FDR and Churchill- Their Political and Military Legacy 4-1-05

Posted on April 1, 2005 by rjg

FDR and Churchill

Their Political and Military Legacy

April 1, 2005

Richard J. Garfunkel

Churchill saves the West! by Kaaren Hale!

Very well said! With regards to Churchill the political role of the American system is much different then Britain. Churchill never had to really stand for election as leader and was never really trusted with “domestic” responsibilities. He was much more of a “loose cannon” and never really felt comfortable working with others. He was certainly a fabulous talent, but had too many inner doubts to be completely confident with himself. His “black” moods and depression limited his ability to have the confidence to “rule.” He had too many opinions that limited his ability to make political alliances. He was a man of action and not a calculating “planner.” He never understood the need to build organization of political support. He was basically a talented loner.

He was not willing to sublimate himself to the will of others and never could pose as a team player. he wasn't prepared for the 1945 elections that swamped him and his government. His campaign was terrible and he did not have a “clue” what the public was thinking. He was still a captive of the upper classes that dominated British life. He seemed unaware and unconcerned regarding how the MacDonald-Baldwin-Chamberlain governments ignored the working classes that suffered throughout the Depression. He was not big on real reform that would have worked to restructure the critically unbalanced British economic and social landscape and infrastructure. He never understood the moribund future of colonialism and his attitude towards India was pretty foolish and primitive. His political philosophy was inconstant and vacillating. He constantly was mistrusted by both sides of the British ideological divide. He was not able to dominate either party and was perceived by the public as a political outsider with no place to “hang his hat.” His strategy in the First World War was badly flawed by the disaster of Gallipoli. He “snafu “was actuated more by logistical insanity then strategic miscalculation. All in all it was a terrible costly failure in blood, material, and his career.

With regards to WW II his strategy was basically no better then Chamberlain's and he experienced disasters with the navy in Norway, the British 8th Army in North Africa and its collapse at Tobruk, the insane and huge defeat and disaster in Singapore, (the worst most foolish British defeat in history), the disaster at Dunkerque, the catastrophic losses of the Repulse and Prince of Wales off Hainan Island, near the Chinese mainland, the abandonment of Greece and Crete, the ill-fated attack at Dieppe, the alienation of the French and the subsequent defection of the French fleet causing the need for it to be crippled by British naval action and many others. He was lucky that the Nazis re-directed the Luftwaffe to bomb British cities and not go after their radar early warning stations, their aerodromes and the British fighter defense. A smartly delivered strategy against these targets would have attritted the British to a defenseless posture.

Basically Lend-Lease, the US Navy and the convoy system, the undeclared US naval war in the North Atlantic against the Nazi submarine wolfpacks and the attacks by Germany on Yugoslavia and Greece, culminating with the postponed late spring , early summer invasion of Russia helped Britain survive. Churchill strong vocal leadership rallied Britain and the free world, but without Roosevelt and the power that he formulated by creating the “Arsenal of Democracy,” Britain would have eventually been beaten despite the flawed Hitlerian strategy. If the US had not helped Britain with Lend-Lease and our fleet, Russia probably would have been neutralized and the further European resistance would have ceased. Greece and Yugoslavia were basically beaten, and the rest of the Eastern Europe, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania were German allies. Turkey was in Germany's camp and would have remained a “player” looking to get back into reclaiming their former Ottoman Empire.

Churchill did have many successes aside from American help. Their victory at Taranto that devastated the Italian fleet, the sinking of the Graf Spee, the hunting down of the Bismarck, the destruction of the 10 German destroyers off Norway, his actions with Orde Wingate and the Chindits in Burma, his mobilizing massive bombing raids over Germany, the destruction of the French dry docks, and his selection of Montgomery to head the British 8th and his subsequent victory at El Alemain were strong plusses. But even with the entrance of America into the war, later British strategy with Churchill's blessing and interference led to the huge loses in Holland with the ill-fated Market-Garden assault on the Dutch bridges. Montgomery, Churchill's greatest choice for leadership squandered his opportunity to cross the Rhine and was trumped by the American capture of the Ludendorf Bridge at Remagen. That single event of intrepid work by American forces dealt a huge blow to German resistance on the Western front. While Montgomery was accumulating landing craft, the US Army was surging over the Rhine with men and armor, creating an unassailable bridgehead, and trapping German forces on the wrong side of the River.

FDR, on the other hand mobilized the American economy in an unprecedented way, fought an effective two ocean war, selected and appointed excellent overall leadership with his Joint Chiefs lead by Admiral Leahy, who coordinated the activities of Generals Marshall and Arnold along with Admiral King. FDR's selections, in all of the theaters of his responsibility; of MacAthur, Nimitz, Eisenhower, reflected excellent carefully thought out judgment. Their choices of subordinates that included Bedell-Smith, Clark, Bradley, Patton, Hodges, Simpson, Eaker, Doolittle, Stillwell, Halsey, Spruance, Vandergrift, Smith, Lemay and many others spelled eventual success. His speeches,and cool leadership gave the people confidence after Pearl Harbor and the loss of the Philippines. FDR's leadership of the wartime conferences at Argentia Bay, Quebec, Casablanca, Teheran and Yalta were the driving force behind victory and the post-war dominance of the West. His sponsoring of the Bretton Woods Conference had the most lasting effect on the future world's economies vis-a-vis monetary stability. All in all FDR's domestic leadership before and during the war were unprecedented. The late President, the architect of victory, won a hard earned election in 1944, with excellent majorities in Congress, even as man suffering from advance heart disease and arterial sclerosis. He was able to maintain his majorities in Congress all through his tenure in office, and even though the Democrats narrowly lost Congress in 1946, they quickly recovered their majorities until the Eisenhower landslide of 1952. But from 1954 until the 1980's the FDR-New Deal coalition of Democrats maintained Congressional hegemony.

Churchill, as a man, was bold, talented and basically remarkable. He was a brilliant speaker, a marvelous writer, a brave soldier, a reporter, a painter, a magnificent Parliamentarian, a cabinet official, a Prime Minister, and most importantly a beloved war-time leader. He embodied what was great about Britain. But he was a failure as a politician, lacked excellent judgment went it came to strategy and suffered from great insecurities. His terrible childhood and education plagued him with self-doubts, depression and lack of direction. Overall he was able to overcome all of those limitations. Churchill was still, at heart, part of the “ruling class” that dominated Britain. he was still part of the Imperialist mindset, and he was still sadly lacking, with regards, to what the average “Brit” needed. He never built a political base, and when the post-war choices were made he was cast aside with little regret from the British people. His return to office in 1951 was no great success and he was too, too old to be a major factor in re-shaping Britain after years of war and social reform.

FDR was not the writer that Churchill was, but as an orator he was certainly in his league. He was determined and self-confident. His childhood was one of nurtured success and happiness. He was beloved by his adoring parents. He was self-educated to age fourteen and went on to the best schools where he achieved moderate success. He was the single greatest politician in modern history and was able to overcome personal and physical blows and disasters. He was a vigorous man who overcame a life-time of sickness. He had wonderful mentors, Theodore Roosevelt, Al Smith and Woodrow Wilson. He took something from all of them, and was smart enough to avoid the problems they all experienced. He shaped his own destiny, built the Democratic Party, reversed the Depression, rallied the public, instilled great respect from the world at large, inspired great enemies and opposition, took on the Fascists when America wanted no part of that fight, created the United Nations, built the “Arsenal of Democracy” and through his actions, at the Atlantic Conference in Argentia Bay, put forth his vision of the world based on the “Four Freedoms.” His vision is the vision of the modern world, his vision is of one of the world community pulling together for the common good.

Churchill really left no governmental legacy. He really never governed. FDR's legacy was one of not only unprecedented leadership, but of government innovation, reform and restructuring. Both have great unequalled places in the history of our world and our time.

