Remembering Irene Sendler

In 2007 Irena Sendler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.  She was 97.  The award was given to former Vice President Al Gore for his slide show on Global Warming.  The effect of Sendler’s nomination was to alert the world of her presence and impact, some 65 years after she demonstrated unparalleled compassion and courage. 

During WWII she smuggled 2500 Jewish kids/infants out of the Warsaw ghetto in Poland.

She devised a very creative and elaborate plan using a typhoid scare and the sewer system as a means to secure their freedom and survival.

She was caught by the Nazis.  She was tortured and severely beaten.  The beatings broke her arms and legs and left her crippled for life.  She never revealed even one, minuet piece of information to her vicious captors.  She was sentenced to death but escaped when a guard was bribed.  She spent the remaining years of the war in hiding as the Gestapo relentlessly hunted for her.

Irena kept the names of all the kids she guided to safety hidden in a glass jar.  After the war, she tried to reunite the families even though most of the parents had been systematically slaughtered.

Irena Sendler died on May 12, 2008 at the age of 98.

Forgiveness on this front remains, in all likelihood, the sole province of the Almighty.   While we may not possess the divine nature necessary to forgive these monsters we nevertheless have the responsibility to never forget.  We must never forget the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated or the atrocities of Pol Pot, Chairman Mao Tse-tung and the other butchers that followed Hitler - And it is high time we start remembering and memorializing Irena Sendler as those in the Middle East make plans for exacting their own perverted brand of genocide.

Genora (Johnson) Dollinger

During the 1936-37 United Auto Workers (UAW) sit down strike in Flint, Michigan, Genora (Johnson) Dollinger battled policemen and company thugs as the head of the UAW’S Women’s Emergency Brigade.  

Workers overturned police cars to make barricades. They ran to pick up the fire bombs thrown at them and hurl them back at the police. These brave men insisted Genora get out of the line of violence.  She refused.  Instead she grabbed a loud speaker device.  She called the company goons and police cowards.  She made it clear that their violence was being directed not only at unarmed men but also at both the women and children.  These women and children were members of the “Women’s Emergency Brigade” who had taken to the streets in support of their husbands, fathers, brothers and uncles.  

As the violence was subsiding Genora made a second impassioned and brilliant plea: “I thought, the women can break this up. So I appealed to the women in the crowd, to break through the police lines and come down and stand beside their husbands, their brothers, their uncles and their sweethearts. I could barely see one woman struggling to come forward. A cop had grabbed her by the back of her coat. She just pulled out of that coat and she started walking down to the battle zone. As soon as that happened there were other women and men who followed. That was the end of the battle. When those spectators came into the center of the battle the police retreated.  There was a big roar of victory.”  

Genora (Johnson) Dollinger’s extraordinary courage revealed an Achilles heel in the brutal violence believed to be the solution to ending the strike in favor of the auto companies.  She paved the way for a union victory and in doing so saved the lives of those who fought so valiantly for a better way of life for all of us. 

Phillies “Phold” Possible

Authors Note/Update:  Donald Trump won the presidential election in 2016.  He did it without winning the popular vote.    He did it on the strength of a very low voter turnout – 97 million of the eligible 241 million voters sat at home. He did it by securing only 26% of the voting electorate. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Americans refused to support him.  Trump is the first president to NEVER achieve a 50% approval or favorable rating or higher in any polls conducted.  He once again lost the popular vote as well as the presidential election in 2020 by a large margin.  In addition; there have been eight presidential elections held since 1992.  The Republicans have won the popular vote in only one of those elections.  Facts indicate that Trump and the GOP are NOT popular with the American people. 

The Philadelphia Phillies “Phold of ‘64” may have a rival in the annals of monumental upset surprises. In 1964 the Philadelphia Phillies surrendered a 6 ½ game lead with 12 games to play.  To this day that collapse is still considered the worst in sports history. 

A review of current polling shows that in the states where Hillary Clinton is up by 10 points or more – just those states – provide her with 273 electoral votes.  Two hundred seventy (270) are needed to win the election.  Is it feasible that such a deficit could be overcome in the mere 2 ½ months before election day?  If the margin were overcome, in even one of those states, it would be- like the Phillies “Phold of ‘64” - unprecedented. 

Additionally, GOP campaign issues are also aiding Hillary Clinton. 

George F. Will once said that if the Republican Party was serious about gaining populous support, they would break up the Wall Street banks.  This wisdom along with other key concerns have been ignored.  

