By Don Klein
Abortion is an combustible topic. Adherents on both sides of this issue are often too passionate to really illuminate the subject. Few really stop and examine what is really at stake.
When the 1973 landmark Roe vs. Wade ruling of the Supreme Court was issued it did not outlaw anything. It did not force anyone to do anything. Unlike most laws, it is not restrictive. It liberated pregnant women to do what they felt was right in early pregnancy. It left the decision of abortion in the hands of women.
Most significantly it took abortion off the criminal docket. No patient or health provider would be prosecuted for participating in an abortion. It legalized the right to choose. At the same time it did not prohibit those who opposed this right from not seeking abortions. No one was required to have an abortion.
It could, in a most extreme of example, be compared to the right of legal representation when accused of a crime. All citizens have a right to a lawyer even if they cannot afford one, but not all defendants exercise that option. They are free to appear in court without an attorney, although that might not be very wise.
We have many rights that we don’t use and no one gets worked into a frenzy over them. We have the right to travel freely all over the country but many never use it. We have a right to send our children to public schools, but some parents find alternatives. We have a right to vote and don’t always go to the polls. Those are just a few rights we don’t use.
Yet no one goes into a tantrum when others exercise the very rights we might ignore. Not so with abortions. Why is that? Because in the case of abortion we run into religious principle. That brings up the next question. Why should religious belief matter in a country which prides itself in separation of church and state and which in all other matters of religion is extremely tolerant?
That’s a hard question to answer when talking about abortion, but it is based on the fact that opponents of Roe vs. Wade hope to repeal the law by consistent and virulent confrontation at every level possible.
The current Notre Dame controversy over whether to have invited the president of the United States to address university graduates this spring and to offer him an honorary law degree is a case in point. Opponents are taking a misguided political stance to promote their resistance to abortion rights.
Barack Obama believes that the federal government has no place in dictating to women whether to have an abortion or not. That is a personal matter out of reach of government and therefore he leaves the subject to the conscience of individuals to deal with. He would agree to counseling against having abortions, but would not try to ban the procedure.
There are many people who think that stance is balanced and a pretty fair approach to the subject of abortion. Advise against the practice, but avoid prohibition. That to me covers both sides of the extremely volatile issue. However, to those who have an emotional attachment to banning abortions or have religious objections, it does not seem to be enough.
So based on Obama’s stand on abortion, an element of the university’s students, faculty and alumni are audibly opposed to even inviting him to the South Bend commencement ceremony.
In putting this into perspective, we must recall that every president from Dwight D. Eisenhower on has been invited to speak at Notre Dame. Actually, it is a distinct honor to have the president come to any school to deliver an address. Most institutions of higher learning never get such a lofty visitor.
Obama is doing the correct thing. He is holding his peace while others deliberate over the wisdom of the invitation. Notre Dame, a Catholic institution, follows the dictums of the Vatican which is flatly and unambiguously opposed to abortions. It claims it violates church law and is immoral.
It is a single issue objection. There is no other reason given by those in resistance to the president’s visit. It is foolish to think that not receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame would matter much to Obama, a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School and the one time editor of the distinguished Harvard Law Review – and now US president and the most powerful man in the world.
Actually, there are many who think fighting legal abortions is beating a dead horse. During the eight years of the Bush administration, when the president was an outspoken adherent of the so-called right to life movement, there was no attempt to reverse Roe vs. Wade even when the majority of Supreme Court justices were Catholic. It seems most politicians are not willing to move on this issue for fear of voter recriminations on election day. All they are willing to do is offer lip service to appease the anti-abortion activists.
It will be interesting to see the outcome at Notre Dame. Will the university stand up for academic independence and free expression in a temple of learning or will it succumb to the wishes of those embittered zealots who feel that a president who has a different opinion on this subject should be denied the honor a university of stature has to bestow?
Of course as Americans they are free to disagree with any opinion, including the president’s, but instead of being discordant wouldn’t it be more useful to greet and listen to a honorable man of great personal achievement, of historic accomplishment and perhaps the most eloquent orator of these times. His speech might well be a memorable moment in the lives of those in attendance.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Uncivilized? Who us?