Richard

—–Original Message—–
From: Kaaren [mailto:kaarenhale@btinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 8:49 AM
To: 'Richard Garfunkel'
Subject: RE: FDR revealed April 17-18, 2005 The History Channel

Dear Richard,

The whole world acknowledges that FDR was not only a great leader but a great man with broad vision. He was most extraordinary and encapsulated the values of the best of his class, which was admitted even by Joe Alsopp his cousin who didn't seem to like him much. He was dismissed as a light weight by some, hated as a traitor to his class by others; but the most important lesson to be learned in my opinion from him was to listen, to not be too ideological, to take advice from the brightest people he could, and to have compassion for others. Perhaps he learned that having had polio in his 30s. The healing process which was slow and frustrating must have been very humbling. That said, he had a bouyant public personality, was never a hypocrite, and loved the game of politics. Sadly, his like has not been seen again. LBJ learned from him, but not enough to save him. Clinton no doubt learned lessons from him, but never found any large heroic issues to mark his reign, and worse seemed to tempt fate to get caught at doing things he shouldn't have. FDR liked the ladies too, but the press were gentler and kinder then. Every leader in America has had to cling to some extent to his coat tails but none have had the magic. Kennedy, though handsome and charismatic was ultimately weak. Carter was a micro manager who got bogged down in minutia and could not see the big picture. Bush has done some good things for no doubt the wrong reasons, and some wrong things for some good reasons. Its a tough job. If you have to have a hero, FDR is a good one. But for my money Winston Churchill is fully his peer. Adventurous, romantic, hard headed, devious, never dull, kind, horrid and smart. What a guy. And he saved the WEST from Hitler really, by sheer grit till the the Calvalry arrived (we won't mention Stalin in the same breath. ). With love Kaaren

Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail

Sign In
New User?Sign Up Finance Home – Help

Welcome [Sign In] To track stocks & more, Register

Financial News

Enter symbol(s) Symbol Lookup

Press Release Source: The History Channel

The History Channel Presents: FDR: A Presidency RevealedThursday March 31, 12:07 pm ET

– Featuring Rare and Never-Seen Before Footage, Photographs and Oral Histories from Private CollectionsTwo-Part, Four-Hour Special Offers a Fresh Perspective on the Public and Private Franklin Delano RooseveltWorld Premiere on The History Channel Sunday-Monday, April 17-18 at 9 pm ET/PT

NEW YORK, March 31 /PRNewswire/ — To a generation of Americans, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was seen as the savior of the American Dream. But behind Roosevelt's titanic struggle to pull America from the abyss of the Depression and the horrors of war were personal struggles just as significant: physical incapacity, distance from his wife, and badly deteriorating health, even as he orchestrated World War II. The new two-part, four-hour special from The History Channel goes beyond the public façade of FDR and into the complex life that shaped one of America's greatest leaders. The special presentation, FDR: A PRESIDENCY REVEALED premieres Sunday-Monday, April 17-18 at 9 pm ET/PT on The History Channel.

Drawing on previously unseen and unheard footage, FDR: A PRESIDENCY REVEALED provides a definitive look inside the life of a man who was known the world over, but was intimate with very few. It begins at the opening of FDR's first term as president, with America facing declining markets, 25 percent unemployment and the imminent collapse of the nation's banking system, and continues to his death twelve years later, after a re-invigoration of the U.S. economy and just prior to the surrender of Germany. The details in between paint a remarkable portrait of courage, triumph, tragedy, and struggle. Highlights of FDR: A PRESIDENCY REVEALED (PART ONE) include:

* Previously unseen home movies from his beloved estate in Hyde Park, New York, showing the private side that FDR so fiercely protected, and the early memories of his grandson Curtis: "He loved to play games, loved to be silly." * Historians' views on FDR's New Deal and his first hundred days in office, the most prolific and innovative legislative period in the nation's history * Commentary about his commitment to civil rights, including disapproval from his own wife and interviews with modern-day dissenters * Excerpts from and background on FDR's famous Fireside Chats, by which he developed a bond with the American people that would strengthen over time * Detailed oral history accounts from Eleanor Roosevelt on the day FDR contracted polio and became paralyzed while visiting his summer home on Campobello Island in New Brunswick, a source of insecurity and pain the rest of his life, and touching first-hand accounts of his fruitless struggle to walk again * A balanced look at FDR's failures, including a disastrous attempt to reconfigure the Supreme Court * Details of FDR's flawed relationship with Eleanor, including an affair he had in his thirties with Lucy Page Mercer that nearly resulted in divorce * An inside look at the most overlooked event in FDR's entire presidency, when Arthur Kent, an American working at the U.S. Embassy in England, was found to have intercepted months' worth of secret correspondence between FDR and Winston Churchill, with the intention of providing the information to political enemies in an attempt to expose FDR as a liar for promising American neutrality in the fight against Germany Highlights of FDR: A PRESIDENCY REVEALED (PART TWO) include: * A first-hand account from cousin, confidante, and caregiver Daisy Suckley of FDR's death in Warm Springs, Georgia, just months into his fourth term. * FDR's struggle to convince the isolationist Congress of the growing threat posed by Adolf Hitler * The devastating losses of both his mother and his beloved personal assistant, Missy LeHand; declining health and the growing threat of war; and Curtis Roosevelt's disclosure of the loneliness FDR felt during his latter terms * Eleanor's audio comments on his strangely detached demeanor in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack * An inside look at FDR's bond with Churchill, forged on mutual respect and a desire to keep the free world strong * Footage from his secret escapes to Hyde Park during the war, in which he would relax with friends and mix martinis with a dash of absinthe, said by many to be the worst they'd ever tasted * Stunning details of FDR's ability to perform his job in the face of gravely deteriorating health, including an advanced state of congestive heart failure during his third term

FDR: A PRESIDENCY REVEALED uses the recently discovered diary and voice recordings of Suckley, 70 rarely seen photographs, an in-depth oral history recording from Eleanor, and extensive personal interviews with Curtis Roosevelt to cast FDR in a more human light than ever before. Historical perspective is provided by noted biographers Doris Kearns Goodwin and Jon Meacham, as well as historians and authors including William Leuchtenburg, David Kennedy, Craig Wilder, Thomas Fleming, and Robert Dallek. On-location filming at Hyde Park, New York; Warm Springs, Georgia; and Campobello, New Brunswick, combines with extensive color and black-and-white footage of the life and times of FDR to take viewers on a journey back to twentieth-century America's defining time, and inside the life of the man who defined it.

FDR: A PRESIDENCY REVEALED was produced for The History Channel by Team Productions, LLC. Executive producer for The History Channel is Susan Werbe. It's written and produced by David C. Taylor, and narrated by Edward Herrmann.

Now reaching more than 88 million Nielsen subscribers, The History Channel®, “Where the Past Comes Alive®,” brings history to life in a powerful manner and provides an inviting place where people experience history personally and connect their own lives to the great lives and events of the past. In 2004, The History Channel earned five News and Documentary Emmy® Awards and previously received the prestigious Governor's Award from the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences for the network's “Save Our History®” campaign dedicated to historic preservation and history education. The History Channel web site is located at http://www.History.com.

Source: The History Channel

Set News Alert

Print Story

Sponsor Results

Credit Card Debt Relief
See if you qualify to reduce your credit card debts by up to 60%. It's free, online, and gives instant results. No obligation.
www.debtconsolidationhelp.org

100% Online Debt Relief
Debt consolidation – you must have at least $2,500 of total debt over two or more accounts to qualify for our help. Name, email, and zip code are required. U.S. residents only.
www.careonecredit-affiliates.com

Debt Consolidation
No obligation consultation. Simple, effective debt settlement program. No credit check. No homeownership required. If you have unsecured debt of $10,000 or more, this plan is for you.
www.americanfinancialservice.org
(What's This?)

Email Story

Top Stories

· FBI Probing Delphi's Accounting Errors – Associated Press (6:32 am)

· Economists Predict Rise in Payroll Jobs – Associated Press (7:22 am)

· Stocks Set to Open Higher Ahead of Data – Associated Press (6:54 am)

· Biogen Withdraws Earnings Guidance – Associated Press (7:33 am)

More…

· Most-emailed articles

· Most-viewed articles

Other Residents Being Disrupted 3-29-05

Posted on March 29, 2005 by rjg

Other residents being disrupted

(Original publication: March 29, 2005)

I am very concerned about the other residents of the hospice in which Terri Schiavo is dying. Don't these people have the right to spend their final days or weeks in a quiet environment without bagpipes, bullhorns and loud praying and television cameras? No matter what one thinks about who should be in control, who should intervene and what role the courts and the executive branch should play, one should have some concern about the other residents. Their family members must go through security before they can visit their loved ones.