For example; the party has refused to diminish their support for tax cuts for the rich or to provide greater market access for the middle class and poor.  They say they support government programs to rebuild our infrastructure.  This could provide thousands of new jobs yet we have no information as to how this would be funded while they are cutting taxes. 

Nor is the GOP talking about rational plans for repealing impediments that hamper small and medium size business startups and growth. There is no discussion of repealing excessive licensing requirements nor suggesting it is time to end government programs that promote financial engineering and stock buybacks.  Also absent is any talk of implementing new programs that would encourage our richest corporate concerns to hire new workers or encourage them to make more investments. 

When Republicans talk about health care and repealing the woefully ineffective Affordable Care Act (ACA), they fail to mention any specifics as to what will replace it – what ACA measures they would retain and what stronger market measures they support in correcting the problems.  They continue to imply support for a market-based system and programs refusing to acknowledge that those programs are directly responsible for our dreadfully inadequate system.  There are no proposals for greater regulations to curb costs or making the system far more transparent or responsive to health care needs.  Just opposing a single payer universal health care system isn’t enough.  The GOP must provide a viable alternative. 

They continue to emphasize cutting the size of government and taxes.  Yet, once again, do not state exactly what they would trim. Nor do they tell us how they will pay for the programs they support and endorse after reducing taxes.  They refuse to advocate closing corporate loopholes, deductions and credits – ending corporate welfare – as a method of shrinking the size of government or as a means of providing additional sources of revenue. 

Finally, voters would enthusiastically support these measures and messages but only if proposed by a respectable, credible messenger.  While Donald Trump has correctly identified some key issues such as; immigration and securing our borders, income inequality and economic patriotism, opposition to trade deals, and the ending of and staying out of war - all the issues that Washington has refused to address - Donald Trump has been Hillary Clinton’s best friend.  His outrageous statements and behavior have thoroughly distracted voters from her nagging controversies. All the signs point to Mr. Trump as being the wrong messenger. 

So, it’s a “NO BRAINER” - like the Phillies – how can Hillary lose?? 

For openers, Americans do not typically elect the same party to hold the presidency for more than two terms.  Two terms for Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama.  Up next – A Republican. 

Next, starting in 2008, the Clintons began in earnest to secure Hillary’s nomination in 2016.  The political maneuvering was so effective it discouraged any opposition within the party from challenging her coronation.  Not only was this unhealthy for the Democrats and the country but she was the wrong choice for the party.  Repeated polling has demonstrated Americans do not find her trustworthy or likable indicating they would have preferred another candidate.  The only viable hope for the Republicans, at this point, is a very low voter turnout.  Those claiming to support a candidate they may not like, must show up at the polls and vote.  If those polled are disenchanted enough to stay away, then polling information becomes skewed and thus a moot point. 

While it may seem unlikely, the DFL may be on the road to matching The Phillies “Phold of ‘64” in 2016.

   

Launch Codes Not Biggest Concern

Through the circumvention of our Constitution, our president has the unprecedented power to wreak massive death and destruction upon a whim. 

 

Under the constitution is the president granted authority to “DECLARE WAR” – send America into war?  Answer: No 

Under the constitution is the president granted authority to wage – guide and direct - war?  Answer: Yes.

The question for modern America has become; has the constitution been circumvented to allow the president authority under an guise of waging war to grant him the authority to declare war?  These waters have been mightily muddied over the last 225 years. 

Under Article I, Section 8, the Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war.  Without directly stating it, the framers made it clear they did NOT want to entrust the spilling of blood and the expenditure of capital wealth along with the nation’s resources and the obvious initiating of the most devastating acts known to mankind, entrusted to just one person. 

Our founding fathers additionally understood that circumstances could arise where immediate action would need to be taken.  As such, the president was empowered to repel sudden attacks to our country’s boarders or imminent actions that threatened our borders without waiting for the approval of congress.  Alexander Hamilton argued that there would be no need for a declaration of war by congress in that war was already being waged. 

Congress has declared war on eleven occasions: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I (2 separate declarations) and World War Two (6 sperate Declarations).  So, the question becomes, with no congressional declarations of war and with no immediate impeding disasters, how was authority granted to wage Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait (1991 Gulf War), Iraq and Afghanistan? 

