Lebron and the Media Circus 7-9-10

As a long-time Celtic fan, whose allegiance goes back to before the Bill Russell era, I have not a wit of interest in the past, present or future of the NY Knicks. I didn’t like them since they were coached by Joe Lapchick, no less Fuzzy Levane. Ever since the retirement of the great Larry Bird, I have had little interest in the thuggish profile of the NBA. As to the criminal style of the last few successful Knick teams, which featured some of the worst offenders in the persona of Anthony Mason and others, I completely ignored the sport. The recent Celtic run to the NBA finals piqued my interest and drew me to watch basketball for the first time in years. It was too bad that they were ill-served by their brain dead coach.

 

As for the recent media frenzy over free agency,  the former wunderkind Lebron James showed me very little in the now forgotten 2010 series against the Celts. I was unimpressed with him, and the other “Max” stars are not much different then good players of any era. The big difference is that they are insanely overpaid, and the fools who go to their games today are paying record dollars to support their ridiculous lifestyle. My assumption is that many franchises will be in financial trouble over the next few years. But, what else is new when one looks at the history of American sports. More and more excess and the rich get richer. As for Cleveland, the northern Ohio economy is approximately $180 billion, and the loss of Lebron, like the defection of Art Modell will not doom that area to extinction. By the way, former MVHS basketball star and 10-year NBA veteran Ray Williams, who earned $2 million in his career, is currently living out of his car. What does that say for sports in America? In fact, according to the NFL, 90% of their players, who have played less than three years are now bankrupt. By the way, most of these players, unlike the NBA geniuses, actually attended college for four years.

 

In the recent “circus maximus” that the NBA had encouraged, I really wondered whether we had entered into another chapter of “Alice in Wonderland.” As the news came over the wires of the Lebron decision, while I was watching my nightly fix of DVRed “Have Gun Will Travel,” with Richard Boone as Paladin, I started to weep crocodile tears for the Knick fans, who had been drooling over the prospect of Lebron James coming to Madison Square Garden for five years. I had alwasy wondered why he would want to come to NYC and play for the dysfunctional Dolans who control the Knicks and the Garden, and expose his human fragilities to the carnivorous, child-eating NYC press corps!

 

Now it is over, and we can go back to the normality of the baseball season, and worrying about our lawns. The NBA owners will continue to put their soap box opera on the hard floors and the Knicks will invest more money in losers like Stephan Marbury and the world will continue to revolve on its axis for a few more billion years.

 

 

Letter to the Journal news 7-8-10

Oliver Wendell Holmes said, and I paraphrase, “paying taxes is the price of civilization.” Our high tax levels are directly connected to the cost of living in this region and the cost of labor which performs the services. If people want lower taxes, they will have to accept the consequences of layoffs and, as in the case of Yonkers, a cutback in sanitation. If one wants less garbage pickups, less fire and police protection, and a deterioration of our infrastructure, cut back on government, plain and simple. I often ask my conservative friends, what are they willing to give up. Is it the environment; clean air, clean water? Is it our schools? Few have any answers. The “Tea Party” adherents are long on patriotism, long on complaints, and for sure, short on solutions. Why don’t they take voluntary cutbacks from their compensation, their healthcare benefits and their social security and Medicare reimbursements?

 

Recently there have been a spate of “know-nothing” letters to the editor One that came to my attention was, the July 8th, letter to the editor, “Political quackery was ruining our nation.”  The author’s assertion that President Obama was not elected with enough of a percentage of the 300+ million Americans is absurd. In a democracy, and especially one that cherishes free speech, every crack pot has a right to make a fool of him/herself. His claim that all the people that are running for office are, “buffoons, hacks and bottom feeders,” is patently ridiculous and inflammatory rhetoric. Who in a free country should decide other than the individual themselves to run and the people who carry petitions and support that person in a free and open primary or general election? Talk is cheap, we hear it for free every day, let’s hear some new ideas, not any more libertarian flummery.

 

The Imperial Cruise to Mt. Suribachi and Okinawa 6-23-10

The Imperial Cruise to Mount Suribachi and Okinawa

A Summer of Reading, Revisionism and Introspection

Richard J. Garfunkel

June 23, 2010

 

James Bradley, with his latest book, The Imperial Cruise, has woven an eye-opening, unforgettable tale of deceit, racism, bravado, warmongering and misplaced jingoism at the feet of one of our most revered presidents, Theodore Roosevelt. With his earlier book, Flag of Our Fathers, he has established book ends to our Pacific foreign policy from the 1880’s through the end of World War II. This summer, the long-awaited series, the HBO production of The Pacific, premiered. It was based on a number of books written by veterans of some specific Pacific campaigns which included; Guadalcanal, Peleliu and Okinawa. In a way this series was able to complement Bradley’s Flag of Our Father’s which told the story of the fight for Iwo Jima. I was given a copy of Flag of Our Fathers, on the occasion of my 55th birthday on May 2, 2000, by my daughter Dana. Almost six months later, to the day, I attended a talk and a book-signing given by the author James Bradley at Manhattanville College. I never forgot his riveting and inspirational talk about the historical event that took place that day on the rim of Mount Suribachi. Bradley’s father and other intrepid Marines raised “Old Glory” to the excitement and adulation of all the men and sailors who looked upward from the beach and the fleet. Of course, the reasons the Marines had clawed their way up Mount Suribachi and had fought across the Pacific are generally well-known. After the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, we were thrust into World War II and under the inspired political and strategic leadership of President Franklin Delano and the tactical command of General Douglas MacArthur and Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, our bloody march to Tokyo Bay was planned and accomplished.  But, as most of us know, the price was very high and paid in blood and treasure.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, along with subsequent and immediate aggression upon our bases the Philippines brought us into World War II. Few in America would have believed that a relatively small country like Japan would have the audacity, no less the skills, logistics and bravery to take on the United States. Most Americans thought that our next fight would be with Nazi Germany and that “freedom of the seas” could be the same excuse in the 1940’s as it was in Woodrow Wilson’s time. Japan and the Japanese were always looked down upon through numerous caricatures that portrayed them as buck-teethed, near sighted, devious, and tiny. They were thought of by many as a sub-human specie, and ironically, in the face of all their early successes in the Pacific and the reality that they were brave and tenacious fighters, this image of stayed with most Americans. It took a number of Pacific battles before the American public grudgingly had greater appreciation for their military and human skills. We as a people had been ignoring Asia and the Pacific for many years. Even with the Japanese conquering of Manchuria, the Panay Incident and the invasion and occupation of most of China’s eastern provinces and cities, most Americans believed that the vast Pacific Ocean, guarded by our fleet would always protect us. As a matter of policy, the United States, since January 1933, before the inauguration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in March of that year, had adopted what has been called the Stimson Doctrine. The Stimson Doctrine was a policy of the United States government, which articulated in a note of January 10, 1933, to Japan and China, the non-recognition of international territorial changes that were executed by force. The doctrine was an application of the principle of ex injuria jus non oritur. Named after Henry L. Stimson, United States Secretary of State in the Hoover Administration (1929–1933), the policy was directed at Japan's unilateral seizure of Manchuria in northeastern China and the actions of Japanese soldiers at Mukden (now Shenyang), on September 18, 1931. Henry L. Stimson, a life-long Republican, who had a long career in government, which included an earlier stint as President William Howard Taft’s Secretary of War, would later serve as President Roosevelt’s Secretary of War. In the wake of our emergence as a belligerent in the 2nd World War, President Roosevelt created a bi-partisan cabinet and appointed to key positions, both Stimson, and the long-time Republican newspaper publisher Frank Knox as Secretary of the Navy. Knox even had been nominated for the vice-presidency, by the Republican Party, with Governor Alf Landon to run against FDR in 1936. Ironically Landon and Knox were supporters of Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party’s candidacy in 1912, as was FDR’s Secretary of the Interior, “Honest” Harold Ickes. They were the only Republicans to support Teddy Roosevelt and be nominated on a national GOP ticket. To most Americans, the rise of Japan as an aggressor state was understood and recognized, but the paradox was that we had also gone through a long period of strong cooperation. The story of that relationship and Japan’s change is explored quite thoroughly in James Bradley’s book.

Bradley, in The Imperial Cruise goes back in time to trace the beginnings of our eventual fight with Japan during World War II, and why we wound up clawing our way through bloody Pacific campaigns until his father wounds up on the summit of Mount Suribachi.  He chronicles the rise of Japan from its hundreds of years of isolation, from its opening by Commodore Matthew C. Perry (Matthew Perry was the son of Navy Captain Christopher R. Perry and the younger brother of Oliver Hazard Perry.) and his heavily armed fleet in 1853 to the Treaty of Portsmouth, NH, which ended the Russo-Japanese War. The negotiations for a treaty were initiated by President Theodore Roosevelt, in May of 1905, to resolve the outstanding issues created by the overwhelming victory over Russia by Japanese forces on land and sea. Despite the international community's uproar at Roosevelt's actions, which had even been called illegal, his actions upheld exactly what had been stated as the role of a neutral state in the Hague Conference of 1899. Under the mediation of Roosevelt, peace negotiations continued despite the lack of armistice between Japan and Russia. This lack of an armistice allowed the Japanese to attack Sakhalin Island while the representatives were in mid-voyage to Portsmouth, NH and later enabled the Japanese to make new claims to the island during the negotiations.

In accordance with the Portsmouth treaty, both Japan and Russia agreed to evacuate Manchuria and return its sovereignty to China, but Japan was leased the Liaodong Peninsula (containing Port Arthur and Talien), and the Russian rail system in southern Manchuria with access to strategic natural resources. Japan also received the southern half of the Island of Sakhalin from Russia. Although Japan gained a great deal from the treaty, it was not nearly as much as the Japanese public had been led to expect, since Japan's initial negotiating position had demanded all of Sakhalin and a monetary indemnity. The Russians, despite their massive defeat, had no intention of indemnifying the Japanese. As a result of his actions, in bring both sides to the peace table and succeeding with a treaty, President Roosevelt was honored with the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize.

The question that Bradley explores is why and how did this all evolve. The beginnings of America’s march into the Pacific began first with the corporate conquest and rape of the Hawaiian Islands by an American business oligarchy led by James Dole, of the Dole Pineapple Company, and his cousin Sanford, who became the first President of the Republic of Hawaii, after deposing its last monarch, Queen Lili’uokalani. Bradley recounts how Hawaiian President Dole’s provisional government in 1894, survived quite well on its own and could bide its time, despite President Grover Cleveland’s and Congressional opposition to annexation of the Islands, along with a general feeling of the US public that America should not acquire the Hawaii. In the years since the resignation of Hawaii’s Queen, the Dole government was working hard to solidify its economic and social control. According to Bradley, Theodore Roosevelt, years before he was a known public figure, was “outraged that Cleveland had not proudly “followed the sun” to Hawaii. Indeed, it was this failure by Cleveland that sparked Roosevelt’s interest in Pacific expansion.

Eventually with the election of William McKinley in 1906, as president, the lobbying to make Hawaii part of the United States continued unabatedly. Bradley chronicles the ongoing issue of the annexation of Hawaii and he wrote, “The war with Spain provided another excuse, as Congressman De Alva Alexander of New York declared, ‘The annexation of the Hawaiian Islands, for the first time in our history, is presented to us a war necessity.’” By July of 1898, Congress passed the Hawaiian Resolution Act and it was signed the next day by President McKinley. Within a month the islands were formerly turned over to the United States. Interestingly, according to Bradley, it was ascertained that at the time of Captain James Cook’s so-called “discovery” of the islands in 1778, that there was estimated to be more than a million people living in the Hawaii Islands. He reports, “Just two generations later, in 1832, the first missionary census found only 130,000 survivors.” It seems, that along with Cook and his crew, came tuberculosis, typhus, yellow fever, measles, small pox, bronchitis, whooping cough to the otherwise healthy and pristine Islands. Within the next generation or so, with the physical disappearance of most of the native Hawaiians, the growth of the population of white settlers, known as the Haoles, the importation of Asian workers, and the rise of the local sugar and pineapple interests, the character and the demographics of the islands had changed forever.