I heard a story on the news the other day about a woman who was delayed by security in her desire to see her dying grandfather (he died before she was able to reach his bedside).

It is unfortunate that the news media, including this newspaper, have not done any stories about the wonderful care and the wonderful people who work in hospices.

Linda Garfunkel, Tarrytown

RJG announces his attentions 3-25-05

Posted on March 26, 2005 by rjg

March 22, 2005

Ms. Suzanne Berger

Chairperson,

Greenburgh Democratic Town Committee

120 Bellair Drive

Dobbs Ferry, New York 10522

Dear Ms. Berger,

I hope that this letter finds you and yours quite well. It has come to my attention that the Greenburgh Democratic Town Committee will be interviewing interested personages regarding potential designations for the position of Greenburgh Town Councilperson. I would like to inform you of my plans to seek that designation.

As a long time activist, regarding public service and Democratic politics, on the local and national level, I believe that my experience and judgment would uniquely qualify me as a candidate for the position of Town Councilperson. Despite the fact that I have not been a life time resident of the Town of Greenburgh, I have been a native son of Westchester all my life. For over 36 years, from my earliest days as a member of the White Plains Democratic Committee, I have been involved in both community and political activity. As early as 1972 I was White Plains co-Chairperson for the George McGovern campaign for President, and recently I was on the New York State Finance Committee for General Wesley Clark. In between I have served as the campaign manager for Martin Rogowsky when he ran for the State Assembly in 1976, been an advance man for Congressman Richard Ottinger, while my wife Linda was on his staff for 8 years, was Organization Chairperson of the White Plains Democratic City Committee for a number of years, and have been an active participant in many, many campaigns.

I have also been deeply involved in charitable work and the promotion of public policy issues, by reaching out to young people through my founding of the Jon Breen Fund at Mount Vernon High School. During my few years in the Town of Greenburgh, I have served as an active member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and as a Deputy Supervisor. As an appointed Deputy Supervisor I have been assigned the task of engaging ordinary citizens to become involved in government through Supervisor Feiner’s “Liaison Program.” This program was designed to get people, who are not ordinarily involved, active in the political process. I have also proposed initiatives regarding the use of alternate sources of energy to the Town Board, and the creation of a town-wide Beautification Foundation. That concept is modeled on the extremely successful White Plains Beautification Foundation and would work to upgrade neighborhoods, local parks, traffic circles and common areas by raising money, providing matching funds and promoting awareness of the importance of neighborhood pride, beautification and cleanliness.

As a member of the Town Board, I would be a strong and independent voice regarding the need to support the excellent record of services we have all enjoyed, balanced within the boundaries of economic reality. In other words, I want to keep Greenburgh an affordable place for all types of people, representing all strata of income, to live and enjoy this wonderful town. I would also be a strong advocate of Supervisor Feiner’s efforts to keep “open and transparent” government as a number one objective. I have known Supervisor Feiner for over 30 years and I believe that with my assistance the Town Board will function much more cohesively. Along with that, I would be an active promoter of more citizen participation on “voluntary boards.” I also believe that the Town of Greenburgh should be first and foremost regarding clean energy and on the “cutting edge” of technology. I support Supervisor Feiner’s initiative on promoting WIFI in the parks and I look forward to finding other more creative ways for Greenburgh to use technology to create efficiencies and more energy independence from foreign fossil fuel.

I have also included my resume, by separate attachment, for the committee’s consideration. I would like to be interviewed, at the convenience of the Greenburgh Town Democratic nominating/designating committee. Unfortunately because of a long-time previous commitment I will be out of the area on the evening of March 31, 2005. I hope that the committee will have other time available to consider my candidacy in person. I would appreciate it also if you could make this letter and my resume available to the Town Committee by e-mail, since I do not have a current list of district leaders addresses.

Again, thank you for your consideration. I can be reached at 914-

Regards,

Richard J. Garfunkel

Scalia, FDR and the Conflict Between the Margins 3-16-05

Posted on March 16, 2005 by rjg

Richard J. Garfunkel

March 16, 2005

A Responce to Thoughts on Justice Scalia

There is no doubt that the normal educated and enlightened folk are caught between two masters One is the ultra liberal inclusion group who trash all morays and expect society to function in the Auntie Mame “grammar school” mode, where everyone dances around naked. They proposed de-standardization and de-construction with a Phoenix bird rising from the ashes. Gay marriage is in itself ridiculous. Marriage is a sacred and legal arrangement between the two genders to codify the arrangement with a certain set of legal and moral vows and rules. The assumption was and should be that marriage was the covenant that afforded the best atmosphere for raising and sustaining the next generation. Well some people cannot have children, and some won't have children, so be it! But they established the boundaries of their personal life with marriage. Did that rule out cheating, abandonment and divorce, no! But like prohibition, alcohol consumption dropped off dramatically in that period. Prohibition of course was a failure, and to a degree many marriages are a failure. But in a sense they are both “noble experiments.” The “open” marriage concept of a heterosexual union will not long work. In the opposite sense, homosexual or “gay” marriage is a charade. It cannot really work any more then the real and voluntary commitment of each partner. Society has no real investment in its working, there are no children really involved. Their union doesn't propagate the species. In fact, no one gives a hoot and holler whether childless heterosexual couples separate or divorce. It is irrelevant. Therefore, among other related subjects, the marginalized left cannot and should not dominate the political thinking of our social order.

The Democrats wandered along for generations as the “out party” who were seen as splintered regionalists with differing ideals. They were opposed by the GOP oligarchs that dominated national politics after the Civil War by creating prosperity through “wage-slavery,” colonialism and monopoly. As the poet says, “the rising tide lifts all boats.” Therefore at the height of the GOP power, under William McKinley the business interests became dominant. Woodrow Wilson understood this differently, and partly his ascendancy and power came from the reform movement opposed to capitalist abuse, well documented by Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair and other muckrakers.

But the Democrats were only successful because of the split between the ruling GOP's factions. The GOP had its own problems, and its business interests were challenged from within their party by the reform forces of Teddy Roosevelt and his progressives, that included people like William Allen White, the La Follettes and others.

In 1924 another clone of this business oligarchic model, Calvin Coolidge (who in one of his few loquacious moments said, “the business of America is business.”) won a landslide electoral vote election with 15.7 million votes against the total of 8.3 million votes by his Democratic opponent John W. Davis. What is forgotten is that Robert La Follette received almost 5 million votes! This represented more votes than TR or Taft received while losing to Wilson 12 years earlier. The progressive vote was out there, but it was divided, and still served as a “spoiler” vote against both parties.

Therefore, the social progressives were never strong enough to capture the mainstream of the American electorate, until the collapse of our economic system in 1932, following four long years of Depression. As Arthur Schlesinger said in his seminal series on “The Age of Roosevelt” and in his opening book “The Crisis of the Old Order,” as he quoted Emerson, “Every revolution was first a thought in one man's mind.” So change came! Robert Sherwood said, on that gray Inauguration Day on March 4, 1933, that the President “radiated optimism, but what lay behind the mask of smiles?”

He wrote, “Are we sure that you have fixed your eyes on a goal beyond the the politician's ken? Have you the will to reach the far horizon where rest the hopes of men?”

As for Franklin Roosevelt, no one could tell what lay behind the imperturbable composure. He said when he had run for Vice-President, that he set forth his concept of the President as the “leader” of the nation. In 1928 he said, “There is no magic in Democracy that does away the need for leadership.” As to the influence of his two philosophical mentors, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, he once wrote, “Theodore Roosevelt lacked Woodrow Wilson's appeal to the fundamental and failed to stir, as Wilson did, the truly profound moral and social convictions. Wilson on the other hand, failed where Theodore Roosevelt succeeded in stirring people to enthusiasm over specific individual events, even though these specific events may have been superficial in comparison with the fundamentals.”