 Korea was never classified as an American war.  It was classified as a “Police Action.”  We were part of a United Nations (U.N.) initiative to repel an attack on a sovereign nation.  America, at the strong urging of the U.N., agreed to lead and guide that U.N. initiative.  President Truman stated that no Congressional approval was needed as the United States was acting under the authority of the United Nations charter.  

Vietnam was fought under joint Congressional approval through the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution” or the “Southeast Asia Resolution.”  This joint Congressional resolution and statutory authorization allowed President Johnson to employ armed forces in Southeast Asia without a “Declaration of War.” 

During the Vietnam War, President Nixon conducted secret bombings of Cambodia without notifying Congress.  This led to the adoption of the “War Powers Resolution” or the “War Powers Act” on November 7, 1973.  It stated objective was to curb the president’s power to commit armed forces without the consent of congress.  Since its passage, both Congress and presidents have found ways to side-step or skirt the legislation in one form or another.  

The 1991 Gulf War was fought under the joint Congressional resolution and statutory “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991.” 

After we were attacked on September 11, 2001, Congress passed the “Authorization to Use Force Against Terrorist” legislation.  This provided far broader discretionary powers to our commander-in-chief.  This was closely followed on October 16, 1992 with yet another joint Congressional resolution and statutory authorization, the “Iraq War Resolution,” allowing and giving consent to engage in the Iraqi War. 

 The fifteen-year Afghanistan War has been waged under the 2001 “Authorization to Use Force Against Terrorist” legislation.  The action stemmed from the then ruling government of the Taliban refusing to extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S.  The Taliban was providing refuge and save haven to Al-Qaeda. The stated objective was to dismantle al-Qaeda, which had executed the September 11 attacks, and to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban government from power. President Obama has continued this war under the same Congressional statutory authorization even though we have successfully crushed Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.  They have now taken refuge in Pakistan.

In December 2015 the “Authorization to Use Force Against Terrorist” legislation was expanded to include ISIS. 

It should be noted that while the stated and often misinterpreted objective of the “War Powers Resolution” or the “War Powers Act” on November 7, 1973 was to limit presidential authority it also gave the president much broader powers.  It clearly states that the president can act, without congressional approval, should the United States, its territories and possessions or its armed forces be attacked. 

Also, there are no limits placed requiring him to gain the consent of congress for what is termed small scale military actions.  This allowed Ronald Reagan to attack Muammar al-Qaddafi in 1986, Bill Clinton to employ missile strikes in Afghanistan and other areas of the world and, of course, for president Obama to launch Tomahawk missiles willy-nilly.  Congressional action is also not necessary should the president CLAIM we are under the THREAT of imminent attack ANYWHERE and it is therefore necessary to use military force to protect Americans. 

This greatly expands the original edict set forth by our framers that only included the repelling of sudden attacks to our country or to prevent imminent actions that threatened our borders. 

The American “forever war crowd” argues that through all these endless “Congressional statutory authorizations” - with presumably more to come – that congress is giving its consent and thus providing the necessary “Declaration of War” required in the constitution.  It is also argued that in today’s world waiting for congressional approval from those who can’t reach a consensus on how to bake a cake, could result in catastrophic consequences. 

 What we as American are challenged with is, first and foremost, to recognize that when we elect a Commander-in-Chief, we are indeed entrusting the spilling of blood and the expenditure of capital wealth along with the nation’s resources and the obvious initiating of the most devastating act known to mankind to one person which clearly circumvents both the spirit and intent of the constitution.  

Repeals of all these “Congressional statutory authorizations” and a simple return to the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution is hardly forthcoming.  Which, in and of itself, is terrifying enough without ever introducing launch codes into the discussion.

"ME FIRST” Hardly Warrants a Party

It has been suggested that there is a segment of our population that is primarily focused on a “Me First” philosophy and agenda.  This is relatively easy to initially dismiss when considering that the malaise has been temporarily employed by every generation until they mature – until they have lived long enough to learn that self-gratification typically leaves one feeling shallow and unfilled. 

What is so troubling today are the periodic reminders that these assumed maturities levels are not only been routinely dismissed but are distained by those who have surpassed the age of reason.  Such a reminder most recently comes to us in an article in the Star Tribune Newspaper entitled “I’m a TV newswoman, and no thanks on the lady uniform.”  Its author is Jana Shortal, a Reporter for Kare 11 television in Minneapolis. 