With regards to further Pacific expansionism, after the (accidental) explosion of the USS Maine in Havana’s harbor, the Hearst-inspired faux war to rid Cuba of Spain ensued. By the time of the Maine disaster, which caused the death of 250 sailors, the American “yellow press” had turned the nation's focus to Cuba, where insurgents had struggled against the Spanish colonial government forces for more than a year. New York City's first mass-media moguls, William Randolph Hearst and his Journal along with Joseph Pulitzer's World, were beating the bellicose war drums with mostly concocted stories of Spanish brutality, atrocities and what we would know today as war crimes. American voices that supported domination and pacification of the Caribbean were clamoring for intervention incessantly. Most shared the “big gun navy” and expansionist views of US Navy Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, the intellectual father of our modern navy. To Mahan, the over-arching proposition for Americans was “whether Eastern or Western civilization is to dominate throughout the earth and to control its future.” Harvard had honored Mahan with an LL.D. at the Commencement of 1895; and Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge were among his disciples. His book, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783, which was published in 1890, became the future Bible of the “big gun navy” advocates.

Two months before the Spanish-American War broke out, and in preparation for this new action, the now Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt instructed Commodore George Dewey, commanding the navy's Asiatic squadron in Hong Kong, to prepare to engage Spain's small fleet in the Philippines. Roosevelt now resigned from the navy department, volunteered for action in Cuba, ordered a blue lieutenant colonel's uniform from Brooks Brothers, and assumed deputy command of the First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, which he named the “Rough Riders,” which name he had taken from his youthful hero, Buffalo Bill Cody. The regiment's commander was a close friend, Colonel Leonard Wood, M.D. Wood, a former frontier military surgeon and Indian fighter, was also President McKinley's personal physician. Despite the fact that the Cuban rebels were winning their war of independence and on the verge of driving the Spaniards out of their land, America was stirred to free the Cubans under the mantra, “Remember the Maine!”  Colonels Wood’s and Roosevelt’s “Rough Riders,” headed for Tampa, Florida and embarked with their horses and equipment for Cuba.

With the crushing of the Spanish fleets off Cuba and the Philippines and the defeat of the their land forces in a series of battles on Cuba, including Roosevelt’s charge up San Juan Hill, “The Splendid Little War,” dubbed by Ambassador and future Secretary of State John Hay, ended quickly. As a consequence of this victory, the acquisition of the Philippines resulted in America acquiring a Pacific base for its Asiatic designs on ensuing more economic hegemony in China. As a result of these actions from the 1890’s to the earliest days of the 20th Century, Theodore Roosevelt’s vision of America becoming a strong imperial power started to come to fruition.

The Treaty of Paris, which officially ended the Cuban hostilities, was signed in December, 1898, and turned over much of Spain's shrinking properties in the Western Hemisphere to the United States. The Congress wanted nothing to with U.S. claims to Cuba, but the former Spanish possession remained under American military and martial rule for more than three years. The US Navy retained in perpetuity a large base at the tip of the eastern part of the island, known as Guantanamo. Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam were also part of the ultimate settlement. Ironically, American policy had been shaped by the Ostend Manifestoa document written in 1854, which enunciated the rationale for the United States to purchase Cuba from Spain and implied the U.S. should declare war if Spain refused. Cuba's acquisition had long been a goal of U.S. expansionists and Monroe Doctrine adherents. However, diplomatically, the United States and its public had been ambivalent towards Spanish rule as so long as it did not pass Cuba to a stronger European power. The Ostend Manifesto was a product of the debates over slavery in the United States, Manifest Destiny, and the Monroe Doctrine: The Ostend Manifesto proposed a shift in foreign policy, justifying the use of force to seize Cuba in the name of national security. In 1898, when Cuba was nominally acquired by the United States through war and treaty, many Americas were opposed to having millions of dark-skinned Cubans as subjects of American rule. Therefore, Cuba remained nominally free of the United States, but its governments from 1898 though Colonel Fulgencio Batista, the last leader before Fidel Castro, was beholden to American influence, protection, and business interests. Many of these business interests were dominated by American organized crime.

As for Spain, it was a crushing defeat in more ways than one. Their exit from the Western Hemisphere was a stunning blow to Spain’s dwindling international profile and national pride, and had a remarkable costl in human terms. From the start of the Cuban rebellion to the end of hostilities, many thousands (50,000) of Spaniards died of yellow fever or other diseases, while another 9000 or so died of wounds, injuries, and military action. At the end of the war 10’s of thousands had been captured. On the American side of the equation, some 6000 regulars and volunteers died of infectious diseases, expired of war wounds, and amongst that number, 496 men were killed in action.

In the Philippines the United States got more than it expected or probably ever wanted. The provisions of the Treaty of Paris called for Spain to surrender the islands for a compensation of $20 million. But, as James Bradley describes so well, we got much more than we really bargained for. The Filipinos had traded their Catholic conquistadores for the “Protestant Ethic” of New World. Within weeks, Filipino rebels, under the leadership of Emilio Aquinaldo and the U.S. occupation forces were locked in a shooting war. It took 63,000 casualties and 4,300 American deaths, and almost three years to crush the revolt. “The planting of liberty–not money–is what we seek,” insisted General Arthur MacArthur, the American commandant, and the famous Congressional Medal of Honor recipient father of future General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. But in the new emerging reality, America's acquisition of the Philippines was thought as a preemptive move against Russia, Germany, and other European powers with colonial aims in the Far East. The war basically ended when its young rebel leader, Emilio Aguinaldo, who had earlier become president in 1897, at age 29, during the fight for independence against Spain, was captured by General Frederick Funston. Amazingly, with all the violence and changes in the political and military conditions he lived to the age of 94 and was able to see the Philippines invaded by the Japanese in 1941, suffer through a horrendous occupation, the liberation by American forces, and independence in 1946. Though he cooperated with the Japanese during the war, he was later exonerated because his collaboration was seen as a result of extreme duress.

During this brutal period of conflict, Bradley reveals the truth of the real history of the American occupation and war in the Philippines. This history, which had been white-washed for generations, included incredible racism, brutality, lynching’s, concentration camps, mass killings, and a virtual blood bath, rivaling the murderous conduct of the Axis powers during World War II. In The Imperial Cruise, Bradley writes, “For forty-nine days in the spring of 1900, Commissioner (William Howard) Taft steamed across the wide Pacific, dreaming how he would mold the Pacific Negroes into a ‘self-governing people’ and build them a shiny new nation.”  Of course, in the words of Taft, with his famous utterance, “the little brown brothers” were not there to welcome him and his diplomatic entourage. In his cable to the United States, almost immediately after his arrival, he said, “The population of the islands is made up of a vast mass of ignorant, superstitious people, well-intentioned, light-hearted, temperate, somewhat cruel, domestic and fond of their families, and deeply wedded to the Catholic Church…These people are the greatest liars, it has been my fortune to meet, in many respects nothing but grown up children…They need the training of fifty or a hundred years before they even realize where Anglo-Saxon liberty is,”

By 1902, the new President Theodore Roosevelt had declared, with a “wave of his hand” that the insurrection was now at an end. Bradley describes the immense cost, “by then the war had cost the taxpayers of the United States more than (a whopping) six hundred million turn-of-the-twentieth century dollars, 4324 Americans were dead, 2817 had been wounded, and many soldiers who returned home would perish of related diseases and wounds. Most American history books claim that US forces killed twenty thousand freedom fighters and two hundred to three hundred thousand Filipino civilians: other sources estimate that the US military sent one to three million to their early graves.” The list of atrocities is endless. Even some American newspapers carried stories of the brutality. One that even disturbed President Roosevelt was written in the Washington Post “about how the US Army had systematically executed thirteen hundred Filipino prisoners of war in just one camp.” From beginning to end it is a daunting and repulsive story of Aryan propaganda, western theories of “civilization” and rationalization of genocidal murder and for what end?

From the stories of how the Philippines was governed to the role of the participants on the Imperial Cruise, which included the rotund Secretary of William Howard Taft, a future President and a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Alice Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt’s only daughter, the darling of America’s media, a huge congressional delegation of twenty-seven, which included Nicholas Longworth, who would later wed Princess Alice, Bradley weaves a story of ill-fated foreign policy. As this historically unprecedented delegation sails from across the Pacific, docking in Hawaii, Japan, the Philippines, China, and Korea we learn of secret agreements and empty, and often, duplicitous promises which would lead to a disastrous path of bloody history which would include the Pacific War, the triumph of communism in China, and the Korean War.

Theodore Roosevelt came to office with a worldwide view that both China and Russian were dangerous peoples, not worthy to be considered at the level of true westerners. To Roosevelt, both the Chinese race and the Russian Slavic Empire were not to be trusted to rule, and that Aryan Westerners were designated by both Christianity and the White Race to dominate the world. On one hand he was a great believer in The “Open Door” policy towards China, which was articulated by Secretary of State John Hay, in 1898-9, who said, “that as the United States had become an East Asian power through the acquisition of the Philippine Islands, and when the partition of China by the European powers and Japan seemed imminent, the United States felt its commercial interests in China threatened.” U.S. Secretary of State John Hay sent notes to the major powers (France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, and Russia), asking them to declare formally that they would uphold Chinese territorial and administrative integrity and would not interfere with the free use of the treaty ports within their spheres of influence in China. The “Open Door” policy stated that all European nations, and the United States, could trade with China. According to President Theodore Roosevelt, he wanted the United States to be an “equal player” in opening the door to China through trade, but he also wanted to enforce race-hatred and fear through anti-Asian laws; the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and eventually The National Quotas Act of 1924 (passed after his death in 1919) in the United States. The later act was passed with few dissents in both houses of Congress.

In 1902, the United States government protested that Russian encroachment in Manchuria after the Boxer Rebellion was a violation of the “Open Door Policy.” With fears over a Russian hegemony in natural resource rich Manchuria, Bradley contends that Japan was encouraged by the United States to stop Russia. When Japan replaced Russia in southern Manchuria after the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) the Japanese and U.S. governments pledged to maintain a policy of equality in Manchuria. The Roosevelt Policy of the Aryanization of Japan, through the adoption of westernization (dress, government, law, education, culture), was an effort to divide and weaken the larger Asian players; China, and Russia, for the purpose of having economic hegemony. Part of these secret agreements between Roosevelt and his Harvard educated friend Baron Kaneko would lead to both encouraging Japan’s surprise attack on Russia forces in 1904, and Roosevelt’s remarks, “I was thoroughly pleased with the Japanese victory, for Japan is playing our game.” Later he would write to Baron Kaneko, “Japan is the only nation in Asia that understands the principles and methods of Western civilization. She has proven that she can assimilate Western civilization, yet not break up its own heritage. All the Asian nations are now faced with the urgent necessity of adjusting themselves to the present age, Japan should be their natural leader in that process, and their protector during the transition stage, much as the United States assumed the leadership of the American continent many years ago, and by means of the Monroe Doctrine, preserved Latin America nations from European interference, while they were maturing their independence.”

As Bradley writes, Baron Kaneko is feted and celebrated, far and wide, in academic and intellectual circles in America. He is honored at Harvard, hosted at a dinner in his honor by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., and lauded as the new wave in a lasting American-Japanese concordat. “The Baron, told a new generation of Harvard ‘sunfollowers’ that the Japanese are ‘yellow in skin, but in heart and mind as white as Europeans and Americans…Our hearts beat just as much as Christian hearts- the civilized heart is the same the world over.’” So popular was his remarks that they were reprinted in a leading Boston newspaper and reprinted into thousands of booklets. Baron Kaneko continued to promote the Aryan mantra, its mythical emergence from Central Asia, and its fertile nesting place in England.

What Bradley exposes is the root causes that seemed to encourage Japan’s bellicosity, both with its war with China, the 1894-5 (The First Sino-Japanese War), the defeat of Russia (The Russo-Japanese War, 1904-5) and the utter destruction of its naval fleet at the Battle of Tsushima Straits, the diplomatic conquering of the two thousand year old Kingdom of Korea and the taking of the island of Formosa from China. In between, Theodore Roosevelt’s secret encouraging of Japan as America’s “Aryan” spear in the Pacific, to be used against both China and Russia. He details the extension of America’s manifest destiny policy (made famous by the historian Frederick Jackson Turner) regarding Roosevelt’s “follow the sun” strategy of economic and political hegemony in Asia. In promising Japan a free hand with his promotion of a Japanese style Monroe Doctrine, Roosevelt opened a Cassandra’s Box that could not be easily closed. With all of this encouragement of this Japanese cult of superiority over its Asian neighbors, the seeds of conflict were sown for future generations.