All in all, the spirit and practicality of reform is essential, but it doesn't solve all of our problems. FDR through the combination of events that had resulted from the Crash and the subsequent economic collapse, and his strong charisma and leadership, was able to link both social and economic reform. His realistic and practical ideal created the ongoing coalition of marginal groups and practicalists that would contain and reverse the Depression, resurrect, the middle class by the dual works of the WPA and the PWA, build the “Arsenal of Democracy,” with our re-constituted work force and the previous efforts of central control emanating from the New Deal, win the war, re-build and save Western Europe, contain the Communists, bring social justice to the poor in America, and bring on unequalled prosperity and opportunity in America. As we were “the Arsenal of Democracy,” Roosevelt, the Soldier of Freedom, became the “Architect of Victory,” of the Western World over the corruption of the old world.

But social justice must be part and parcel with economic justice and opportunity. The issue of women's reproductive rights is is a natural extension of human rights. But of course the gulf and conflict between those like Justice Scalia who would pose as “protectors” of the helpless, and the activists who preach “rights” over responsibility is wide. As the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, said, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic…”

To borrow a another quote from Holmes, who said in Buck vs.. Bell in 1927, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” When it comes to our present leader, I think this quote is apt. Any evaluation of his father and grandfather could easily be fitted into this evaluation. Whether the war in Iraq has some justification or not, his prosecution of it has lead to the persecution of the American people. Because of his inept bungling and misplaced sense of values, he has divided the country, abused his narrow mandate and put our economic system at risk. Frankly, as far out as some of our left thinkers are, the danger of our own collapse is much more possible from both our economic dependency on oil, foreign purchases of our debt, and our budgetary insanity.

But be that as it may, harkening back to leadership, it can never be totally discounted for good or evil. Bush, for some, is seen as a determined leader with a vision. History may eventually side with him. “Success has many fathers, as failure is an orphan” as said by JFK. My sense is that we have to succeed in spite of him.

RJG

Kaaren Hale Responds

Subject: Scalia

Dear Richard, Thank you for sending me the commentary on Judge Scalia. These are confusing times, where we equate certain social and personal mores with the greater issues of governance and public defense . The initial flaws in the American Constitution were its sections on the acceptance of Slavery, the Great Compromise etc, and lawyers and justices have been battling out the implications ever since, ie what constitutues human rights, male and female. This tends, overall, to get into the defininition of a human (a slave was only 2/3rds as I remember) and now the fetus. Is it any wonder that large minded people are getting exhausted with the issue. Even Hilary, has oftferered a paw to the opposition in that being an intelligent woman (!) she realises that there is an issue over the basic perception of “what constitutes a human?”

       Many of us would like to turn back the clock on the liberal agenda. to some degree. FDR was a great man and a clever politician and as you well know, he tried never to get too far away from public opinion. You cannot lead in a democracy by upending all the established norms, ( that is called revolution) and he knew that. Whether by stealth or rationality, his programs of social participation and responsibility, the safety nets etc, took root and now these original humanistic concepts are mired down in an viscous mud of raging individualism and the near death of community solidarity . We just never know where things lead. Abortion is now leading to euthanasia, and perhaps euthanasia will lead directly to Nazi like assumptions of who should be born (already an issue) and who should have the right to live. It is all too much for me to figure out.

        I agreed with Bush on Iraq. I do not agree with the neo cons on Iran. The Iranians have a running battle since the fifties with the USA and they would, despite their anger at the mulluhs, defend any incursion to the death. So go not into Isfahan, Bushites. I believe the techtonic plates of the Middle East are moving and the Iranians have always said that if there were progress on the IS -PAL front they would accept it. Remember the Iranians did business with the Isrealis for decades.

       I do not agree with the Republican party on the issues of the environment at all, and their cynical exploitation of the religious right, the so called Rapture group, makes me hurl. I do not agree with their stance on Stem Cell research, as it will and must proceed and if American scientists are not free to pursue it, others will. I am convinced that economy is stronger, and hence keeps attracting Asian governments to our Treasuries, despite the recent pronouncements of the S Koreans , because of the tax cuts. The enormous deficit will prevent any movement on Social Security for the near term, though it wouldn't be a bad idea to raise the level on existing IRAs. Bush is very opposed to raising taxes, thus no SS change for the present. I would like to say that Gay Marriage is an issue for any social liberal, but frankly, after much soul searching, I am opposed. Why? It is far too radical an idea consitutuionally.

       Sometimes things should come into being through the back door, slowly, and incrementally. The Gay population are vociferous but they do not represent anyone but themselves. The rights they demand can be provided by legislation on legal cohabiting partnerships, ie a redefinition of living arrangements that non Gays choose as well. The Democrats hold them selves hostage every time they go too far left. What on earth can Howard Dean bring to the table but more divisions and finger pointing.

        Okay, so where am I. A fiscal conservative, aftraid of the diminishing value of the dollar, a social progressive who places some value on the lives of those who are less fortunate, with perhaps the misguided hope that their lives can be improved. We all read the same Bible and are concerned for the halt and the lame, the meek and the mild, and most of us would like to inherit the earth, if we can be bothered not to despoil it. At this stage I don't trust too many people to make the right choices for any of us. Judge Scalia is a traditionalist. And for only that, I respect his approach. Yours in confusion. Kaaren PS Amanda is getting very close to a decision on Faisel. It will be interesting how this plays. [Richard J. Garfunkel]



LA Reich answer's on Scalia

Blaming Earl Warren for the interpretative evolving essence of the

Constitution? Antonin, the duck hunting Italian, disparages the

contributions of John Marshall, who served with Washington in the Virginia

militia, wrote his first biography and even penned a chapter entitled “The

Birth of Mr. Washington” as well as served in the Virginia House of Burgess.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, probably the greatest jurist to sit on the court

after Joseph Story, was wounded three times at Antietam, Balls Bluff and

Chancerlorville in the Civil War, and had the intellectual fortitude to

reframe and transform his positions on free speech during war time after

encountering the great appellate judge Learned Hand (probably two of the

most intellectual forces in American jurisprudence)on a train to upstate NY

(Hand idolized Holmes, yet he disagreed with his opinion in Debs, and was

willing to share that with the most revered legal philosopher in the land.

Within a short time of that meeting Holmes issued his most famous dissent in

Abrams. Holmes' house in Washington was filled with social and intellectual

visitors who surveyed the concepts and spirtit which captured this

democracy. That Scalia can can offer criticism for justices who stray from

their black robes into the fabric of society, reveals the vast wasteland

from which his own intellect holds center stage.

Scalia Slams Juvenile Death Penalty Ruling

Mon Mar 14, 7:53 PM ET

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Supreme Court's recent

decision to strike down the juvenile death penalty, calling it the latest

example of politics on the court that has made judicial nominations an

increasingly bitter process.

In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place

deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4

ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on “evolving

notions of decency” was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of

the five-member majority, he said.

“If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you

flexibility, think again,” Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson

Center, a Washington think tank. “You think the death penalty is a good

idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to

abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility.”

“Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?” he said.

Scalia, who has been mentioned as a possible chief justice nominee should

Chief Justice William Rehnquist retire, outlined his judicial philosophy of

interpreting the Constitution according to its text, as understood at the

time it was adopted.

Citing the example of abortion, he said unelected justices too often choose

to read new rights into the Constitution, at the expense of the democratic

process.

“Abortion is off the democratic stage. Prohibiting it is unconstitutional,

now and forever, coast to coast, until I guess we amend the Constitution,”

said Scalia, who was appointed to the court by President Reagan in 1986.

He blamed Chief Justice Earl Warren, who presided from 1953-69 over a court

that assaulted racial segregation and expanded individual rights against

arbitrary government searches, for the increased political role of the

Supreme Court, citing Warren's political background. Warren was governor of

California and the Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948.

“You have a chief justice who was a governor, a policy-maker, who approached

the law with that frame of mind. Once you have a leader with that mentality,

it's hard not to follow,” Scalia said, in response to a question from the

audience.

Scalia said increased politics on the court will create a bitter nomination

fight for the next Supreme Court appointee, since judges are now more

concerned with promoting their personal policy preferences rather than

interpreting the law.