By Don Klein
The news reports were harsh and sobering. First, 89 killed in multiple attacks one recent Thursday in Iraq. Then at least 60 more died outside a revered Baghdad religious shrine the next day. Close to 150 dead in two days by acts of merciless Iraqi suicide murderers. Another 50 died a few days later
"Isn’t it awful what they are doing to themselves over there," I could hear many an American housewife say to her husband after listening to the TV report. "A bunch of animals those Muslims. They waddle in spilled blood," her husband would no doubt respond. Then they would resume their dinner.
They speak of the violence overseas with the concern of one who believes themselves above such malevolence. Their superior attitude is tinged with disgust because such behavior is uncivilized. They like to believe such conduct would not be tolerated here. Yet these very same Americans are likely to sit peacefully in their comfortable suburban homes and cluck their tongues when young Americans die senselessly every day in this country – and often times in a burst of absurd brutality not much different than what happens in the Middle East.
Every year about 12,000 are shot to death on American streets, in neighborhood schools, in work places, even in churches while attending religious services. That is four times the number who died in the attacks on September 11, 2001. Guns are the favorite death-delivering weapon in America representing seventy percent of all murders in the country.
Yet John Citizen and his wife, Mary, just sit around and take it like it was just another day in the park. Kids killing kids, disgruntled husbands slaughtering their families. A disturbed immigrant shooting down other immigrants in a citizenship class. The first thing angry men do is gather the family weapons and load up with ammunition and off they go who go on rampages looking for innocent victims.
Most of the time we never learn why they do these awful things because they take their own lives after they satisfy their thirst for blood and armed police arrive to confront them. There is nothing more cowardly then to attack unarmed people without reason and then end their own lives when people arrive who can fight back.
But cowardice is not the subject of this essay. Guns are. So is the seemingly American tolerance for the right of all citizens, including the psychologically unsound and the brooding irrational loner, to bear arms in their homes. "I believe in the Second Amendment," we hear gun lovers shout at every instance someone suggests gun control. They say if we banned guns it wouldn’t stop career criminals from getting them. That might be true, but so what?
It has reached the point that it is not the criminals who do the most heart-wrenching gun harm in this country. There were no career criminals involved in Columbine High School slaughter. Son of Sam was not a career criminal. The weirdos who went around shooting abortion doctors were not career criminals. There are too many ostensibly "ordinary" people who cause great damage with their guns.
Even Lee Harvey Oswald was not a career criminal, nor was his executioner, Jack Ruby. But they both had no trouble buying guns for their iniquities.
One of the most daunting facts is that in Virginia where an unhinged student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech just two years ago, the state has not yet enacted any laws prohibiting the free and unregulated access to weapons at gun shows. What an insult to the victims who were memorialized so tearfully by the nation at the time of the debacle.
Where are the hearts of the local politicians in this matter?
I’ll tell you where – they are with the National Rifle Association and the gun-loving minority in this country. Although the majority of Americans favor gun control of some manner, politicians follow the NRA money and influence. There is a malignancy in this country when it comes to guns.
It all started when our founding fathers assembled in Philadelphia after the Revolution and put together in 1789 a document which would govern the way future governments will behave. They made several mistakes, one was not outlawing slavery, the other was in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The Civil War corrected the slavery issue, but the Second Amendment calling for the right of individuals to bear arms persists.
This amendment was included in the Constitution at a time when the United States was in its infancy and when its populace lived on a frontier just moments away from harm by ferocious wild animals or hostile Indians or marauding gunmen. There was no effective police force available at the other end of a 9-1-1 call and the US cavalry at best was days away.
Certainly the right to carry arms made sense at the time. But who among us have to concern themselves today with grizzly bears on our front lawn or have to ward off rampaging enemies on the way to the supermarket? The Second Amendment is no more valid today than is the Eighteen Amendment prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages. The difference is the latter was repealed in 1933.
It doesn’t look like whatever mayhem happens in our schools, or streets, or to our elected officials, or to our police, or in our office buildings will ever be taken seriously enough to repeal the Second Amendment. Making guns available to every Tom, Dick and Harry is the American Way.
Like the old axiom about not throwing stones if you live in a glass house, Americans will yawn when the subject of controlling guns in our communities comes up but will be outraged every time there is an outburst of deadly bombings in the Middle East as they remind themselves how uncivilized those damn Arabs are.