As the years advanced and the growing Japanese economic dynamo of westernization took hold, certain realities became apparent. Japan’s alliance against Germany in World War I allowed it to take over German possessions in the Pacific. Officially the League of Nations granted Japan Class C Mandates of the Marshall, Caroline and Marianas Island groups, which had been formally controlled by Germany through international arbitration settled by Pope Leo XII in 1885. Japan’s growing prosperity also increased their birth rate and as their population grew their need for arable land and natural resources also grew. They also were populating these Pacific possessions with not only their own citizens, but workers from Korea and Okinawa. This of course would lead to their invasion of natural resource rich Manchuria in 1931, their setting up of the puppet state of Manchukuo and the Second Sino-Japanese War that would begin in 1937. The need and hunger for more oil to fuel their growing navy and land forces would encourage them to seek new fertile areas to conquer. Their sights were set on French-Indo China and their huge rice production, the Dutch East Indies and the massive oil reserves in Java and the key British Crown Colonies of Hong Kong and Singapore. What stood in their way of unfettered conquest was the American fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor, and the American military facilities in the Philippines at Cavite, Clark Field, along with thousands of US soldiers and Filipino Scouts under the command of Field Marshall Douglas MacArthur on Leyte and Luzon.

This fatal decision to promote the interests of Japan, as our silent partner, was very possibly encouraged by both flawed America racial prejudice and our economic avarice in the early part of the 20th Century. This policy would prove fatal to millions. Of course, this leads directly to the HBO production of The Pacific and its personal coverage of some of the men who served and suffered in that Theater of Operation.

Meanwhile, the HBO documentary, The Pacific, broadcast this spring was a follow-up to the very successful and award-winning Band of Brothers, which was originally produced and aired in 2001,  Its powerful narrative centers on the experiences of E Company (“Easy Company”) of the 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment assigned to the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army. The series covers Easy's basic training at Toccoa, Georgia, the American airborne landings in Normandy, Operation Market Garden, the Battle of Bastogne and on to the end of the war, including the taking of the Kehlsteinhaus (Hitler's Eagle's Nest).

The Pacific, which was produced almost ten years later showed the stark differences between the conditions in the European Theater and the war in the Pacific. It focused on the United States Marine Corps' actions in the Pacific Theater of Operations within the wider Pacific War. Whereas Band of Brothers followed one Army infantry company through the European Theater, The Pacific follows three marines (Eugene Sledge, Robert Leckie and John Basilone) in separate combat actions. The Pacific was based primarily on two memoirs of U.S. Marines, With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa by Eugene Sledge and Helmet for My Pillow by Robert Leckie. The miniseries tells the stories of the two authors and Marine John Basilone, as the war against the Empire of Japan rages. It also draws on Sledge's China Marine and Red Blood, Black Sand, the memoir of Chuck Tatum, a Marine who fought alongside Basilone in Iwo Jima. The miniseries features well-known battles with Japan involving the 1st Marine Division, such as Guadalcanal, Cape Gloucester, Peleliu, and Okinawa, as well as Basilone's involvement in the Battle of Iwo Jima.

By the time of The Pacific’s production, the three main characters had passed away. John Basilone, (November 4, 1916 – February 19, 1945), had served three years in the United States Army with duty in the Philippines before joining the Marine Corps in 1940. After attending Marine Corps training, Basilone deployed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Solomon Islands and eventually to Guadalcanal where in the course of one battle, he held off 3,000 Japanese troops after his 15-member unit was reduced to two other men. For that action he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor and subsequently was returned to the United States. In the following months, after a parade in his home town, he toured the country with Bond Rallies raising money for the war effort and achieved celebrity status. Although he appreciated the admiration, he felt out of place and requested to return to the action in the Pacific. The Marine Corps turned him down and basically told him he was needed more at home. They felt that he would be vulnerable to either injury or death, and basically they wanted a “live” hero. The Marines offered him a commission, but he felt more comfortable as a NCO and wanted to return to his men. He, therefore again, requested to return to combat and eventually the Marines relented, his request was approved, and he left for Camp Pendleton, California for training on December 27, 1943. Upon his return to action, he was killed on the first day of the Battle of Iwo Jima, after which he was posthumously honored with the Navy Cross. He has received many honors including being the namesake for streets, military locations and a United States Navy destroyer. He was the only US Marine, in the Pacific Theater during World War II, to be awarded both the Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross.

Eugene Bondurant Sledge (November 4, 1923 – March 3, 2001) was a United States Marine, university professor, and author. His 1981 memoir With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa chronicled his combat experiences during World War II and was subsequently used as source material for Ken Burn's PBS documentary, The War, as well as the HBO miniseries The Pacific.. During his service, as a Marine 60mm mortarman, Sledge kept notes of what happened in his pocket sized New Testament Bible. After the Japanese capitulation, he was posted to Beijing, China and then was repatriated to the United States, where he was discharged from the Marine Corps in February 1946 with the rank of Corporal. In the coming years as a writer and professor, he took those notes and compiled them into the memoir that was entitled With the Old Breed

Robert Leckie (December 18, 1920 – December 24, 2001) was the author of a number of best-selling books regarding the military history of the United States. As a young man, he served in the Pacific with1st Marine Division during World War II. His experiences as a machine gunner and intelligence scout during the Battle of Guadalcanal and later campaigns greatly influenced his writing. His first and best-selling book, Helmet for My Pillow, a personal war memoir, was published in 1957. Leckie subsequently wrote more than 40 books on American war history. He, like EB Sledge, died in 2001 after fighting a long battle with Alzheimer's Disease.

In between the famous and long-lasting Battle of Guadalcanal, and the final campaign of World War II, the invasion of Okinawa, the bloody battle of Iwo Jima takes place. Leckie and Sledge, who were central to the production of The Pacific, did not fight on that island. James Bradley, whose father was one of the heroic US Marines who raised the flag on Mount Suribachi, Iwo Jima, also wrote dramatically about the Battle of Iwo Jima, in his now famous Flag of Our Fathers. Of course, that horrendous battle is mostly remembered by current generations because of the famous photograph of the second raising of the American flag on the 554 foot extinct volcano that dominated the island and the US Marine Corps Memorial, which is based on that photo, in Alexandria, VA, just over the bridge from the Lincoln Memorial.

With regards to the pivotal flag-raising on Iwo Jima, by the fourth day of the brutal combat that would last for five weeks and claim 26,039 (6,822 KIAs) American casualties, Mount Suribachi, was captured. Because the first flag raised on the summit was deemed too small, the 2nd Battalion commander, Colonel Chandler W. Johnson, whose temperament was as fiery as the legendary Marine General Howland “Howling Mad” Smith’s, said that the original flag was for the men of our battalion and ordered Lt. Wells to get another flag to replace the first flag. Wells said he sent his company runner, Rene Gagnon, (later to be a flag raiser) to the beach to get a flag from one of the many crafts that were wrecked and littered along the beach. Interestingly, Col. Johnson later recalled that he had sent Lt. Ted Tuttle to the same beach to get the replacement flag. Johnson called after Tuttle and said, “And make it a bigger one.” While Lt. Tuttle was looking for a replacement flag, Gagnon, who had also been sent to the beach, reached Colonel Johnson’s command position. Tuttle took a large 96” by 56” American flag to the Colonel that he had obtained from LST-779. This flag had been found in a salvage yard at Pearl Harbor and had been rescued from a sinking ship on December 7th. He handed it to the Colonel, who in turn gave it to Gagnon. He told Gagnon and others with him, “You tell (Lt.) Schrier to put this flag up, and I want him to save the small flag for me.”

 

By the time Gagnon got back to the top, Joe Rosenthal, the Associated Press photographer, had arrived. A long pole was found, and because it was long and heavy it took quite a few men to hoist it to the site of where the first flag was planted. Ironically, when Rosenthal had disembarked from the command ship, he had slipped on a wet ladder and had landed in the ocean between that ship and a landing craft. He had to be fished from the water. He was lucky his bulky, but durable 35mm Speed Graphic was in a waterproof bag. After he landed he was able to get a few shots of General Smith and Secretary Forrestal disembarking from their landing craft. He and another reporter had heard that the Marines were approaching the top of Suribachi. Along with Rosenthal, was Bill Hipper, a magazine correspondent, and combat photographers Private Bob Campbell, who worked with a still camera and Sergeant Bill Genaust, who had a movie camera loaded with color film.

 

As Rosenthal approached the top shortly after noon, he noticed a couple of marines hauling a long heavy iron pole. The pole the marines were dragging was a length of drainage pipe and weighed more than a hundred pounds. As the three photographers milled around, the first flag was lowered, some photos and movies were taken, and the marines got set for the almost simultaneous raising of the second and larger flag. The Marines wanted the replacement of the smaller flag with the larger one to be seamless. Rosenthal set his camera down and piled up some stones and a sand bag to stand his short five foot five inch frame upon. His camera was set a 1/400th of a second with an f-stop between 8 and 16.

 

By the time Rosenthal looked up, the second flag-raising quickly happened as the men, Ira Hays, Frank Sousley, John Bradley, Harlon Block, Mike Strank and Rene Gagnon carried the flag and started to plant it into the ground. As they approached, Rosenthal spotted their movement, grabbed his camera, and got set. Genaust who was about three feet away asked Rosenthal if he was in his way. Rosenthal said. “Oh no,” and later said “Hey Bill, there it goes.” Everyone got what they wanted, the first flag going down and the second larger flag going up. Rosenthal wasn’t even sure that the shot would come out. After a few moments Rosenthal did what Lowery had done, he called several marines to cluster around the pole for a standard shot. Eventually 18 marines would be in this casual shot. They were laughing, waving their arms and helmets. The replacement flag-raising was so casual that it was never even reported in the 2nd Battalion’s “Action Report.”

After watching The Pacific and discussing its place in the history of cinematic and broadcast history, I re-read EB Sledge’s classic account of action in the Pacific Theater, With the Old Breed, at Peleliu and Okinawa. The 1st Marine Division, which Sledge served, is the largest unit on active duty in the United States Marine Corps. Nicknamed “the Old Breed,” or the “Blue Diamond,” the 1st Marine Division is also the most decorated unit of its size in the USMC. The 1st Marine Division is the ground combat element of the I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) and is stationed at Camp Pendleton in California

Many millions of words have been written about the brutal combat in the Pacific Theater of Operations. Unlike in Europe, or even North Africa, our Pacific fighting men had no sense of what they were doing, why they were there and where they were going. The US Armed Forces in Europe looked at their effort as one of engaging other civilized and Christian westerners. In 1940, about 40% of the American population had German blood, and it was considered our largest, hyphenated national group. German was almost universally taught in the schools in America up until 1917, and many Americas still spoke it in their homes. With regards to their Axis partner Italy, the amount of native born Italo-Americans in 1942, was also very large, well-known, and active in the culture of American society, with people like Joe DiMaggio, Jimmy Durante, Victor Mature, Lou Costello, Frank Sinatra, Perry Como, Frank Capra and various adopted opera stars, like the great Enrico Caruso. Therefore, the American armed forces were made up of many immigrants from the old and new immigration periods of American history. The rules of warfare, elucidated by the Geneva Convention were thought to apply. In actuality, there were few battlefield atrocities inflicted by Axis forces on western allied soldiers, who were captured. Thousands of American, British, French and Canadians, unlike their Russian counterparts, were able to survive long and bitter years in German POW camps. The typical Allied soldier thought that he would be treated humanely if captured, and also thought that surrender was respected under the rules of war. The Allied soldier respected their German opponents as fellow soldiers and only at the end of the war, when the atrocities were exposed, did the average American realize the barbarism of the Nazis. But, in most part, most Allied soldiers did not regard the average German soldier as a committed Nazi!