“If we're picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience

a 'new' Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We

should look to people who agree with us,” he said, explaining that's why

senators increasingly probe nominees for their personal views on positions

such as abortion.

“When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution

useless,” Scalia said.

Scalia, who has had a prickly relationship with the media, wasted no time in

shooing away photographers from the public event five minutes into his

speech.

“Could we stop the cameras? I thought I announced … a couple are fine at

first, but click click click click,” Scalia said, impatiently waving the

photographers off.

During a speech last year in Hattiesburg, Miss., a deputy federal marshal

demanded that an Associated Press reporter and another journalist erase

recordings of the justice's remarks.

The justice later apologized. The government conceded that the U.S. Marshals

Service violated federal law in the confrontation and said the reporters and

their employers were each entitled to $1,000 in damages and attorneys' fees.

___

Letter to supporters of Paul Feiner 3-12-05

Posted on March 12, 2005 by rjg

March 12, 2005

Dear Friends and Neighbors:

Whether you are a friend of the library, which I am sure everyone is in their heart, or whether you are a supporter of good government, or whether you are just an interested citizen or a supporter of the outstanding job Paul Feiner has done over these many years, the Library Referendum is a “big” issue. This May10th referendum is the result of combination events that have culminated in the following: a fractured Town Council, the lack of support for the Supervisor on this Council, the lack of fiscal reality on the part of Library Board, the divisive power of a small group of willful people out to destroy the Supervisor and break apart the Town.

This group of people is loosely made up of discontented Democrats, single-issue advocates, conservatives, demagogues and character assassins. One obvious objective of some of these individuals is to destroy the fabric of the Town of Greenburgh by working for Village secession from the Town. One of this group is a long-time State elected Democratic personage, whose job is to support Democrats who are elected to office. That job has been compromised time and time again with his empty criticisms. Others harp on local access cable television; one nitpicker sees himself as the “fiscal watchdog” as he questions every certiorari, every financial settlement, and every property lien. Has there been anything that he has exposed? No! But he wants every report every figure; he wants to hear the justification as if there was some graft or corruption.. He seems to want to imply that there is something sub rosa or underhanded going on! Not one of these requests has ever resulted in evidence that there is something wrong, illegal or covered-up. Of course we have or resident legal-beagle who engages in threats of litigation against the Town at the “drop of the hat.” He looks upon himself as the next Emile Zola, and struts about with an arrogant pomposity as he metaphorically screams, “I accuse!” Of course I haven’t included the various character assassins that come to every meeting to vent their baseless claims, lies and charges. But for those who have to endure this bi-monthly comic opera, these characters are well known.

So you now see that the lines that have been drawn. This group has harangued and hectored the Town Board through intimidation, half-truths, and lies. It has sought to destroy the Town Supervisor by the age-old tactic of “Divide and Conquer” and the repetition of accusation. Because they cannot hope to beat the Supervisor in a fair election, they have attempted to strip his power, emasculate his office, and cause rule by legislative dictatorship.

If you want this to continue to happen, stand idly by. If you want the dissolution of this Town by the work of cynical Lilliputians, stand idly by! But if you want enlightened fair, and honest leadership to continue, then you must support the Town Supervisor.

This cynical attempt to force this fiscally irresponsible and ill-considered referendum down the throats of the citizens will lead to an era of double-digit taxation far into the future. With the specter of that in the offing the Supervisor would be seen as responsible for the economic chaos that would ensue. This is cynicism at the most base level.

Please understand that the Supervisor supports an enhanced, renovated and enlarged library. He stated his support and has worked hard to attain that goal. But he remains committed to fair, open, transparent and responsible government. We face great economic challenges far into the future regarding huge Federal, State, and County expenditures and deficits. Therefore it is critical that we be responsible on the most personal and local level.

As this process proceeds, please stand up and be counted.

Richard J. Garfunkel

March 11, 2005

Letter to the Editor

This past Wednesday night, March 9, the Greenburgh Town Board voted 4-1 to authorize a May 10, 2005 referendum for a $19.8 million bond issue to pay for a renovation and expansion of the current Greenburgh Town Library. All are in agreement that the library needs renovation, expansion and an obvious upgrading. Only Supervisor Paul Feiner was sensible and brave enough to “buck the tide” of this lobbying effort by the Library Board to muscle through a May referendum. This May referendum will serve the purpose of disenfranchising many, many voters by accident and on purpose. The turnout promises to be a fraction of the registered voters, who at this time are totally uninformed about the cost and scope of this project. On top of that, there will be no ability to offer absentee ballots for any voters who cannot make it to the polls. This is a cynical attempt to “slide” this huge spending proposal past the vast body of the electorate. Earlier the Library Board wanted this vote to be held in January or March with the polling places limited to the library itself. Supervisor Feiner has insisted that a November vote would be more inclusive, and it would give the community more time to digest the “real” cost of this proposal. During this added time period the community could analyze the “real” needs of the library, possible alternative sites for construction and the avoidance of a two-year library service interruption. This library expansion, along with new and higher taxes for; school districts, fire districts, the County’s Medicaid problems and municipal costs could enter us into an era of double-digit tax increases for years. At the rate of a 10+% increase per year for seven years, a homeowner’s property taxes will double! Can the Town Board’s irresponsible actions make life for the middle class in Greenburgh unaffordable?

Richard J. Garfunkel

Letter to the Editor 2-16-05- The Lynne Stewart Conviction

Posted on February 16, 2005 by rjg

February 16, 2005 – Letter to the Editor

Dear Ms. Cohen,

I am a long-time Democrat, and was a member of NDC in the 1970's and have been supporting progressive causes and candidates for a long time. My credentials with regards to politics and opposition to George W. Bush and his ilk are second to none. I worked hard for John Kerry and was out at the opening of the Clinton Library in Little Rock with other loyal and progressive Democrats. But enough of my bona fides, your statement in support of Lynne Stewart will only help marginalize Democrats and progressive supporters. The relationship to that poem by Niebuhr and the courthouse are irrelevant. Whether you supported the sharing of nuclear secrets with Stalin, or opposed the death penalty on principle, the Rosenbergs were guilty. They, and their friends, did a lot of damage to America and the American people. Yes we fought the war, as Allies and won it, thankfully for the whole world's sake, with the immeasurable help of the Soviets. But that in itself did not justify Stalin's actions, before and after the war. Churchill said, “That he would make a pact with the devil to defeat Hitler!” We gave the Soviets the ordinance to help win the war and they gave us blood and time. But in retrospect, the Soviet subjugation of Eastern Europe and the Cold War, which resulted in Korea, Vietnam, and a host of other brushfire wars did not advance the cause of freedom or de-colonialization. It cost the word untold lives and treasure.

I am quite happy that Lynne Stewart received a fair trial and received the justice she deserved. When you “lie down with dogs, you come up with fleas!” I have known and observed Ramsey Clark through politics for decades, and I am sorry that I ever considered supporting him. He supports anti-Semitic causes and an America hater and basher. Truman even said that his worst decision was to place his father on the Supreme Court. The “apple doesn't fall far from the tree.” Ramsey Clark has been on the wrong side of almost every issue forever. He is part of the reason that the Democrats have lost their majorities over the years. Obviously we can't blame Clark alone, but his views are abhorrent to most mainstream Democrats.

I am not a believer that we deserve George W. Bush because we are not “pure” enough. The average American has to be shown that a political party has an interest in its behalf. The Democrats can't expect automatic support because they think they are better than the GOP. If the Democrats or its “progressive” allies continue to think that they can support far-out policies and extremist individuals that threaten our very existence, then they will continue to lose and open the door to the reactionary right. I have seen the results of these foolish actions with my many friends and associates who have been drifting away from the Democratic Party for many years.

Lynne Stewart may hate our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as do many millions, but her actions to befriend and aid and comfort the enemy are horrible. She deserves her fate and your metaphor about “coming after the lawyers” is insincere and misplaced.

