessly pursued various heads of organized crime.  The pinnacle of his success came in 1936 when he successfully prosecuted Lucky Luciano, the head of the Mafia.  Moreover, he was hot on the trail of Luciano’s key lieutenant, Dutch Schultz, when Schultz was murdered (presumably by the Mob to silence him).  In 1942 he was elected governor of NY and was re-elected in 1946.  In 1944 the GOP had nominated him for president, but he lost to FDR.  The GOP nominated him again in 1948, although not before he fended off brief challenges from Robert Taft, Earl Warren, Douglas MacArthur and Arthur Vandenberg.  In addition, there was a grassroots movement to “draft” war hero Dwight Eisenhower.  That fizzled when Ike declined, stating that soldiers should stay out of politics.  (Apparently, four years later he changed his mind.)

Truman had owned a haberdashery in Kansas City, Missouri when he decided to enter politics.  (For bonus points, what does Truman’s middle initial stand for? See below.)  After serving as a county official, he was elected to the US Senate in 1935.  He rose to prominence in the early 1940s when he served as chairman of what became known as the Truman Committee, which successfully exposed and rooted out corruption, waste and fraud in the Federal Government’s wartime industrial contracts.  This so impressed FDR and his advisors, that when they were looking to replace VP Henry Wallace on the ticket in 1944 they chose him.  This was viewed as a critical choice.  Since FDR was generally not expected to survive the entire upcoming term, there was an excellent chance that his running mate would turn out to be his successor as president.   FDR did, in fact, die in April 1945, after which Truman ascended to the presidency. In 1948 Truman was seeking election in his own right.

Truman’s campaign ran into trouble right away.  Truman was not popular, even within his own party.  Many believe he only won the nomination because the Dem party leaders could not find anyone better.  (They also approached Ike, who declined, making him, as far as I know, the only candidate to have declined to run for each of the major parties in the same election cycle.)   The dissatisfied far left and far right wings of the Party each nominated their own candidates, Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond, respectively, who figured to siphon off votes from Truman.  In particular, the far right “Dixicrats” were a major threat to derail the Dems in the southern states, which were crucial to a Dem victory.

No wonder everyone thought Dewey was a sure winner.

CONCLUSION

So how and why did Truman win?   Why was it such a huge shock?  In my opinion, it was a  combination of Dewey’s mistakes, Truman’s strong campaign and inaccurate polling.  For instance:

1. Dewey ran a very tepid campaign, focusing on avoiding mistakes.  His speeches were laughingly vague.  He avoided discussing the major issues, such as communist expansion and the economy and how he would deal with them.  He uttered meaningless platitudes, such as “your future is still ahead of you.”  (Maybe Yogi Berra was his speech writer.)  This strategy,  the sports equivalent of “running out the clock” or “freezing the ball,” rarely, if ever, works in sports or politics.
2. On the other hand, Truman was very aggressive.  Having nothing to lose, he came out swinging.  He ridiculed Dewey.  He labeled the GOP-controlled Congress as the “do-nothing Congress.”  At times, his campaign stops turned raucous, with people shouting out encouragement, such as “give ’em hell, Harry.”  Dewey failed to respond to any of these attacks.
3. The polling was inaccurate.  In particular, pollsters failed to recognize Truman’s late surge because they did not continue to poll right up through Election Day.  According to the Gallup polls, Truman had narrowed Dewey’s lead from 17 points in mid-September to five points by the end of October, which was within the margin for error.  Roper suspended polling in early September.  Many columnists, including the renowned Joseph Alsop, Walter Winchell and Drew Pearson, among others, wrote their post election analyses weeks before the election.
4. Even Truman must have had doubts.  Rather than watch the election returns with his staff he sneaked away from reporters.  He went to the Elms Hotel in Excelsior Springs, MO where he treated himself to a Turkish bath and dinner and went to bed early.
5. Even when Truman took an early lead on election night pundits, refused to believe he could win, predicting a late Dewey surge.  The Chicago Tribune’s mistake was not the only embarrassing error, but because of the famous picture of Truman holding up the headline the next day, it’s just the one we remember.
6. Truman won several states, such as Ohio, California and Illinois, by less than one percent, so just a few switched votes here and there would have swung the election to Dewey.

The pollsters learned their lesson.  Since that election, they have continued to poll right up to the end.

That election changed the course of history.  Historians generally rate Truman as one of the best presidents.  Had Dewey won, we can only speculate as to how he would have handled the major issues of the day, such as communist expansion and civil rights.  Would there have been a Marshall Plan which helped rebuild a Europe devastated by WWII and checked communist expansion?  Would Ike have run in 1952?  What of Nixon , JFK and all the others who followed?  We will never know, which is what makes it so intriguing.