In the Pacific, of course, much of the brutal combat, vividly recounted in The Pacific documentary, was the culmination of a three-year struggle with the Empire of Japan. Americans quickly learned from the earliest days of the Bataan death march, that this was a different war against a different type of person and soldier. The Japanese soldier was seen as an unrelenting foe, who would not surrender, and who believed that his foes were cowards who did surrender. The battles of the Pacific were fought on strange islands, which were completely unfamiliar to the average soldier. On some islands there were no indigenous people. In most of the islands the terrain was made up of volcanic rock, and coral sands. There was little vegetation, horrible heat and humidity, no drinking water and an incredible amount of rain. Even a 90-mile long tropical island like Guadalcanal was uninhabitable and it had no standing fresh water. Therefore, the war became one of brutality, of one of survival and therefore; kill or be killed. There was no London, Paris, Naples Rome or even a Casablanca or Tangiers for rest and recovery. It was the ultimate for survival resulting in degradation and dehumanization. It is in that context, which EB Sledge so dramatically describes and The Pacific so vividly portrays.

 

Hanson W. Baldwin, former NY Times’ Military Editor, wrote in his classic book, Battles Lost and Won, about Okinawa, “In retrospect, the battle for Okinawa can be described only in the grim superlatives of war. In size, scope, and ferocity it dwarfed the Battle of Britain. Never before had there been, probably never again will there be, such a vicious, sprawling struggle of planes against planes, of ships against planes. Never before, in so short a space, had the Navy lost so many ships; never before in land fighting had so much American blood been shed in so short of time, in so small an area; probably never before in three months of the war had the enemy suffered so hugely, and the final toll of American casualties was the highest experienced in any campaign against the Japanese. There have been larger land battles, more protracted air campaigns, but Okinawa was the largest combined operation, a ‘no-quarter’ struggle fought on, under and over the sea and land.” He summed up the battle by writing, “Okinawa was an epic of human endurance and courage. The Japanese forms of attack represented ingenious desperation; the US defense against them and the successful seizure of Okinawa were a masterpiece of logistics, operation planning and determined implementation.” Finally the blood-letting was at an end, and on June 22, 1945, except for the continued air raids on the Japanese home islands, the work of the Marines was over.

 

This almost four-year bloody and titanic struggle officially ended, September 2, 1945, on the deck of the American battleship Missouri, anchored in Tokyo with the surrender ceremonies led by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur along with Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz and military representatives from all of the Allied Nations that waged war against Japan. It historically began on December 7, 1941, with the Japanese sneak attack on our naval and military facilities in the Hawaiian Islands. But did it, in reality, begin with American designs on Asian markets, the need for coaling stations across the Pacific, the “Opening of Japan” by Commodore Perry, and the confused mixture of idealism and racism embodied by President Theodore Roosevelt?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Roosevelt Reading Festival 6-19-10

The Roosevelt Summer Book Reading Festival

June 19, 2010

Richard J. Garfunkel

 

The Roosevelt Summer Book Reading Festival has again been blessed with great weather. It therefore was an incredibly pleasant day on the Hudson River. On days like this one could easily imagine why Franklin Roosevelt loved his home so much. The drive up the Taconic to Route West 55 to Poughkeepsie was smooth, uneventful and relatively free of traffic. Once I exited at La Grange it is about 13 miles west to Route 9 and north to the FDR homestead. It always takes about one hour to drive the sixty miles from Tarrytown.

 

As I approached Springwood, FDR’s ancestral home on Route 9, which is located in an area called Crum’s Elbow on the Hudson, in the Village of Hyde Park, I looked across the old wheat fields that fronted the mansion. I always imagine how it looked to residents back in the days when the late President was in residence.

 

My first trip to Hyde Park was probably sixty years ago, and over the past forty years I have made numerous trips when ever time allowed. The big house, which was originally purchased by FDR’s father, James Roosevelt, in 1866, was called Brierstone. Over the next thirty-four years James Roosevelt continued to improve and enlarge the house. At James’ death in 1900, both his widow, Sara Delano Roosevelt, and his son Franklin regarded Springwood as their primary residence.  FDR was born there in 1882 and it hasn’t changed much since it was enlarged back in 1915, from an old Victorian villa into a mansion more than twice its former size. But over the past decade, or so, it has faced a number of challenges from fire and its natural aging, which one could expect from a building almost one hundred-fifty years old. FDR loved the sprawling estate, and in 1915, in his voter registration form, he listed his occupation as tree farmer. He had early on learned that the ground Springwood was built on had been raising corn for hundreds of years and that the top soil had been eroding and blowing into the Hudson. He noticed that his estate’s production per acre had also declined over the years, and he believed that the loss of trees and their root systems created more erosion and drier soil. Therefore, over his adult life-time, he planted over 20,000 trees there annually.

 

After turning left across Route 9, into the property, I parked at the Henry A. Wallace Visitor’s Center. This center, constructed and opened in 2003-4, has made a remarkable addition to the Roosevelt National Historical Site. Since its opening it has been the focal point of all the intellectual and social activity that goes on at the whole complex. In fact, the whole character of the site has been incredibly enhanced by the Wallace Center.

 

Upon entering the Wallace Center at 9:40 am I saw the director Cynthia Koch, at the podium, waiting to address the gathered throng, and I went over, said hello, and wished her good luck and hoping that day would move smoothly. Cynthia and her staff have this program, and its schedule, down to an art form, and this day was no different. Later I would again meet Cynthia as she was escorting Professor Alan Brinkley, the keynote speaker. I had recently met Professor Brinkley at the NY Historical Society, while he was hosting an event on FDR.

 

I also met Chris Breiseth, the former head of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and terrific guy, who has had a remarkable academic and intellectual career from his days at Cornell’s Graduate Studies program to his recent work with both the Roosevelt Institute and the Frances Perkins Center. While Chris was at Cornell working on his PhD studies in European History over in the School of Arts and Sciences, Frances Perkins was at the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Chris and others invited her to come and live at Telluride House in the spring of 1960.  She remained until her death in May of 1965. He had one year with her in the Telluride House, 1962-63, after his return from Oxford University where he was from 1960 to 1962.  He actually arranged for the dinner in the spring of 1960 where he and others encouraged Miss Perkins to come and live with them and made the formal invitation.  She and Chris organized a seminar for house members with Henry Wallace in the spring of 1963 and worked with her the following year to do a similar seminar (over a weekend) with Jim Farley. 

 

By the way, I had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Kirsten Downey, at this event a few years ago, who has written a wonderful biography of Ms. Perkins. Linda and I met her again in NYC at the Harvard Club when there was a symposium on the 75th anniversary of the signing of the Social Security legislation by President Roosevelt. There are always interesting and exciting people to meet at the FDR Library, especially when they host this event.

 

Chris was talking to Dr. Steven Lomazow, who with Eric Fettmann, of NY Post, has written a very controversial book about FDR’s health, sickness and cause of death. Before the publication of his book, I had read the reviews and had spoken to Dr. Lomazow, at length, about his conclusions. I also had interviewed Dr. Harry Goldsmith MD, on my program, The Advocates, http://advocates-wvox.com , who I met at this event in 2008. Goldsmith’s research and book, The Conspiracy of Silence, The Health and Death of FDR,, had stimulated a great deal of interest in the medical connections between FDR and his doctors, Cary Grayson, Ross McIntire and Howard Bruenn, and the speculation that FDR suffered from and was affected by the affects of malignant Melanoma. Both Goldsmith and Lomazow focus on the extreme medical secrecy, regarding President Roosevelt’s health, and seem to feel his doctor’s action were unique. My sense is that all presidents have hidden their health challenges as defense mechanism against scurrilous political attacks, nit-picking and off-the-wall speculation regarding decision-making.

As to keeping his health information private, FDR knew who his opponents were and how vicious their tactics and actions could be. There are unlimited examples of their efforts, innuendos, lies, fabrications and character assassination for the sake of political gain. It seems that the authors relied upon the words and files of reporter and columnist Walter Trohan, the Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity of his day. FDR got along quite well with Trohan, even though he worked for the Chicago Tribune, and the author’s admitted that he was probably the source of much disinformation and under-handed criticism of the president. There is no doubt that FDR’s political enemies would use any edge to bring down his administration. FDR had an obligation to his millions of supporters who supported wholeheartedly his ideas and policies.

Of course, with Dr. Goldsmith’s research and medical experience, along with Lomazow’s long background in neurology, they make a specious case based circumstantial evidence that FDR’s powers of concentration, reasoning, and even judgment were impaired. Yes, he was sick, and there may have been multiple causes to his illness, but for sure, all evidence, from my perspective, was that he was perfectly aware of all that was going on, and that no other human knew what he knew and could deal as affectively with the problems of peace and war.

 

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to meet all of the authors, or hear all of their talks. As we all know, it is impossible to be in more than one place at a time. I did get to meet and listen to Neil Maher, the author of Nature’s New Deal, the CCC and the Roots of the American Environmental Movement, Richard Breitman, author of Refugees and Rescue, the Diaries of James G. MacDonald, 1933-45, which reveals much of the background work FDR used to help Jewish refugees, Terry Golway, author of Together We Cannot Fail, FDR and the American Presidency in the Years of Crisis, who had been a guest on my radio show, on January 27, 2010, and Julie Fenster, author of FDR’s Shadow: Louis Howe, The Force that Shaped Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt,  This book is an excellent addition to the available literature on FDR’s close friend and associate Louis McHenry Howe. There is really only one other book on their relationship, Roosevelt and Howe, by Alfred Rollins. Lastly, I met Andrew Roberts, author of the most interesting book, Masters and Commanders: How Four Titans Won the War in the West 1941-5.  I have read his book, which chronicles the lives and activities of Franklin D. Roosevelt, George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the US Army, Winston Churchill, and Field Marshall Alan Brooke, Great Britain’s Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and how they developed the strategy to win WWII in Europe. Both Neil Maher and Andrew Roberts are currently scheduled to be guests on The Advocates.  

 

At the end of the long, but interesting afternoon, Alan Brinkley, the Allan Nevins Professor of History at Columbia University, gave the keynote address. Brinkley is a graduate of Princeton University (AB) and received his Ph.D. from Harvard and is the son of long-time newscaster, the late David Brinkley. Below is the whole list of participants.

 

Glenn Altschuler and Stuart Blumin
The GI Bill: The New Deal for Veterans
Oxford University Press, 2009

Raymond Arsenault
The Sound of Freedom: Marian Anderson, the Lincoln Memorial, and the Concert That Awakened America
Bloomsbury Press, 2009

Tonya Bolden
FDR's Alphabet Soup: New Deal America 1932-1939
Alfred A. Knopf, 2010

Richard Breitman
Refugees and Rescue: The Diaries and Papers of James G. McDonald, 1935-1945
Indiana University Press, 2009

Michael G. Carew
Becoming the Arsenal: The American Industrial Mobilization for World War II, 1938-1942
University Press of America, 2009

Debórah Dwork
Flight from the Reich: Refugee Jews, 1933-1946
W.W. Norton, 2009

Julie M. Fenster
FDR's Shadow: Louis Howe, The Force That Shaped Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt
Palgrave Macmillan, 2009

Terry Golway
Together We Cannot Fail: FDR and the American Presidency in the Years of Crisis
Sourcebooks MediaFusion, 2009

Steven Lomazow, M.D. and Eric Fettmann
FDR's Deadly Secret
PublicAffairs, 2009

Neil M. Maher
Nature's New Deal: The Civilian Conservation Corps and the Roots of the American Environmental Movement
Oxford University Press, 2007

Kristie Miller and Robert H. McGinnis
A Volume of Friendship: The Letters of Eleanor Roosevelt and Isabella Greenway, 1904-1953
Arizona Historical Society, 2009

Stephen R. Ortiz
Beyond the Bonus March and GI Bill: How Veteran Politics Shaped the New Deal Era
New York University Press, 2010

Hannah Pakula
The Last Empress: Madame Chiang Kai-shek and the Birth of Modern China
Simon & Schuster, 2009

Thomas Parrish
To Keep the British Isles Afloat: FDR's Men in Churchill's London, 1941
Smithsonian Books, 2009

Andrew Roberts
Masters and Commanders: How Four Titans Won the War in the West, 1941-1945
HarperCollins, 2010

Lauren R. Sklaroff
Black Culture and the New Deal: The Quest for Civil Rights in the Roosevelt Era
University of North Carolina Press, 2009

John Wukovits
American Commando: Evans Carlson, His World War II Marine Raiders, and America's First Special Forces Mission
New American Library, 2009

 

The Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum is dedicated to preserving historical material and providing innovative educational programs, community events, and public outreach. It is one of thirteen presidential libraries administered by the National Archives and Records Administration. For information about the FDR Presidential Library call (800) 337-8474 or visit www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu.