Richard J. Garfunkel

Letter to Rabbi Boettiger 2-11-05

Posted on February 11, 2005 by rjg

Letter to Rabbi Joshua Boettiger

Grreat Grandson of FDR

February 11, 2005

Dear Rabbi Boettiger,

I hope this letter finds you quite well. I recently read about you in the recent issue of the Jewish Week. Of course after reading your name and story in the newspaper, my wife suggested that I send you a copy of a speech that I had recently delivered on FDR and the Jewish Community. I have included a copy for your review.

I have been a collector of Roosevelt memorabilia for decades and have been lecturing on the Roosevelt’s and their era for a number of years. My wife and I belonged to Bet Am Shalom, a Reconstructionist Synagogue for 25 years when we lived in White Plains. Over the years I have studied the complex issue of FDR and the American Jewish community and I am convinced that FDR was a great and sincere friend of the Jewish people. I am presently a member of the Roosevelt Institute, and was the promulgator of the renewed FDR Birthday Ball that celebrated his birthday with the March of Dimes after an interregnum of 58 years.

My wife Linda and I would love to meet you and have you to our home. I have a very large FDR collection, and you may enjoy seeing how it is displayed. We live in Tarrytown, NY, and I can be reached at 914-524-8381 or by e-mail at rjg727@optonline.net.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Richard J. Garfunkel

Meeting Rabbi Boettiger at Friday Night Services
February 18, 2005

A funny thing happened on the way to the game. After seeing and visiting my mother and father, regarding her very recent 97th B-Day,(my father's pushing 101) we stopped off to scout restaurants in the Village of Hastings and Dobbs Ferry for our post mixed doubles tennis meal, that is scheduled for tonight. Well we found a small Chinese one that specialized in Pacific Rim cuisine and happily had a very decent and reasonable meal. We were also in Hastings to see if a small Reconstructionist Jewish Congregation (Havurah) was meeting in one Saint Matthews Church on Farragut Parkway. The essence of this odyssey was to meet the Rabbi, whom we had read about in the “Jewish Week.” His name is Joshua Boettiger, a great grandson of the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt. I had noticed, in the article about him, that he wished to learn more about FDR's involvement with the Jews during WWII. I had sent him my recent lecture on FDR and the Jewish Community, that can be found in https://www.richardjgarfunkel.com. Well we contributed our presence to the establishment of the minion, met the Rabbi, he's a handsome, tall young fellow of 32, and sat through and participated with the service.
It was quite a memorable meeting. He's anxious to see my FDR collection, one of the best private one's around, if I may say, and I did! He another one in a long line of Roosevelt's that I have met over the years. Unfortunately I didn't get to the game, but I intend to get to the finals.
Happy President's Day
Richard

Johnny Carson and the Transition Away from the Age of Innocence

Posted on February 8, 2005 by rjg

Johnny Carson and the Transition Away from the Age of Innocence

Richard J. Garfunkel

January 22, 2005

This past weekend we were all a bit shocked over the passing of the great cultural icon of late night television, Johnny Carson. Carson, who had a legendary run, which may never be equaled, and was the model of consistency over that thirty-year period, died quietly, and without fanfare at his home in California.

Johnny Carson, who came into our lives with much anticipation in 1962, was the successful occupant of the seat basically created by the marvelous Steve Allen, of Hi-Ho Steverino fame. Even though I was 17 years old at the time, I was a veteran watcher of late night television. My parents had given me a large old television when I was about 12 and I was able to use that piece of furniture, not only a catchall for all sorts of clothes and other things, but as my own connection to late night baseball games from Kansas City and then from California. During those young teenage years I got to watch the great and still unequalled Jack Paar, our neighbor from nearby Bronxville, hold court nightly with his collection of disparate night owls and wits. I was too young and had seen very little of Steve Allen on the Tonight Show, which ran from September 1954 to January 1957. Allen a fabulous talent was the son of Irish vaudevillian comics and alcoholics Billy Allen (who died when he was two) and the very talented Belle Montrose, who toured all over America. In fact as a baby he was frequently watched over by teenager Milton Berle, in between his performances, and while Steve’s mother Belle was taking either her turn on stage or was out getting a “taste.” Allen, who had the most successful radio show in the history of Los Angeles, had developed his style with his packed live audience, when the singer Doris Day failed to appear on his show. He was forced to go into the audience and filled the missing 25-minute time slot with interaction with his fans. When Allen made his transition to prime time television in June of 1956, (for a time he was on late night and primetime simultaneously) he literally brought his whole Tonight Show team and format with him. Many of the same people like Skitch Henderson, his music director, and Gene Raymond, were then accompanied by his great ensemble group that included Louis Nye, Tom Poston, Don Knotts, Gabe Dell, Pat Harrington, Bill Dana and his wife Jayne Meadows. So anyone who had been too young, like myself, to see Steve Allen at midnight could experience the same effect and humor on Sunday evening, head to head against the established war-horse of that era, Ed Sullivan. Eventually in 1959 his program moved to Monday evening.

Jack Paar, who was recruited from CBS, where he had hosted several game and talk shows, took over the Tonight Show six months after Allen left. The successor show to Steve Allen’s effort was, Tonight! America After Dark, with hosts first Jack Lescoulie and then Al “Jazzbo” Collins, was a failure. Paar, who was best at interviewing, succeeded Allen, who had depended on frenetic pace and sketch comedy. Jack Paar was incisive, witty and highly emotional. Paar was a sensation, and until his last show and his transition to primetime, he was unequalled as a television personality. He was called the most imitated man in television history. Ironically, as great as both Steve Allen and Jack Paar were, along with their excellent primetime shows, they never broke the “top twenty” in popularity for any year.

When Jack Paar left the Tonight Show in March of 1962, the young Johnny Carson was anointed his successor. Because he was still under contract to ABC for another six months, the show was hosted by various people, that included Art Linkletter, Joey Bishop, Bob Cummings, Merv Griffin, Jack Carter, Jan Murray, Soupy Sales, Mort Sahl, Steve Lawrence, Jerry Lewis, Jimmy Dean, Arlene Francis, Donald O’Connor, Hal March and even Groucho Marks. The format basically stayed the same, and the anticipation was quite great. Unlike the emotional Paar, who was likely to blow up, Carson was unflappable. Carson biggest asset, besides his obvious durability, was his knack for salvaging disasters with a shrug, or a sigh, or a double take, that he had seemed to borrow from the great Jack Benny, who he admired. His body language became as much a part of his act as the lines he delivered. Unlike Paar, Carson tended to avoid anything controversial and was usually satisfied to keep his audience happy and amused.

I was an avid fan of Carson, and every one older than thirty-five is familiar with his routines. He had borrowed some of those concepts from Steve Allen, but unlike Allen he had no regulars or ensemble to work with. In the same way that Paar opened his show with a monologue and interviewed people at his desk, Carson also followed that format. Of course Carson was much more physical and versatile as a comedian than Paar, and people looked forward to his sight gags. Throughout that first decade in New York, I got to watch Carson almost every weeknight through the end of high school, most of college and in the early years of my marriage. Carson owned the late night and aside from a movie now and then, most people watch him and not his short-lived rivals on the other stations. To me he was irreverent, edgy, fresh, youthful and highly entertaining. His run began as the cultural era of the 1950’s started to wane. In a sense this era of innocence had transited from the fatherly feel-good years of Eisenhower to the Camelot Years of John F. Kennedy. Of course with Kennedy’s death in November of 1963, and the ensuing years of social upheaval regarding Civil Rights and Vietnam, the era of the 1960’s emerged.

Johnny Carson was able to keep himself and his show above most of the tumult and controversy raging around our own little world. Carson was able to attract many of the big stars of the previous decades that were still around and willing to be on television, and he also discovered and promoted many new and talented personalities. But from my perspective he was still the young boy from Nebraska, who loved and worshipped the great names and personalities of show business. He was at his best with Hope, Benny, Astaire, Groucho, Jimmy Stewart and many others of their like. He could lean back in his chair and laugh with the rest of us. He never put himself in competition with a great act or a legendary personality. That is where his was at his wisest and best.