Shortal’s issue is the dress code requirements for women who appear on television news.  She takes us through her personal frustrations and the awful discontentment she has felt over the years in having to meet those requirements.  She insists that all she wants to do is tell her stories.  Yet, dress requirements have diminished her self-fulfillment and thus hampered her from achieving the greatest possible satisfaction she believes can be derived from her job.  The basic battle cry of the article is “THAT’S NOT ME” and I refuse “TO NOT BE ME” any longer.  She says she has now taken, by virtue of a new program introduced on Kare 11, to dressing only in the manner that pleases her.  She’s been liberated. 

Before we throw her a party, we should consider the elements missing from Shortal’s thinking. 

Let’s first state the obvious.  The entire article was focused on one thing – herself. 

Next there was no mention as to why a dress code is necessary.  No consideration for those she is paid to serve.  No consideration as to the realities of sacrifice in the pursuit of a greater good or excellence. 

Television is a visual medium.  As such, the viewers have expectations when watching.  If expectations are not met at a restaurant, a clothing store, or any other enterprise that serves the public, the public will not return.  There is also the reality that when expectations are exceeded people are eager to return.  

Classic examples of this television reality today would include those that have no interest in football yet enjoy watching “Fox NFL Sunday,” the pre-game show before NFL football telecasts.  Viewer comments range from how engaging they find the personalities, to their enjoyment in their exquisite wardrobes.  They emit an air of class and style and respect for their audience.  This is reminiscent of attending a Johnny Mathis concert.  Wild applause, whistles and shouted compliments greeted him surrounding his impeccable appearance when he returned on stage for his second set performance.  

Shortal can still tell her stories without having to meet expectations in appearance.  She can dress in bib-overhauls if she wishes.  There is radio.  There’s the internet and of course, like her article, there are blogs and various other forms of print media.  So why her insistence to remain where she feels uncomfortable?  This certainly brings her motives into question.  

And most importantly is the absence in her treatise as to her primary responsibilities.  First and foremost, should be the viewer.  This means not just journalistic professionalism in providing knowledge in the form of accurate, reliable information but her additional responsibility to make it as visually appealing for the viewers as possible.  

Then of course there’s those who sign her paycheck.   The job has yet to be created that doesn’t require an acceptance of some unpleasantness, sacrifice and a mindset that can often require going beyond the call of duty.  Those who feel comfortable in demanding that their contentment be their employers primary concern rather than the excellence in the service or product they provide are not those we should be throwing a party for. 

“ME FIRST” has never been admired, nor should it ever be admired.  The source of Shortal’s actual frustrations and unhappiness lie not in adhering to a dress code but rather in her own self-absorption.  Once she loses the “ME FIRST” mentality, life will open avenues of contentment and happiness she has no idea exist.

True American Hero

The Loss Is Immeasurable

“Thrilla in Manila”  Frazier’s damaged eye allowed Ali to score with rights

I had the opportunity in my lifetime to witness many great sporting events in a variety of athletic endeavors.  While all will be forever treasured, two that still conjure up the same strong emotional responses as when first experienced.  

Number one was the USA Olympic hockey team capturing the Gold Medal in the 1980 Olympics.  Only one other event comes even close to the magic of that 1980 moment.  They both are extremely moving in that they acted as testaments to exemplary courage and character.

It occurred on Wednesday, October 1, 

1975 at the Araneta Coliseum in Quezon 

City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  It 

was a fight for the World Heavyweight 

Boxing Championship.  Its combatants 

were Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier.

Ali, under the name of Cassius Clay, won the 1960 boxing Olympic Gold Medal and Frazier had achieved the same accomplishment in 1964.  Throughout their boxing careers they became fierce competitors.              

The fight began in typical fashion with Ali dominating the early rounds. 

During the fifth round Frazier began to make his appearance felt.  At one-point Joe hit Ali with a right that appeared to shake the champ.  Ali’s attempts to counteract that right, left him exposed to the far more lethal blows from solid left hooks that began finding their way to Ali’s head. 

At the start of the sixth round Frazier connected with a tremendous left hook.  Ali was noticeably dazed.  Seconds later, yet another painful left staggered Ali. Sports writer Jerry Izenberg wrote; "They were tremendous hooks…, normal fighters would not have continued—it would have been over.”   The 33-year-old Ali could still take a punch.  Two years earlier, on March 1, 1973, Ken Norton broke Ali’s jaw in the first round of a 12 round bout that went the distance.  Ali fought eleven rounds with a broken jaw.