 

The Gaza Story 6-8-10

I watched the story on Gaza, broadcasted on June 8, 2010, on the Evening News, and I found it incredibly one-sided, inaccurate, and patently ridiculous. You might as well have gone into an enemy city during WWII and discussed the lack of proportionality of the Allied bombing and the collateral destruction of their health care services. You conveniently ignored the fact that both Israel and Egypt jointly embargo goods directed towards Gaza. You forgot to mention that after the Israeli evacuation, the Hamas brigands looted the territory, destroyed whatever the Israelis left, and were able to smuggle bombs, small arms and rockets for their use against Israel. You highlighted the story of a small Arab child who was affected by the war initiated by his so-called government, but you conveniently forgot to mention the thousands of Arab children cared for by Hadassah Hospital and other medical facilities in a free and democratic Israel..

 

After 10,000 rockets were launched at Israel, retaliation in force ensued. What did Woodrow Wilson do about Pancho Villa’s raid into Texas? He sent Pershing and an army to find him. He didn’t find him, but there were no more bank robberies by Mexican warlords.

 

We are in Afghanistan because of the perceived threat to our national security. Why is Israel held to a different standard? Does Israel use human shields? No! Does Israel allow one million Arabs to live in peace with all the rights of citizenship? Yes! Hamas violated every article of the Geneva Convention, which included using religious edifices for artillery and hiding in neighborhoods to launch rockets. You shouldn’t report stories in the vacuum of historical ignorance.

 

You seemed to have had the time to devote some self-serving silliness regarding the Muppets. In this world of serious consequences and realities I am sure Walter Cronkite would have filled his 22 minutes with something more worthwhile than that claptrap!  

 

I have been a viewer of NBC’s Evening News since Tom Brokaw, and after tonight I may shift away to another station or cable network. Personally I am not some right-wing ideologue, but a registered active Democrat for almost fifty years.

 

Richard J. Garfunkel

Host of The Advocates

WVOX 1460 am radio, www.wvox.com

Why America Could Fail, An Unfinished Conclusion! 5-10-10

Why America Could Fail, An Unfinished Conclusion!

Richard J. Garfunkel

May 10, 2010

 

American is big wonderful place, which has been blessed over the years with an over abundance of natural resources, wildlife, fresh water, wonderful harbors and a dynamic population of immigrants who sought out the New World to express their own ideas, enjoy freedom, and work hard. Over its history, like most of the rest of the world, it has faced many challenges. Most Americans historically have been optimists. But can optimism alone alter dynamics that once in motion must run their course?

 

Lately in the news, the American public has been bombarded by the new economic conundrum, “is a business too big to fail?” For most of us this is a pretty confusing predicament. On one hand the Wall Street monopolists have sold many of us the concept that “big is better,” and for America to compete world wide, we need gigantic companies. Therefore, by default, they became, with the help of many legislators, lobbies, and their own sweat equity, very large. Therefore, when and if they fail, and they are too big to fail, they must be bailed out by the American taxpayers. It’s Catch 22 all over again, but bigger and uglier. So we are all caught in the middle of this problem. Our “friends” on the right are deathly afraid of big government, or   G-d forbid the hint of socialism, but do they have the courage to really allow their corporate friends, supporters and allies to fail? For sure, even they know that the “blood in the water” would be too difficult to endure and economically justify.

 

This of course is can be translated to America itself. Are we too big to fail, and are there reasons why it could really happen here? I am reminded of a very important satirical book written by the great writer, Sinclair Lewis, “It Can’t Happen Here,” in 1935, which tells about the struggle against a fascist regime that controls the American government.

 

My thoughts today are not about whether we will eventually become a dictatorship of the right or the left. It is about why we could eventually get to the point that there could be a struggle between both political extremes to pick up the pieces of a country that has failed. Today we face many challenges that are inimitable to our age, many of our own making, and a few that are the consequence of empire. We have forgotten the past often in our most recent foreign policy initiatives. We seem to have forgotten that our treasury is not limitless, and that a society which worships at the alter of material and celebrity, quite often becomes directionless and almost impossible to lead. As core values become so dispersed the character of a people becomes blurred.

 

American faces challenges today that are quite unique in its long history. Throughout the years from the War of 1812 (possibly our second War of Independence from Great Britain) though the bombing of Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941, America was never threatened by a foreign power. Yes, Napoleon controlled what had become the vast area of the Louisiana Purchase and Mexico controlled much of the southwest of the United States until the period of Texan and California independence. Mexico itself was ruled for a short time by the Austrian, Archduke Ferdinand Joseph Maximilian, who was a member of the Imperial House of Habsburg-Lorraine.

 

 

 

 

 

After a distinguished career in the Austrian Navy he was proclaimed Emperor of Mexico, during the Second Mexican Empire, with the backing of Napoleon III of France and a group of Mexican monarchists on 10 April 1864. Many foreign governments refused to recognize his government, including the United States. This helped to ensure the success of Republican forces led by Benito Juárez, and Maximilian was executed, after his capture by Republicans, in 1867.But, he, nor Mexico, was ever a threat to the United States. In fact, at the time of his ascension as head of State of Mexico, the United States, though embroiled in the Civil War had built its military strength to an unprecedented world-wide level, and was never vulnerable to any Mexican desires to physically reclaim Texas or the American southwest.

 

Aside from the Great Depression and World War II, where we were exquisitely tested, America has been quite secure as a nation state. During the Cold War, the chance of a nuclear exchange over Korea, Cuba, the Berlin War, the Middle East and Vietnam were always present. But the policy of MAD, mutually assured destruction, kept both the Soviets and America well away from the nuclear button. So there were always external threats, but aside from the Civil War which threatened the fabric of the country, nothing since that time has been so vexing.

 

Of course on the surface it would seem that this recession will pass, and I am sure it will, and life will go back to some normality. Wall Street will be somewhat re-regulated, banks will become solvent, our health care system will be partially re-structured and again life will go on. It seems simple doesn’t it? It seems like we have been “there” before and that the American people will find a way to adjust to the new realities and eventually prosper.

 

Most Americans have had a tendency to shake off negativity and get on with their lives. But what is wrong with this picture? Well times have changed significantly in the last generation or so. The question then arises how really big is this change and how vulnerable are we to the consequences that stare us in the face?

 

Thirty- five years ago our challenge was getting out of Vietnam. The hawks that abounded, in and around, the military-industrial complex, warned us that by pulling out of the conflict the balance of power would irreversibly shift. What was the result, the Vietnamese are at peace, the country is united, they run themselves, they have their own form of free enterprise and the fight is long over. What is the historical consequence, Nixon ended the war and he’s thought of in some circles as a peace-maker. The Democratic Congress that defunded the war is seen as taking the cowardly way out and giving in to the protests in the street. What was the result? The left triumphed, the war ended, no one really cares today, and the right-wing picked up the political pieces. The average American did not like to lose, but was sick of the war and that same public happily silenced the messenger (the hippy, the joint smoker, the college kid, the draft dodger, and limousine liberal). What eventually emerged from the whole Vietnam and cultural awakening experience of the 1960’s and early 1970’s was the triumph of the Goldwater heirs as the Great Society died.

 

That is just one story, but there are many more. In the wake of the end of World War II, the great concern was that we would go right back into the malaise of the back end of the Great Depression.

 

 

 

 

Who was going to provide the jobs? FDR’s farsighted “GI Bill of Rights,” officially entitled the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, provided education for millions of veterans and it was one of the best investments this country every made. While these veterans were in some sort of schooling, we had the emerging Cold War to confront. As the Soviet threat emerged the Marshall Plan was able to feed Western Europe, re-arm all of our former allies, and beat back the communists both physically in Greece, Turkey, and Korea, and electorally in France, Italy, and Austria. But, in truth the Marshall Plan was able to sustain our production here of foodstuffs, hard goods and armaments from monies we granted our western friends. We also had an almost universal draft who swept the drop outs and the unemployed off the streets. Most of these rootless and directionless young men benefitted from two years in the service. They learned to take orders, keep their billet clean, a trade, responsibility and discipline. The draft served many purposes, both military and social.

 

Back in the 1960’s, America led the world in every category of production. Regarding oil production, the change in world production, between 1960 and today, can be accessed in the following link: http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html ,  In 1960 we were the world’s leading oil producer with 7 million barrels per day production out of a worldwide production of 21 million barrels. In other words, we were producing one-third of the all the world’s oil. At that time we had more than double the production of the Soviet Union and more than all of the Persian Gulf producers. By 1970 our production rose to 9.64 million barrels as world wide production more than double to 46 million barrels. The Soviet Union’s production doubled and the Gulf’s production almost tripled along with Saudi Arabia’s. Our production dropped from one-third of the world’s production to 20%. By 1980, as our consumption soared we no longer were exporters and our production dropped to 8.6 million barrels as worldwide production grew to 59 million barrels. Our percentage of world wide production dropped from 21% to 14.5% and we were replaced by the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia as the world’s greatest oil producer… In 2007 world wide production reached 73 million barrels per day, our production dropped to a shade over 5 million per day or 7% of the world’s production. Realistically we do not have the reserves any more, but unfortunately we are using 25% of the world’s production with only 5% of the world’s population. Is this sustainable? No!

 

The history of our automobile production has also turned quite bleak. From the 1920’s America dominated world wide automobile production up to WWII and for many years after. Obviously we benefitted greatly by the catastrophe Europeans faced during the war production as they saw and experienced the destruction of their manufacturing base. As to Asian production of automobiles, before WWII in was almost non-existent, and it remained unimportant until decades after the surrender of Japan, the Chinese Civil War, the Korean War, and even the Vietnam War. Until there was political normalization, which now exists almost universally in that region, the means to produce automobiles was either limited or impossible. The peace dividend, cheaper labor, new factories arising out of the ashes of the war, and a drive to succeed and prosper has built Asia into a manufacturing colossus. Many conveniently forgot, in the wake of the Japanese defeat in 1945, that they produced an excellent fighter plane in the Mitsubishi Zero, along with an extensive and competent air force which complimented a world class surface navy. They also had an excellent submarine fleet, large affective transport planes and had mastered all of the arts of modern warfare.  

 

 

 

In 1960, fifteen years after the end of WWII, the United States produced 7.9 million automobiles or 48% of the world wide production of 16.5 million. By 1970 our percentage of world wide production had fallen to 28.2% and last year (2008) our production represented 12.3% of the world wide total production of 51.9 million. As the world’s leading car producer, we were able to sustain a balance regarding our habit and taste of buying luxury foreign goods, with our heavy price-tag exports. In fact, only recently, General Motors, which was founded in 1908, the now moribund giant relinquished the title of world’s largest automobile producer to Japan’s Toyota. They had held that title for seventy-seven consecutive years from 1931 through 2007. In the 1980’s, General Motors had 348, 000 employees and approximately 150 plants. Today it has only 68,500 United States employees, with 48 plants, a reduced line of cars and 40% less dealerships. Big was better? Yes, if you can hold on to your market share! They didn’t! General Motors today only exists because the United States Treasury has bailed it out, kept it afloat and is a major shareholder. So much for capitalism! If it were up to the free market most of Detroit would have shut down and the loss of jobs through the secondary and tertiary markets of suppliers and others was conservatively estimated at 3,000,000. Yes, there would have been car makers ready to sell to Americans, but who would have been there to buy them? Once the domestic automobile industry would have collapsed, the infrastructure would have probably imploded and within a short period of time there would be no domestic industry left. Aside from all that “good” news of General Motors’ survival, China has now passed the United States as the greatest producer of cars. 

 

Of course as major energy users, the United States in 2007 led China in usage 4.167 trillion kilowatts to 3.256 trillion. But as recently as 2001 the United States led the 2nd place Chinese with a production of 3,719 trillion kilowatts to 1.420 trillion kilowatts. The United States went from a 2.6 ratio to a slight lead of less than 4 to 3. Of course China has a much larger population than America and the amount of poor people in China is vastly higher in proportion. But regarding total growth in electrical production, China will certainly pass us in 2010.

Obviously we have been losing our leadership in the production of commodities, energy and manufacturing for decades. In 1960, we not only led the world in almost every category, but since then our percentage of world production has been also steadily declining. As our manufacturing and production of commodities has shrunk, our exports have decreased and our imports have skyrocketed. A stark example is the production of cement. In the 1960’s we the world’s leader, but today after eighteen straight years in the lead, China in 2005 produced 45.5% of the world’s cement, with the United States a distant 3rd at 4.38%. Of course most of that is for their huge domestic consumption. But why aren’t we supplying more of China’s needs to help balance our trade deficit with them?