I always believed that Carson, who rarely ventured outside his late night venue, except for his terrific job hosting the Academy Awards and his occasional nightclub act in Las Vegas, was most comfortable behind his late night desk. For my money his consistency, which was his great strength, started to wear on me. After watching Carson for ten years, and then having to worry about two young children, born in 1973, and 1976, along with the responsibility of getting up very early and commuting into New York, my interest in late night television started to wane a bit. I started to find Carson repetitive and not as interesting. As the years went on, and he worked less, and less, it was tough to find out whether he was on, or it was a guest host, or a re-run of The Best of Carson. I still tuned in, but the lines were getting stale, the routines predictable, and the guests were getting younger and younger. The stars that I loved to see, in the same way Johnny liked to interview, were disappearing from the scene. I could not relate to the common culture and I could care less what many of these vacuous airheads were saying. One experience really turned me off. Carson’s production people would play re-runs of older programs that usually were quite topical to the season or what great star was scheduled to be next on. In other words, they scheduled old Christmas shows during the holidays. Often it wasn’t easy to tell what was current and what was the recent past. Every year Jack Benny made an appearance around Passover and quite often he told an old joke about the holiday and Carson responded in his typical non-offensive but edgy way. This particular year, a re-run of a seasonal Jack Benny appearance was shown and within a few days Jack Benny was on live. Well Benny told the exact same joke, not realizing that he was repeating what had just been on a few nights earlier, and Carson said the same adlib retort, as though his writers had looked up the older script to replicate the earlier success. Well after that I, to a degree, soon tired of Carson. I had a feeling that I had been listening to every thing again and again. I am often reminded of the eclectic movie Ground Hog Day when it came to the repetitive nature of the Tonight Show. To me this was proof- positive that Carson had run out of ideas, routines and guests. Of course every once in a while I would turn him on to catch his opening monologue, especially if there was an important event in the news that was happening at the same time. He still was funny, he still was unflappable and every so often he had some one on whom was worth seeing. But I felt that Carson hung on too long. This show became his life and he was not willing to let it go. He was clinging on to his youth while it passed by.

In the end he was caught betwixt and between. On one hand he knew that he was getting to be “old hat” and on the other hand he wanted to work and stay in front of the public. It was an incredible run and I am sure that young audiences appreciated his great talent and consistency. But to me he was bored with his guests and his old routines, and I was certainly bored with them also. In listening to the retrospectives of the last few nights I have come away with certain perspectives. One of those was that he was a consummate professional who really honed his craft and lived the part. The other was that he was basically a lonely man, who like many stars before him lived for the moment on stage. He was uncomfortable with fame, and adulation, and attempted to guard his privacy with intensity. He was able to laugh off his marital troubles on the air, and therefore put them to rest. No one ever knew about his children, his family, his upbringing, his education, his political views, his interests, his social commentary, if he had any. Johnny Carson came into the public eye with those fresh good looks of the mid-western boy next door. He was a veteran of the 2^nd World War but talked little of his experiences on board the famous battleship Pennsylvania, a veteran of the attack at Pearl Harbor and a participant of many Pacific campaigns. Unlike Paar who constantly revealed himself, Carson was constantly striving to stay fresh and topical to the times, and avoided dwelling in the past. I saw Carson as an unemotional professional who rarely allowed his deeply hidden emotions, if he had any, to come to the forefront. Johnny Carson, though a sophisticated personage, became symbolic of the paradoxical1950’s through a perceived combination of mid-western innocence and an edgy tiptoeing around taboo subjects. He became the master of subtle double-entendres and raised the “wink” and “eye-rolling” to an art form. In that sense, he was favorably compared to the Jack Benny, one of his idols, who was the master of the double and triple take.

His passing was a surprise, to many of us, because he never really seemed to really age or get old. Coincidently he died at almost the same age that Steve Allen did in 2000 (age 78) and also died within a year of his famous predecessor Jack Paar, who died on January 27, 2004. He embodied that youthful trim American look that most of us admire. He was glib, optimistic and never seemed to be troubled. He dressed sporty and well, and to see him without a tie was a special event. He never abused his colleagues and employees, but they all knew who was boss. He had an ongoing charm that enabled him to relate to the famous and the average common man or woman. He reacted in they way most of us would react. I am sure that every one agrees that his unprecedented run of thirty years will never be equaled or even challenged.

Town Board Classics- January 27, 2005

Posted on February 8, 2005 by rjg

Town Board Classics

Richard J. Garfunkel

January 27, 2005

Last night the Greenburgh Town Board had its second and last meeting of the opening month of the New Year. Of course along with the usual cast of characters that religiously attend these happenings, the Board was jammed with interested citizens who were there to support the effort by the Union Baptist Church to expand its facilities.

Supervisor Paul Feiner, who has spearheaded the effort to assist Union Baptist’s effort to grow, was as usual temporarily stymied by the obstructionism of one of the Board members. Mr. Steven Bass, who owes his unopposed election victory in November 2003 to the strength and original support of Supervisor Feiner, never misses an opportunity to bite his hand. Mr. Bass who has made a callow career out of being a divisive obstructionist on the Board, attempted to block Supervisor Feiner’s latest effort to move along the process that brought out the throng of Union Baptist adherents. Mr. Bass has blocked many of Mr. Feiner’s initiatives with his narrow partisan nit-picking and faux concerns. As an example, he had blocked Mr. Feiner’s effort to have Greenburgh purchase renewable wind energy, by claiming that this was illegal under state law, in spite of the fact that thirty communities have already done these very same actions. Of course the Greenburgh Town Board had to vote on a resolution, regarding this effort, to be submitted to the New York State Legislature. Along with that unnecessary bureaucratic effort, Mr. Bass spearheaded a duplicative “feel-good” resolution regarding “Children’s Internet Safety.” After an alarmist demonstration from one of our resident legal beagle cabalists, who displayed the names and addresses of the “so-called” threatened “Snow Angels,” on his laptop to the world, we were entertained by the notion that Supervisor Feiner was out to expose the whole population of “Snow Angel” shovelers of Woodlands High School to Internet “predators.” This, of course, was a new low when it comes to the Cabal’s effort at subverting his authority and giving us a divided Town Board and a legislative dictatorship led by Board Member Bass.

Supervisor Feiner, of course would have no patience with this latest effort at “divide, delay and conquer” tactics and forced Mr. Bass and his colleagues to not only read the “report” (negative declaration) during a recess, but to vote on it immediately. The recess was called, the “report” was read, the meeting was again called to order, and the resolution supporting the Union Baptist Church’s effort was passed.

After that effort consumed an extra hour of the public’s precious time, the Board went on to its now-legendary “Public Comment” portion of the meeting. This big issue these days regards the effort by the Library Board to spend $20 million on a library expansion. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that the expansion and renovation of the library is long over due. Many months ago, Supervisor Feiner submitted an innovative proposal to spend $10 million on its expansion and renovation, along with inviting competing bids to buy the old Town Board property, remove, the old Town Hall, and to have that potential purchaser landscape the surrounding property and provide added parking spaces for the library. Eventually, it seemed then, that the Sunrise Corporation, a respected builder and operator of Assisted Living facilities would be the eventual partner regarding this effort. Of course the Sunrise would buy the land for possibly $3 million, help with the landscaping and re-shaping of the property and eventually start to pay taxes to the Town of $200,000 or so each and every year. From the perspective of many, this sounded like an excellent use of the land, and a satisfactory solution to the library’s problems. But as we all know now, the Library Board was not really satisfied with that sensible compromise and instead of half a loaf being able to satisfy their appetite, they turned to Board Member Bass, who wrung his hands, worried about the “fast-tracking” of a sensible solution and sandbagged the whole idea by convincing some of his colleagues that this was not enough. So here we are many months later with a $20 million proposal on our hands.

Of course, Supervisor Feiner, with the public’s purse strings in mind, and our excellent credit rating hanging in the lurch, requested a November referendum, with full Town participation to support this effort. This sensible and prudent action was again twisted around to suit the heightened anxiety of the Library Board. Instead of having a full hearing aired to the public regarding this $20 million effort, the Library Board insisted on a $30,000 referendum in March with a tiny fraction of the public voting on a resolution they would know virtually nothing about. With Board Member Bass leading the charge, even the need for required environmental and traffic studies were forgotten or ignored. It took the Supervisor to remind all that these necessities were being ignored. In spite of all of the posturing, the Library Board has not fully articulated its plans and generally the public is totally “in the dark” when it comes to their desires. In fact any effort to have the Library Board discuss its plans has led to more confusion and questions from the public. When the Supervisor attempted to outreach to the community, he was criticized for not supporting the library renovation and expansion. What else is new?