Note: Truman had no middle name, just the initial “S.”

What do Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have in common, besides the obvious fact of having won their respective party’s New Hampshire primary last night?    Bernie is an avowed Socialist; Trump is …. well, Trump.  Their political philosophies could not be more different.  The answer is that they are both anti-establishment, anti-politician, anti-Washington candidates who have successfully tapped into the anger and frustration of the voters.  As I have been saying, the voters are fed up and want a change.  Their prevailing attitude is “the current government is not working.  Throw them all out and start over.”

NH has been holding presidential primaries since 1916. The state’s primary process has some interesting quirks.  For instance:

(1) NH state law mandates that it shall be the first primary of the season.  The official date is March 2, but the law directs the Secretary of State to change the date, as needed, to ensure that the primary is held at least seven days before any “similar election” in another state.  Note: the Iowa caucuses are not considered to be a “similar election” for this purpose.  Thus, the NH primary is held on different dates, as needed to be the first.

(2)  The primary is an open primary (sort of).  So-called “undeclared voters,” those who are not registered with any party may vote in either party’s primary.  But, in order to vote, one must have a party affiliation.  So, just prior to voting in the primary, the voter must register with that party.  Immediately following the vote, the voter may revoke his registration and return to the status of “undeclared.”  This process is not as confusing as it may sound.  This process adds a degree of unpredictability to the voting, particularly in years when one party’s primary is open and shut and the other is contested.

The NH primary began to achieve significance in 1952.  That year, going in, the GOP favorite was “Mr. Republican,” Robert Taft.  Dwight Eisenhower was merely a famous war hero with an unproven record as a politician and vote getter.  Ike beat him.  On the Dem side, Estes Kefauver defeated sitting President, Harry Truman (causing Truman to abandon his hopes for a second term).  Thus, was the significance of the NH primary, as being small in numbers but large in impact, established.  There have been other surprises, such as Eugene McCarthy losing very narrowly to sitting President Lyndon Johnson in 1968 (causing Johnson not to seek re-election).  On the other hand, there have been some forgettable winners, such as Leonard Wood (1920), Harold Stassen (1948), and Paul Tsongas (1992).  Yup.  NH is known as the state where candidacies go to die.

Last night’s results in NH will keep the “spin doctors” busy.  Thus, a candidate can “win” by losing more closely than anticipated.  Conversely, if a favorite does not win by a large enough margin he can be portrayed as having “lost.”  Thus, winners become losers and vice versa.  Confused?  You are not the only one.  Welcome to “politics, American style.”

Not to diminish Sanders’ resounding victory, 60 percent to 38, but I also see it as a referendum against Hillary Clinton and what she stands for.  How much of it was pro-Sanders and how much was anti-Hillary is anybody’s guess.  Time will tell.  So far, predictions in this year’s Presidential election have been as accurate as predicting the weather, i.e. not so good.

On the GOP side, things became more muddled, if possible.  Trump dominated the field with 35 percent, but after that things became more complicated.  Kasich surprised by running second with 16 percent, which boosted his campaign, but remember he had ignored Iowa to focus on NH.  The other surprise was Rubio, who seemed to have momentum coming out of Iowa, finishing in an also-ran group with Cruz and Bush.  Perhaps, he was hurt by a poor performance in Saturday’s debate.  He should do better in the upcoming contests.

CONCLUSION

All the “experts” have been severely underestimating Sanders from the outset.  He was supposed to have faded long before now.  He continues to astound and confound.  Perhaps, he will finally fizzle in South Carolina and Nevada where the voting constituencies are more diverse.  Perhaps, he will surprise again.  Either way, I expect him to stay in the race, accumulating delegates, for the foreseeable future.  I think he realizes that in this wild and wacky year anything can happen.  For example, Clinton might be indicted and have to drop out; Biden might not run; the rest of the Dem field is extremely “thin;” Bloomberg may enter the race as a third party candidate; or, even if none of those events occurs, Sanders may accumulate enough delegates to become a strong influence at the convention.  Sanders’ prospects have improved from “no way” to “long shot.”

On the GOP side, Trump has the establishment worried, to say the least.  They are cringing at the prospect of him winning the nomination.  Unfortunately, all the best moderate candidates – Rubio, Kasich and Bush – continue to cancel each other out.  Kasich’s strong second in NH has muddied the waters further.  Cruz has the conservative wing to himself.  I expect that one of the moderates will eventually emerge to make it a three-man race.  Trump, Cruz and one of them will be in it to the end.  Perhaps, the GOP will end up with an old-fashioned brokered convention.  “Smoke-filled room” anyone?