After the eleventh round Frazier’s face was swollen almost to disfiguration.  His trainer, Eddie Futch, asked Frazier why he wasn’t doing more to stop Ali from landing all the rights to his face.   A training accident in 1965 had left Frazier almost blind in his left eye.  He told Futch he couldn’t see the right handed punches coming.  This ugliness was multiplied by the excessive heat in the arena which prevented the use of ice bags between rounds.  The ice kept melting.

In the twelfth round Ali had his way with Frazier.  He landed both lefts and rights, one right after the other.  This further damaged Frazier’s eyesight.  By the thirteenth round Frazier’s vision was minimal making it extremely difficult for him to protect himself.  He took an awful beating; as did Ali when Frazier, amid the pummeling forced an exhausted Ali into the middle of the ring where Frazier could inflict his own kind of punishment.  By the end of the fourteenth round both men were totally exhausted.  

It became obvious that only a miracle would allow either fighter to even rise from his stool, let alone fight the fifteenth and final round.   Ali told his manager Angelo Dundee to cut off his gloves.  He was done.  Dundee refused to do so.  Futch told Frazier he was stopping the fight fearful that even one more round would prove disastrous to his fighter’s physical well-being.  Frazier vehemently objected.  Ali, with the aid of his corner men and the ropes, rose to his feet.  Without the ropes for support there was little doubt Ali would have collapsed.  Although angry and determined, Frazier could not get up from his stool and Futch threw in the towel.  One couldn’t help but think those in attendance received a very brief glimpse of the bravery – the heart, courage and character – of those who stormed the beaches of Normandy, France and Iowa Jima.  

Great leaders lead by example – by actions - by behavior - and not by words.  They bring out the very best in us as demonstrated in Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier.  Ali publicly humiliated and abused Frazier by his constantly calling him "The Gorilla."  Ali obviously underestimated Frazier’s strong will, his confidence, and above all his toughness and stamina.  Ali paid the price.  He had to withstand the very best of what the very best had to offer.  In doing so he was forced to validate his never-ending cry of; “I am the greatest” through his  remarkable stamina and incredible will to never give-up.  “I’m gonna do it because I want to be the heavy weight champ for the third time - because I can do it.   And you can do it too.  No matter what you are in life - no Matter what color, no matter what religion – it’s never too late to start all over again – NEVER FORGET THAT!!!!”  ~ Muhammad Ali

From one American sports fan’s perspective, to clearly understand the greatness that was Muhammad Ali is to remember the “Thrilla in Manila” – the astonishing, courageous performance of an American hero who ALWAYS walked the talk.

Rastlin’ – Greatest Ever

Who amongst us could ever forget it????

It was the greatest sporting event of ALLLLL TIME.

It occurred on August 20, 1963 at the Minneapolis Auditorium.

The Tag Team wraslin’ Championship of the World was to be decided. 

It pitted the champs of Ivan and Karol Kalmikof (Billed as the Kalmikoff Brothers) against the challengers of “The Crusher” and his cousin “Dick The Bruiser.”  These two were hardly a couple of “turkey necks.” 

Before the match would end the scoring table and any ring side chairs would be violently dismantled and their parts would be used as weapons in the ring. 

Things got out of hand when “The Bruiser” (or was it “The Crusher”??) pulled out a set of brass knuckles he had smuggled into the ring within his wraslin’ trunks. 

The referee would be wounded and dazed on several occasions rendering him mentally incapacitated to rule effectively.  At times he could also be seen laying unconscious outside the ring.  

The bell at ring side would be ripped from its casing and used to mercilessly beat the Kalmikoffs in attempts to disfigure them.  The mat of the ring would become drenched from the inordinate blood loss experienced by all four combatants.  In the end the Kalmikoffs would concede defeat and a pain ridden, delirious referee would end the carnage.   

It was not only a fabulous night for ALL sports fans but more importantly a momentous night for America.  For “The Crusher” and “The Bruiser”, amid their mauled bodies and blood-soaked faces, struck an extraordinary blow for freedom heard round the world when they savagely thrashed those dirty, rotten, bearded commies into submission.  The rumors that the outcome of this event led to the Kennedy assignation were ignored by the Warren Commission and still remain uninvestigated to this day; strongly suggesting the theory has strong credibility. 

BTW – What primarily made this the greatest event in sporting history is the fact that I was there and witnessed every blood curdling moment of this historic event.