Last night, new voices raised concerns over this effort to push through a vote that would effectively disenfranchise thousands of voters. By having a limited amount of polling places and a tiny amount of information available the voters and the taxpayers will not be informed enough on this issue. The essence of this cynical effort by Board Member Bass and the Library Board is to have a tiny group of activists push through this referendum without anybody looking. Even when Supervisor Feiner suggested the idea of Town oversight on this potential project he was rebuffed.

Of course only pressure from the Greenburgh community at large can force an “open” discussion of the real and realistic needs of the library.

PS: An afterthought. Last night, in the bone chilling cold, there was a sparsely attended meeting regarding the library expansion at the Virginia Street School. Town officials and members of the Library Board dominated this audience, with some interested citizens who were given a talk regarding the proposed library expansion. We were shown more detailed schematic drawings and heard from the both Library Board Chairperson Howard Jacobs and the representative of the company in charge of designing the “new” library. Of course, the rationale is that any delay from a spring-dated referendum to a more normal November vote would add time and therefore extra cost to the project. There were a few questions from the small group of citizens, mostly ranging from concerns about parking, access to the building, elevator usage, location of the books, the separation of children from adults, and the eventual cost to the taxpayers. I asked Mr. Jacobs could he describe the timeline from a “passed” resolution in the spring to the actual occupation of the new site. I also asked what dislocation in service would occur when the libraries function went mostly into storage and were transferred to the old Town Hall site? He believed that it would be a short-term dynamic disruption from the work, that would last the whole two years or until the completion of the new library. Given that answer, I suggested the following that we explore closely the feasibility of acquiring the Hillside school property that the Greenburgh central & District wished to sell. It is a 51,000 square foot building on 5 acres with unlimited parking potential. If this building could be rehabilitated for a fraction of the $20 million price tag planned for the new rehabilitation of the old library, there would a great cost savings. In addition there would be ancillary benefits of great worth to the town.

The following are some of the benefits:

a) No dislocation or interruption in library services.

b) The ability to sell the who parcel of land that currently is occupied by the library and the old Town Hall (Sunrise would have paid $3 million for the Town Hall property which subsequently would have contributed possibly $200,000 in taxes annually.)

c) The removal of these facilities from Tarrytown Road and therefore making it less congested and safer.

d) The cost savings of utilizing a present structure and the elimination of the problems of “steep slopes” and terraced parking.

e) The better preservation and protection of the abutting neighborhood.

Letter to the Washington Post “Bombing Auschwitz”

Posted on February 8, 2005 by rjg

Letter to the Editor

February 7, 2005

Bombing Auschwitz, What Would Have happened?

McGovern is unfortunately misinformed about what the bombing could have done. The marshalling yards were hit often and trains rarely moved in daylight in Western Europe, but in Eastern Europe other conditions prevailed. But the idea of destroying individual rail lines in the middle of Poland with high altitude heavy bombers? Very questionable! Also Auschwitz would have had to been destroyed, to eliminate the gas chambers, and that would have been an incredible effort that would have cost the lives of thousands of Jews. That decision would have been criticized for all of history. Also the Jewish Agency, which was chaired and polled by David Ben-Gurion, in June of 1944, was against that action and voted 11-1 not to recommend that Auschwitz be bombed. By the time that effort could have been made, most of the 1.5 million Jews had alread been murdered.

Remember it was only in the spring of 1944 when Auschwitz was identified as the ultimate terminus. And, of course there is no evidence that FDR was ever approached no less asked to make that decision. Even in Michael Beshloss's patchwork sloppy book. “The Conquerors” where he “sort of” quotes John McCloy and Henry Morgenthau Jr., he provides no evidence of that request. His assertion that McCloy really informed FDR, and confessed tothat action while in his late 80's is hard to believe. The facts and his ownvoluminous testimony, over decades, belies that claim by Beschloss. A thorough reading of Beshloss's interview with Henry Morgenthau III, about his father's statements never supports that specious claim. The destruction of the rails, if possible, would have slowed down the deportation of Hungarian Jews and may have saved many. But the Germans/Nazis may have resorted to other tactics.But, there is no doubt that even with all of the anti-Semitic rhetoric theNazis articulated, they were greatly afraid of eventual exposure and complicity in this ongoing crime. They certainly wanted to try to cover up the evidence in the end. Therefore would they have been leery to take a more public action against the Hungarian Jews? In other words, would they go ahead and murder them with an unlimited number of witnesses being available. That is hard to tell. There is no doubt that FDR's repeated warnings about swift harsh justice, that would be meted out against these war criminals, started to have an impact on the Nazis. FDR certainly supported a draconian peace towards Germany and was the lone author of the doctrine of “Unconditional Surrender.” It was FDR who supported the “Morgenthau Plan,” at the Quebec Conference, to divide and a create a group of small agrarian mini-states in post war Germany

It was only when Truman succeeded to the Presidency that the real de-nazification started to lose steam in the wake of the emerging Cold War. Truman was never enthusiastic over War Crime Tribunals, but supported the Nurenberg Trials and actions against lower level criminals. Of the 8000 SS and others who served at Auschwitzonly 800, I believe, received official justice. But there was some instant justice served on SS guards that were locally captured and identified. All in all, there was never the type of full ranging effort at rooting out Nazis in post war Germany. Probably there was really too many and the Soviets seemed to be a much bigger concern.

Richard J. Garfunkel

McGovern's New Heading Over Auschwitz As world leaders gathered at Auschwitz last week to mark the 60th anniversary of its liberation, a former U.S. pilot reopened a decades-old debate over whether the Allies should have bombed the death camp to shut down Nazi gas chambers. The pilot: George McGovern, now 82, who for the first time is publicly telling the story of his mission over occupied Poland in a B-24 Liberator in December 1944. “There is no question we should have attempted . . . to go after Auschwitz,” the former Democratic senator and presidential nominee says in a taped interview shown at a forum on Capitol Hill. “There was a pretty good chance we could have blasted those rail lines off the face of the Earth, which would have interrupted the flow of people to those death chambers, and we had a pretty good chance of knocking out those gas ovens.” McGovern, whose squadron bombed Nazi oil facilities less than five miles from Auschwitz, spoke on camera with interviewers from Israel Television and the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies. “He was a rare eyewitness to the fact that the Allies could have bombed the camps,” the institute's director, Rafael Medoff, told us. Medoff and former congressman Steve Solarz wrote an op-ed article that appeared in several newspapers Thursday quoting McGovern and questioning U.S. rationale for not bombing Auschwitz in the summer, fall and winter of 1944. The issue of Allied capability and willingness to take out the rail lines to Auschwitz and its death chambers remains contentious. “Given the way we ook at it now, with eyes of 2005, it would have been a gesture to have bombed,” Peter Black, a senior historian at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, told us. But had the rail lines been destroyed, he points out, the Nazis might simply have resorted to shooting Jews slated for deportation. As for the gas chambers, “at that time we just couldn't pinpoint individual buildings with strong success,” Black says. “In order to bomb and make sure of knocking them out, we would have had to carpet-bomb the place, like Hamburg or Dresden” — thus killing thousands of prisoners. “If bombing would have killed the people who are alive today, it's almost a nonsensical question. It's really an issue of how many people would we have saved.” But McGovern argues “it was certainly worth the effort, despite all therisks” and notes that prisoners were already “doomed to death.” While calling President Roosevelt “my political hero,” McGovern faults him for the decision “not to go after Auschwitz. . . . God forgive us for that tragic miscalculation.”(Note: We tried to reach the former South Dakota senator, but his office said he was driving cross-country last week to Florida with his wife and dog

c/o E-mail Customer Care

1515 N. Courthouse Road

Arlington, VA 22201

C 2004 The Washington Post Company