As a consequence of this reversal, the United States has had trade deficits starting late in the 1960s. It was this very deficit that forced the United States in 1971 off the gold standard. Its trade deficit has been increasing at an accelerating rate since 1997 and increased by 49.8 billion dollars between 2005 and 2006, setting a record high of 817.3 billion dollars, up from 767.5 billion dollars the previous year. The United States last had a trade surplus in 1991, a recessionary year. Every year there has been a major reduction in economic growth, it is followed by a reduction in the US trade deficit.

 

 

Since the stagflation of the 1970s, the U.S. economy has been characterized by slower GDP growth. In 1985, the U.S. began its growing trade deficit with China. Over time, nations with trade surpluses tend also to have a savings surplus. The U.S. savings rate has been declining for years its savings rate has been consistently lower than its trading partners which tend to have trade surpluses. Germany, France, Japan, and Canada have maintained higher savings rates than the U.S. for many years. Wealth-producing primary sector jobs in the U.S. such as those in manufacturing and computer software have often been replaced by much lower paying wealth-consuming jobs such those in retail and government in the service sector when the economy recovered from recessions. Many economists believe that the U.S. is borrowing from itself and its trading partners to fund the consumption of imports while accumulating unsustainable amounts of debt. Obviously the importation of oil and automobiles are feeding those deficits. We can obviously produce a better car here if we make the proper commitment. With regards to the outflow of “Petro Dollars,” that reality must be reversed.

When one considers our international trade deficit, http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/deficit.html , China is by far the leader with a current $259 billion surplus with Japan in second place with an $83 billion dollar deficit. All of these deficits are made up of computers, accessories, household goods from China and basically cars from Japan. With regards to “Petro Dollars,” Nigeria, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia account for $72 billion in deficits and our North American friends Canada and Mexico account for $140 billion in deficits, of which a large proportion of those dollars are for oil. This continued dependency on imported manufactured goods and energy will continue to weaken the dollar, strengthen the buying power of our foreign suppliers and impoverish the American public.

Not only are we threatened by huge and ongoing trade deficits, but we are also victims of our own domestic spending. The amount of federal, state and local spending has grown dramatically over the years as we have been fighting two unfunded wars, and supporting the largest defense budget, aside from World War II, in history. By the end of 2008 we have spent $900 billion in both Afghanistan and Iraq and this doesn’t include the current and future costs incurred by the 33,000 wounded from both theaters of operation. This cost is brunt by the Veteran’s Department. The current defense budget for fiscal year 2009 is $515 billion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States . When one includes other discretionary spending in the Defense Department, which includes interest on past wars, homeland security, maintaining nuclear weapons, NASA and counter-terrorism the dollar amount climbs to between $925 and $1124 billion. The 2009 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined and is over nine times larger than the military budget of China The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority). As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined — and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners. The question going forward is not whether we need all of our very expensive carrier groups, but can we pay for them! One way to pay for this vast army is to raise taxes. This logical step seems anathema to the average citizen.

 

 

The rest of the budget also has daunting problems made more complicated by the changing demographics of the country. The so-called baby boom generation that numbers approximately 79,000,000 individuals born between 1946 and 1964 is the largest generation in our history. Of this group approximate 15% are immigrants. Also, a greater percentage of these people will live to collect both Social Security and Medicare, and a greater percentage of these people will be alive than any other comparable generation. Besides the reality of the mortality tables, the generation to follow is smaller and poorer. By 2031 the first boomers will turn 85 and there is expected to be 51 million still alive and the cost for their Social Security and Medicare will be astronomical. .

Spending on Medicare and Medicaid is projected to grow dramatically in coming decades. While the same demographic trends that affect Social Security also affect Medicare, rapidly rising medical prices appear a more important cause of projected spending increases. The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is invested in special Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Social Security and other federal trust funds are part of the “intergovernmental debt.” The total federal debt is divided into “intergovernmental debt” and “debt held by the public.”

Even though both of these entitlements are self –funding through payroll taxes, the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that: “Future growth in spending per beneficiary for Medicare and Medicaid—the federal government’s major health care programs—will be the most important determinant of long-term trends in federal spending. Changing those programs in ways that reduce the growth of costs—which will be difficult, in part because of the complexity of health policy choices—is ultimately the nation’s central long-term challenge in setting federal fiscal policy. ” Further, the CBO also projects that “total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082—which, as a share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total amount that the federal government spends today. The bulk of that projected increase in health care spending reflects higher costs per beneficiary rather than an increase in the number of beneficiaries associated with an aging population.”

The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009-2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years is now approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion “swing,” separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:

  • Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
  • Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
  • Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
  • New policies from President Obama (10%).

 

 

 

But note, that the depth and breadth of this current recession, which promises to be one of the deepest and most severe since the Depression, has caused the Executive Branch and Congress to spend inordinate amounts to not only stop the hemorrhaging, but salvage a number of our industries which include; automotive, insurance, banking and toxic housing market.

The high cost of Medicare is exacerbated by the fact the health care costs keep on accelerating at a pace 3 to 4 times the rate of inflation. This of course affects Medicare and Medicaid payouts, to an aging population that is living longer, and longer, ironically assisted by healthcare provided by Medicare. As people became unemployed, they stopped having health insurance, and consequently reduced the pool of the insured. Therefore, insurance companies were paying out ever-rising claims as the pool of revenues had shrunk. As a consequence, insurance premiums have increased. One is reminded of the reverse phenomenon that has faced various water departments. After a long rainy summer, where people do not have to water their lawns, water fees have to increase to make up the shortfall in revenues from the drop in usage! Therefore, as insurance premiums increase, health care costs will continue to escalate and the whole system will be in jeopardy. It is a vicious, never-ending, cycle.

As to government revenues, a variety of tax cuts were enacted under President Bush between 2001-2003, through the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). Most of these tax cuts are scheduled to expire December 31, 2010. Since CBO projections are based on current law, the projections discussed above assume these tax cuts will expire, which may prove politically challenging. CBO has estimated that extending these cuts would cost the U.S. Treasury nearly $1.8 trillion in the following decade, dramatically increasing federal deficits and exacerbating the entitlement-related risks described above.

Francis Fukuyama, the American philosopher, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama, who specializes in economic and political theory, summarized these concepts: “Prior to the 1980s, conservatives were fiscally conservative— that is, they were unwilling to spend more than they took in taxes. But Reaganomics introduced the idea that virtually any tax cut would so stimulate growth that the government would end up taking in more revenue in the end (the so-called Laffer curve). In fact, the traditional view was correct: if you cut taxes without cutting spending, you end up with a damaging deficit. Thus the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s produced a big deficit; the Clinton tax increases of the 1990s produced a surplus; and the Bush tax cuts of the early 21st century produced an even larger deficit. The fact that the American economy grew just as fast in the Clinton years as in the Reagan ones somehow didn't shake the conservative faith in tax cuts as the surefire key to growth.”

We are also devoting a huge amount of our GNP to higher education in the United States. There are over 7000 colleges and universities in the United States with over 15,000,000 students, or about 4%, when one excludes the large amount of foreign students (estimated at 600,000), of our population. (See: http://www.braintrack.com/us-colleges.) Of these students, over 70% attend public schools and the average total cost is $15,000 per year. The remaining 30% attend for-profit private schools and the average cost is about $30,000 per year. Almost 80% of the students require some assistance, and 23% of all higher education schools are located in the United States which has approximately 4.6% of the world’s population.

 

Each year the tuition and living costs of these institutions rises at a much higher rate than inflation, the debt load becomes greater on the students, and these institutions demand more assistance from local, state and federal coffers.

As a consequence of this artificial need placed on both the education provided and the curriculum offered, we have a whole generation of over-educated sales people with large personal debts. Therefore we have a tax-exempt industry providing a very expensive and somewhat unnecessary service to a large percentage of the public who are unprepared for the world outside the campus.

With regards to the growing education gap in our expensive, non-performing public education system, nearly one-third of all high school students fail to graduate with their class. http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2009/04/22/67045.aspx. Of this total amount of high school students, nearly one-half of all African-American, Hispanics, and Native Americans fail to graduate with their classes. They earn substantially less money than their peers that graduate and  their incarceration rate is much higher. In fact dropouts are more likely to be unemployed, live in poverty, in poor health, on welfare, and be single parents. They are eight times more likely to be in jail as high school graduates. The estimated cost to our government is huge because of higher public health costs, high crime, and welfare. If the dropout rate for these 700,000 persons could be cut in half, the government would reap and additional $45 billion in extra taxes and reduced costs. In 2000 of our public high schools, the dropout for the typical freshman is 40% before they become seniors. If that were not bad enough, in Westchester County, NY, where many schools are considered at the highest levels in the country, the cost per student annually could average between $23 and $30 thousand per year. Please note that costs have risen dramatically since this chart that was published in: The White Plains CitizenNetReporter, and the cost rose to $184 million in 2008.http://www.whiteplainscnr.com/article6324.html

The Student Spending Leaders in Westchester County in 2006-2007:

1.       Greenburgh Central School District , $28,322, (1,800 enrollment)

2.       Bedford, $25,914  (1,800 enrollment)

3.       North Salem, $25,244 (1,385 enrollment)

4.       Harrison, $25,113 (3,548 enrollment)

5.        Scarsdale, $24,647 (4,702 enrollment)

6.       Katonah, $24,306 (4,100 enrollment)

7.       Dobbs Ferry — $24,168 (1,410 enrollment)

8.       White Plains –$23,500 (7,060 enrollment)

9.       Byram Hills — $23,407 (2,835 enrollment)

In truth, many of these schools have wonderful curriculum, excellent teachers, above average students, a high graduation rate, and a high college attendance rate. Westchester schools have traditionally fed students into the elite schools all over the Unite States. But aside from that good news, many schools in Westchester do not. They are beset with problems and they are easily incorporated into those 2000 schools with high drop out rates. In those districts, along with the tonier ones like, Scarsdale, Chappaqua, Rye, Bronxville, Rye Brook, Bedford, to mention a few, the local tax rate, which is dominated by public schools, is driving people from the region.

 

 Home prices have dropped not only because of the recession, but because, despite the economy, taxes continually rise through excessive budget creep. Therefore, without further explanation, even the 8th wealthiest county in the nation has its problems regarding its own sustainability.

Of course Westchester County isn’t New York and New York is not the United States. The image of New York as being the Empire State and the home to many of our Fortune 500 Corporations is long over. If New York was once the jewel of industrial America, it is now virtually broke, and run by an appointed governor with a dysfunctional legislature. As of today, the present governor inherited his office when the former governor, Eliot Spitzer, resigned in disgrace. The new state comptroller was appointed to fill the seat of the indicted and convicted former controller Alan Hevesi. If that was not enough, the former and long-time Republican Majority Leader of the New York State Senate, Joseph Bruno, was indicted and convicted and was sentenced to two years in prison. In the court proceedings against him, the amount of conflicts of interests, pay-offs and phony deals was astounding.

Of course, again New York State is not unique regarding its public officials, and the amount of corruption, indictments, resignations and convictions of public officials around the country of both parties could fill a large book. Is this a break down of values that mostly exists in our more liberal states, which are populated by more minorities that are not used to our system, or immigrants that are poorer and more susceptible to crime? The answer is a resounding no! Not only do public officials in the conservative heartland of America fail, but in these so-called “Red States” their level of social problems far exceed the more liberal states which are located on our coastlines or in the “rust belt” area of the Middle West.

In the November’s Vanity Fair magazine (please access the following site: http://louisvilledivorce.typepad.com/info/2006/11/red_state_blue.html ) one can read about the “real” national statistics on morality. The “Red States” lead in violent crime, overall crime, divorce, illegitimacy, infidelity, multiple sexual partners, rape, incest, teenage mortality, drug abuse and incarceration. One should ask why?

 

As to illegitimacy rates, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, of states with the highest percentage of births in 2003 to unwed mothers, 9 of the top 10 are “red” states. The rate for teen mortality by suicide, homicide and accidents, despite their state’s reputation for family, religious and moral values, was much higher in the “red” states. In fact the top ten states regarding that statistic are “red,” and the bottom ten are “blue!” Not only that the top ten states in alcohol dependence and abuse, are “red” states. The incidence of venereal disease is 40% higher in the “red” states.

 

With that in mind, should it not be the question, “Why America Could Fail,” but has it failed already? Many over the past 60 years have stated, “America, love it, or leave it,” or “where else would you live,” or other questions along the same lines. Of course, that is not the issue. We know most of the rest of the world has problems. We know that the poor live better here than the middle class in most of the world. We know that we have the most trinkets still, so what! All the poverty, political instability, war, famine and pestilence around the world have nothing to whether we survive or implode as a consequence of our greed, national vanity, self-indulgence and top-heavy institutions. Unlike 1933, we are not protected by two great oceans, we do not have unlimited natural resources and energy, and we do not have a homogenous population.

 

 

 

 

 

We are an over-stressed society, with 25% of the world’s imprisoned population. We have over 8 million people in jail or on parole in America. We have 47 million people who have been convicted of a crime in this country. We have overloaded jails and the cost of maintenance of a prisoner in some states exceeds $50,000 per year. The stress level in America has created an epidemic of legal and illegal drug use. The amount of mentally ill in America is staggering. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/statistics/index.shtml, here are the following are the statistics:

 

Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people. Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness. In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada for ages 15-44. Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to co-morbidity.

 

The consequences of this reality are not only daunting, but staggering. They manifest themselves in crime, family dysfunctional, the high cost of incarceration, and an incredible burden on our teetering heath care system. As to suicide alone, please read the statistics from the National Institute of Mental Health.

Black American teens, especially females, may be at high risk for attempting suicide even if they have never been diagnosed with a mental disorder, according to researchers funded in part by NIMH. Their findings, based on responses from adolescent participants in the National Survey of American Life (NSAL), provide the first national estimates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (ideation) and suicide attempts in 13- to 17-year-old black youth in the United States. The study was published in the March 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Suicide is the third leading cause of death in all teens in the United States, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Historically, black teens and young adults have lower suicide rates than white teens, but in recent decades, the suicide rate for black youth has increased dramatically.

The last issue one should consider is the ongoing partisanship reflective of the growing political fissure between the extreme left and right. On one hand we have people on the far-left who have a tough time with personal responsibility or standards. They blame society quite often for personal actions that quite often result in a varied amount of crimes from; rape to murder. They disconnect rights from responsibility. There have always been leftist views that have been part of the political spectrum and these views have quite often shaped the middle of Democratic Party. This reality is not particularly bad or good. But today the left wing of the Democratic Party has become more polarized from the center on issues such as global warming, cap and trade, freedom of expression, the belief in G-d, salvation of the darter snail to the polar bear, and the right to universal benefits our society seems unable to afford. There are many in this group who would like to tax the rich as a means to re-distribute income. Maybe this goal would be more realistic if these revenues were used to pay for the expensive services this country seems to need and require. As freedom of expression has been championed by adherents of the far-left, standards in speech, dress, and conduct have markedly declined. In other words, anything goes!

 

 

On the far right, we now see domination from religious zealots, who oppose almost all women’s issues from; choice, birth control to equality in the work place. The right supports states-rights as an avenue to not only weaken the strength of the Federal government, but to enable the states to eliminate or weaken Supreme Courts decisions that have affirmed worker’s rights, accessibility to abortion, family planning, sex education or an adequate criminal defense. We see a flat-earth, flat-tax mentality that believes sincerely that all our problems emanate from big government, and decision makers in Washington.

A percentage of these people actually believe that we never landed on the Moon. Many believe that the world was created in six days, and that Darwin’s Theory has no merit. The right-wing often nurtures racial hatred, homophobia, and religious bigotry. They are not tolerant or sympathetic of people who are different from them, and they form the core of xenophobic, know-thing thinking in America.

The left-wing has often supported anti-Israel stances in the Middle East. One just has to read the website Code Pink, or various other left-wing sites that excuse all of the actions of our enemies and blame our capitalistic society for all the ills of the world. Many left-wingers have been unrealistic when it came to Castro, Daniel Ortega, Lenin, Allende, and socialism in general. But, the right-wing has a much worse record. It has tolerated; anti-immigrant Know-Nothingism, Father Coughlin, the Liberty Lobby, the American First, almost all social and labor reform, and dictators by the score overseas. Many right-wingers supported Franco, Mussolini, appeased Hitler, backed Batista, Somoza, Noriega, Pinochet and scores of others now forgotten tin-horn “Banana Republic” strongmen. They believed in eugenics, championed segregation, apologized for Henry Ford, and opposed immigration of Jewish refugees in the 1930’s. It certainly wasn’t liberals who supported slavery in the South and persecution of America’s Native Americans.

We as a nation should have learned much from our nation’s history. As rights became more incorporated into our daily lives, the resistance to those changes has stiffened. I am sure that no one can predict whether these fissures will become so deep that in the future that civil unrest could erupt. There is bitterness towards the excesses on Wall Street, there are strong feelings against Muslins, there is a rise of anti-Semitism, and there has always been anti-Black prejudice. Could these emotional feelings exacerbate a break down of the American state? Hopefully the rule of law will survive and economic recovery will cool the savage breast of conflict.

But, in conclusion, what society can survive and continue to be a debtor in their own currency, export billions of Chimera dollars to the Far East and petrodollars all over the world, continue to run high domestic deficits and have low Federal taxes on the people who can afford to pay more? Something has to give! We can control health care costs, we can reform education, we must pay more for domestically produced goods, we must increase our savings rate, we can work aggressively on home grown energy, and we have to have more secure borders, and we must provide hope and opportunity to lower our excessive and expensive crime and incarceration rate. If we don’t start on that path our will be eventually on the slippery slope to ruin.

The Pizza War of Southern Westchester: Johnny’s vs. Pepe’s 5-9-10

The Pizza War of Southern Westchester: Johnny’s vs. Pepe’s

May 9, 2010

Richard J. Garfunkel

 

In November of 2009, Pepe’s Pizzeria, founded by Frank Pepe, on Wooster Street in New Haven, CT, and now run by his descendents moved into a location at 1555 Central Avenue, which was formerly the home of the now departed and legendary Ricky’s Clam House. I can remember eating at Ricky’s when Eisenhower was president. How did the subject of Pepe’s come up one could ask! Linda and I met her cousin Terry Rosen Deutsch at Beth Shalom Synagogue this past Friday night. In the course of their conversation, Linda mentioned that our children, Dana and Jon had come to New York for my birthday the other day and we went to Yankee Stadium and for dinner at the legendary Johnny’s Pizzeria. Along with us were Jon’s friends, Merry and Stephanie. All three of them, without coercion, or politeness to their host, (they had never eaten there before) felt that Johnny’s slices were not just very good, but great! Linda, Dana and I had previously enjoyed their critically acclaimed slices.

 

Meanwhile, with that in mind, Terry mentioned that they had eaten at Pepe’s Pizzeria in Yonkers. We, of course, had heard of this well-known eatery, which was located in New Haven, CT, but we were surprised that they now had a local venue. Johnny’s, which has a Zagat’s rating of 27 for food, has been a legendary Mount Vernon eatery for seven decades, but people have always asked us if we ever enjoyed the cuisine at Pepe’s.

 

Therefore, on our way to Stew Leonard’s in Yonkers this afternoon, we decided to make a lunch detour to Pepe’s on Central Avenue. Unlike Johnny’s, there’s plenty of parking available at Pepe’s, but the lot and the spaces on Central Avenue looked like they were filled. But, fortuitously we found a space right next to the front door. It was crowded, but our waitress, a lovely, lithe, lass named Lisa, got to us quite quickly. We learned that she was a relative of the Migliucci family that runs the legendary Mario’s on Arthur Avenue. We ordered a small salad for $3.95 and a small plain tomato pie with mozzarella, which was priced at $7.70. The salad came very quickly, but we waited more than 20 minutes for the pie. The pizza finally was served and it was a nice size for a small pizza. It was quite hot with a decently thin crust. At 3:30 PM, I could have eaten anything. But it was a bit too gooey and oily and it did not have a distinct enough taste. We felt it was not spicy enough. But, all in all, it was very good, but unlike Johnny’s pies, it needed a lot of garlic powder, and hot pepper. We even took home two slices. No one leaves any slices left over at Johnny’s. The crust at Johnny’s is incredible, thin, but firm, and many gourmands believe that toppings only subtract from the greatness of Johnny’s plain pizza. So far, with only one eating experience at Pepe’s, we still both lean heavily to Johnny’s.

 

With Pepe’s bold move into Yonkers, the Great Pizza War has been engaged. These two super powers of the culinary art of thin crust pizza are less than two miles apart, but their venues are diametrically different. Johnny’s could almost be classified as a shrine to the NY Yankees, with pictures and pennants of the Bombers festooned over ever inch of its wood-paneled wall space. Even though it is in its third location, it has that “lived-in” charm of a family restaurant. Pepe’s is in a rectangle building, painted bright white, with huge paintings of Frank Pepe and old photos of their original location in New Haven. In the center of the restaurant is a wide open cooking area where their chefs do their culinary craft.

 

Historically, Johnny's, established in 1942 is one of Westchester's oldest pizzerias. Their ultra-thin crust pizza is served by the pie only; no slices! Though the pizza is the real star, one can order many entrees and appetizers off their extensive menu. You can ask anyone where there is good pizza and they will say Johnny’s.

 

Meanwhile, Johnny’s a Mount Vernon culinary landmark with its famous, delicious and expensive pizza (a six-slice mushroom, sausage and cheese is about $16) is now located a block up West Lincoln Avenue on one’s way to Yannantuano’s Funeral Home. Reasonably not every one who goes up West Lincoln is heading there, and for sure not every one going there is in position to enjoy the famous thin crust of Johnny’s pies.

Except for the last sixteen years, Johnny’s was always not there. For decades it was on Gramatan Avenue and before that it was a small hole in the wall on the corner of Third Street and Fourth Avenue. Back in the early 1960’s, when I experienced my first 15 cent slice, it was not far from Hi-FI Pizza, another vest pocket pizzeria off Mount Vernon’s 4th Avenue shopping district.30 W Lincoln Ave
Mount Vernon, NY
914-668-1957

Established in 1942, Johnny's is one of Westchester's oldest pizzerias. Their old-school approach maintains as the ultra-thin crust pizza is served by the pie only; no slices! Though the pizza is the real star, traditional Italian menu items (eggplant parmesan, baked ziti) are also available.You can ask anyone where there is good pizza and they will say Johnny's. People still to this day walk in and say “Is this the FAMOUS Johnnys pizza that was… (read more)

 

Pepe's was founded in 1925 by Frank Pepe (1893 –1969), an Italian immigrant. Pepewas born in Maiori, Italy, and immigrated to New Haven in 1909 at the age of 17. The quintessential Wooster Square Italian immigrant (poor, uneducated, enthusiastic), he took a job at a New Haven factory, but he hated it.

During World War I, Pepe went back to Italy to fight for his native country. Upon returning, he soon landed a job working at a bakery on Wooster Street. Pepe began walking through the Wooster Square market and sold his “tomato pies” off of a special headdress. After saving up enough money, he was able to buy a wagon to sell his pizzas from. He did so well with his pizzas that he was eventually able to take over his employer's business and turn it into the first Frank Pepe Pizzeria Napoletana on June 16, 1925. Frank Pepe died on September 6, 1969.

Pepe's originated the New Haven-style thin-crust apizza (closely related to Neapolitan-style Italian pizza) which he baked in a coal-fired brick oven. Originally, Frank Pepe only made two varieties of pizza: the “plain” (oregano, chopped garlic, tomato sauce, and grated pecorino romano cheese) and the “marinara” (tomato sauce, grated cheese, and anchovies).

The piece of land which Pepe's restaurant sat on was owned by the Boccamiello family. They later made Frank Pepe leave so that they could start their own pizzeria at the establishment, which they renamed The Spot. Pepe moved his restaurant to its current location next door to The Spot in 1936. The Pepe family later bought back The Spot from the Boccamiello family in 1981 and it now serves the same menu as the newer restaurant.

Baseball and Fine and Schapiro 5-4-10

Baseball and Fine and Schapiro

May 4, 2010

Richard J. Garfunkel

 

Last night I met Alan Rosenberg, my old buddy from high school, and Richie Teichman another Westchesterite at the Ethical Culture Center on 64th Street. The NY Historical Center, which is undergoing a year long and well-deserved renovation, was hosting an evening of Yankee baseball. We all had last met at the NY Historical Society on January 26, 2010, for a program called “Longshots and Underdogs” about NYC sports with writer and author Bert Sugar, Bob Herbert of the NY Times, and Adam Gopnik of the New Yorker.

 

This program was the final in a series on baseball with Ed Randall, of radio and television’s Talking Baseball, Bert Sugar and Tony Morante of the Yankees. The subject was about Yankees icons: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle. Of course they digressed about the old Yankee Stadium (1923-2008) which was rebuilt in 1973 and how the Highlanders became the Yankees! Below is an outtake from my essay “Take Me Out to The Ball Park” which one could find in my website https://www.richardjgarfunkel.com

 

The Yankees were originally known as the Highlanders, who owed their name to the location of their ballpark and the fact that their owner Joseph W. Gordon’s name reminded some folks of the famed British Army unit (Gordon’s Highlanders.) In 1913 the current owners (Farrell and Devery) of the Highlanders, who were quite often were referred to in the press as the Yankees, were unhappy with their antiquated park, and therefore accepted an invitation to play in the Polo Grounds. But moving to the Polo Grounds did not bring the Yankees or their owners financial or artistic success

 

Therefore, the modern Yankees are really traced to the partnership of (NY National Guard honorary) Colonel Jacob Ruppert, (aka The Prince of Beer) who owned the Ruppert Breweries. He was a former four-term Congressman (1899-1906 from NY’s Silk Stocking District!) and reputedly worth between $50 and $75 million, who teamed up with one (retired Army Corp of Engineers) Colonel Tillinghast l’Hommedieu “Til” Huston, to buy the team. Huston, a construction millionaire and Ruppert bought the Yankees in 1915 for the astronomical sum of $460,000 from Big Bill Devery and Frank Farrell, who had paid just $18,000 for the Baltimore franchise in 1903 before moving it to New York, (The Yankees had a previous 12 year losing record of 861-937, and an average attendance of 345,000 fans per season.) Of course, it was the innovative Ruppert, who supposedly designed the team’s brand new pinstriped uniform in the 1920’s. He thought pinstripes would make the Babe, who had a tendency to expand his belt-size, look slimmer. Ruppert liked to win and told his new business manager “I want to win.” He also said, “Every day I want to win ten to nothing. Close games make me nervous.” I always heard that Ruppert, the proto-typical Yankee fan also said, “I like to see the Yanks score nine runs in the first inning and pull away gently!”

 

The Yankees stayed there as tenants of the Giants until 1922, when John McGraw asked the Colonels Jacob Ruppert and Til Huston to take their team and leave. It is a mystery why he did that. The Yankees were big draws and outdrew the Giants in 1920 (in this year the Yankees set a major league record, drawing 1,289,422 into the Polo Grounds, 350,000 more than the Giants), 1921, and 1922 and most would have thought that the added revenue would have been hard to resist. Maybe the Giants felt that they were being overshadowed by the presence of the Yankees new star Babe Ruth. John McGraw, an exponent of “inside” baseball or “little ball” as they term it today, hated Babe Ruth and his home runs. He said in 1921, “The Yankees will have to build a park in Queens or some other out-of-the-way place. Let them go away, and wither on the vine.”

 

They moved directly across the Harlem River and built “The House that Ruth Built.” The 58,000-seat concrete and steel edifice, opened up on April 18, 1923, at the cost of $2.5 million. It was built in 258 working days and featured the first triple-deck grandstand. The Opening attendance, with Governor Alfred E. Smith throwing out the first ball, was reputed to be over 74,000, but later on it was revised down to about 60,000. John Philip Sousa and the Seventh Regiment Band led the procession of Yankee and Red Sox players to the centerfield flagpole for the raising of the 1922 pennant. There were a few changes since 1923. The right field triple deck grandstands were extended around the foul pole to the bleachers in the late 1930’s, and some of the outfield distances were re-adjusted before the great re-building in 1974-5. Originally center field in the old ballpark was 490 feet. It was later reduced to 461 feet and to its present day 408 feet. Deepest right center was an astronomical 550 feet, but quickly reduced to 457 feet and to its present day 420 feet. The right field foul line remained at 296 feet until the renovation where it was lengthened to 314 feet and the fence was raised from 4 feet to 8 feet. Left field was originally 280.5 feet but was quickly adjusted to 301, and it is presently 318 feet with and 8-foot wall.

 

The Yanks still remain on property purchased from William Waldorf Astor for $600,000 and the Giants, who eventually went broke, left in 1957, and currently play in San Francisco. Many years later, in 1974-5, when Yankee Stadium was being re-constructed, they moved over to Queens and became guests of the City of New York, in Shea Stadium, for two unhappy seasons.

 

Interestingly, we met Ernestine Miller, who is a good friend of the legendary sports authority and baseball biographer Ray Robinson, who was with us at the NY Historical Society back in January. It was like old home week. Most of their stories were known to aficionados of the sport, but it was nice to hear them once again. Of the four, probably Gehrig was the only one who wasn’t deeply flawed. Both Mantle and DiMaggio had issues inimitable to their upbringing, social skills and insecurities. Gehrig, who was the only one of the four to grow up in New York, came from leveling parents, was exposed to higher education at Columbia and even thought he was quiet, was used to the big city, and knew how to avoid its pitfalls. Ruth was in a league of his own and everyone in baseball history is measured against his career and incredible lifestyle. The Ruth-Gehrig Era moved smoothly into the one dominated by DiMaggio, and Mickey Mantle’s rookie year was DiMaggio’s last. Therefore, from 1920 to 1968, a period of almost 50 years, the Yankee dynasty was dominated by larger than life superstars.

 

After the “question and answer” period and the book signing, we drove over to Fine and Shapiro’s on 72nd Street and enjoyed kreplach soup, derma, pickles, cole slaw, and pastrami and tongues sandwiches. Not only were we overdosing on Jewish delicacies, but we wound up talking to other fressers about baseball, trivia, and real estate. All in all, another “boy’s night out” was a great success. Blame it all on our host Alan Rosenberg, who organized this grand effort.

 

 

The Yankees, My Birthday and Johnny's Pizza 5-2-2010

The Yankees, My Birthday, and Johnny’s Pizza

May 2, 2010

Richard J. Garfunkel

 

Then Linda, Dana, Jon and I drove down to the Bronx, the home of the fabled NY Yankees of international sport and baseball fame. The first game I saw was in 1951 at the old, but now leveled Yankee Stadium which stood for 85 years. The new Yankee Stadium, opened last year is right across the street from the old location. From Tarrytown, we drove down the Saw Mill River Parkway to the Mosholu Parkway, which crosses the northern part of the Bronx. Then we headed south on the old Grand Concourse, which was modeled on the Champs Elysees, the center of Paris,

 

The Grand Boulevard and Concourse (almost universally referred to as the Grand Concourse) is a major thoroughfare in the borough of the Bronx in New York City. It was designed by Louis Aloys Risse, an Alsatian immigrant who had previously worked for the New York Central Railroad and was later appointed chief topographical engineer for the New York

Risse first conceived of the road in 1890, as a means of connecting the borough of Manhattan to the northern Bronx. Construction began on the Grand Concourse in 1894 and it was opened to traffic in November 1909. Built during the height of the City Beautiful movement, it was modeled on the Champs-Élysées in Paris but is considerably larger, stretching four miles (6 km) in length, measuring 180 feet (55 m) across, and separated into three roadways by tree-lined dividers. Most minor streets do not cross the Concourse. Grade separation allows major ones to pass underneath.

The New Stadium opened last year and replaced the old Yankee Stadium which was opened in 1923, rebuilt in 1973 and was nicknamed “The House That Ruth Built.” Ruth referred to George Herman “Babe” Ruth, who was the first professional mega star to grace America. He ruled baseball from 1914 through 1934. Even today, 76 years after his retirement, and 62 years after his death at 53 in 1948, he remains the pivotal American sports family.

George Herman Ruth, Jr. (February 6, 1895 – August 16, 1948), best known as “Babe” Ruth and nicknamed “the Bambino” and “the Sultan of Swat“, was an American Major League baseball player from 1914–1935. Ruth originally broke into the major leagues with the Boston Red Sox as a starting pitcher, but after he was sold to the New York Yankees in 1919, he converted to a full-time right fielder and subsequently became one of the league's most prolific hitters. Ruth was a mainstay in the Yankees' lineup that won seven pennants and four World Series titles during his tenure with the team. After a short stint with the Boston Braves in 1935, Ruth retired. In 1936, Ruth became one of the first five players elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Ruth has since become regarded as one of the greatest sports heroes in American culture.[1] He has been named the greatest baseball player in history in various surveys and rankings,[citation needed] and his home run hitting prowess and charismatic personality made him a larger than life figure in the “Roaring Twenties“.[2] Off the field he was famous for his charity, but also was noted for his often reckless lifestyle. Ruth is credited with changing baseball itself. The popularity of the game exploded in the 1920s, largely due to his influence. Ruth ushered in the “live-ball era“, as his big swing led to escalating home run totals that not only excited fans, but helped baseball evolve from a low-scoring, speed-dominated game to a high-scoring power game.

In 1998, The Sporting News ranked Ruth number one on the list of “Baseball's 100 Greatest Players“. In 1999, baseball fans named Ruth to the Major League Baseball All-Century Team.[2] In 1969, he was named baseball's Greatest Player Ever in a ballot commemorating the 100th anniversary of professional baseball.

The Stadium is located at 161st Street and Gerard Avenue, and it was there we met Jon’s girl friend Merry and his old school chum Stephanie, who took the subway up from Manhattan. We parked, made our way into this new and incredible structure, found our seats and settled down to enjoy another Yankee victory. But the fates had other things in store. After the Yankees rallied from being down 5-2 to take the lead, they wound up surrendering the lead in the next inning and wound up losing 6-5. Too bad! So saddened, but not bowed we headed out to our car, and headed up to City of Mount Vernon, where I was raised. Our next stop was the fabled Johnny’s Pizzeria, a culinary landmark for decades. We satiated our sorrows with their house salad and legendary pizza. So, all in all, it was fun and a full day. We’ll get them tomorrow as the Yankees meet the Chicago White Sox for the final game of their three game series.

 

 

The Advocates 3-31-10

Wednesday, March 31, 2010, at 12:00 Noon, I am hosting my show, The Advocates on WVOX- 1460 AM, or you can listen to the program’s live streaming at www.wvox.com. One can call the show at 914-636-0110 to reach us on the radio.  My guest is Dr. Vivian Diller, co-author of Face It, What Women Really Feel as Their Looks Change.

Our subject will be her book, which addresses the implications of women coming to grips with their complicated feelings about their appearance as they age. Dr. Diller has created a psychological guide for women in this era of material, celebrity, the worship of youth, the race to slow the outward effects of aging and the race to extend life.

Vivian Diller, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist in private practice in New York City. Prior to becoming a therapist, Diller was a professional dancer with the Cincinnati Ballet Company and a model represented by Wilhelmina Models. As a model, she appeared in magazines such as Seventeen and Glamour, and in national print ads and television commercials.

 

Diller returned to school to earn a Ph.D. from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, and a postdoctoral degree in psychoanalysis from NYU. She has served as a consultant to a major cosmetics company and has made numerous appearances on television discussing issues surrounding beauty and aging. Diller now works with individuals and couples in psychotherapy, with a special interest in helping young dancers, models, actors, and athletes transition to new careers. Website:  www.FaceIttheBook,com .

 

One can see her on the below sites:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/35803098/ns/today-today_books/ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/fashion/18SKIN.html

Meanwhile, the mission of The Advocates is to bring to the public differing views on current “public policy” issues. “Public policy,” therefore, is what we as a nation legally and traditionally follow.

 

One can find my essays on FDR and other subjects at https://www.richardjgarfunkel.com. All of the archived shows can be found at: http://advocates-wvox.com.  Next week on WVOX my guests will be Dr. Terry Kirchner and Patricia Dohrenwend of the Westchester Library System and our subject will be “reading, its future, and how libraries facilitate that end.”