The news reports were harsh and sobering. First, 89 killed in multiple attacks one recent Thursday in Iraq. Then at least 60 more died outside a revered Baghdad religious shrine the next day. Close to 150 dead in two days by acts of merciless Iraqi suicide murderers. Another 50 died a few days later
"Isn’t it awful what they are doing to themselves over there," I could hear many an American housewife say to her husband after listening to the TV report. "A bunch of animals those Muslims. They waddle in spilled blood," her husband would no doubt respond. Then they would resume their dinner.
They speak of the violence overseas with the concern of one who believes themselves above such malevolence. Their superior attitude is tinged with disgust because such behavior is uncivilized. They like to believe such conduct would not be tolerated here. Yet these very same Americans are likely to sit peacefully in their comfortable suburban homes and cluck their tongues when young Americans die senselessly every day in this country – and often times in a burst of absurd brutality not much different than what happens in the Middle East.
Every year about 12,000 are shot to death on American streets, in neighborhood schools, in work places, even in churches while attending religious services. That is four times the number who died in the attacks on September 11, 2001. Guns are the favorite death-delivering weapon in America representing seventy percent of all murders in the country.
Yet John Citizen and his wife, Mary, just sit around and take it like it was just another day in the park. Kids killing kids, disgruntled husbands slaughtering their families. A disturbed immigrant shooting down other immigrants in a citizenship class. The first thing angry men do is gather the family weapons and load up with ammunition and off they go who go on rampages looking for innocent victims.
Most of the time we never learn why they do these awful things because they take their own lives after they satisfy their thirst for blood and armed police arrive to confront them. There is nothing more cowardly then to attack unarmed people without reason and then end their own lives when people arrive who can fight back.
But cowardice is not the subject of this essay. Guns are. So is the seemingly American tolerance for the right of all citizens, including the psychologically unsound and the brooding irrational loner, to bear arms in their homes. "I believe in the Second Amendment," we hear gun lovers shout at every instance someone suggests gun control. They say if we banned guns it wouldn’t stop career criminals from getting them. That might be true, but so what?
It has reached the point that it is not the criminals who do the most heart-wrenching gun harm in this country. There were no career criminals involved in Columbine High School slaughter. Son of Sam was not a career criminal. The weirdos who went around shooting abortion doctors were not career criminals. There are too many ostensibly "ordinary" people who cause great damage with their guns.
Even Lee Harvey Oswald was not a career criminal, nor was his executioner, Jack Ruby. But they both had no trouble buying guns for their iniquities.
One of the most daunting facts is that in Virginia where an unhinged student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech just two years ago, the state has not yet enacted any laws prohibiting the free and unregulated access to weapons at gun shows. What an insult to the victims who were memorialized so tearfully by the nation at the time of the debacle.
Where are the hearts of the local politicians in this matter?
I’ll tell you where – they are with the National Rifle Association and the gun-loving minority in this country. Although the majority of Americans favor gun control of some manner, politicians follow the NRA money and influence. There is a malignancy in this country when it comes to guns.
It all started when our founding fathers assembled in Philadelphia after the Revolution and put together in 1789 a document which would govern the way future governments will behave. They made several mistakes, one was not outlawing slavery, the other was in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The Civil War corrected the slavery issue, but the Second Amendment calling for the right of individuals to bear arms persists.
This amendment was included in the Constitution at a time when the United States was in its infancy and when its populace lived on a frontier just moments away from harm by ferocious wild animals or hostile Indians or marauding gunmen. There was no effective police force available at the other end of a 9-1-1 call and the US cavalry at best was days away.
Certainly the right to carry arms made sense at the time. But who among us have to concern themselves today with grizzly bears on our front lawn or have to ward off rampaging enemies on the way to the supermarket? The Second Amendment is no more valid today than is the Eighteen Amendment prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages. The difference is the latter was repealed in 1933.
It doesn’t look like whatever mayhem happens in our schools, or streets, or to our elected officials, or to our police, or in our office buildings will ever be taken seriously enough to repeal the Second Amendment. Making guns available to every Tom, Dick and Harry is the American Way.
Like the old axiom about not throwing stones if you live in a glass house, Americans will yawn when the subject of controlling guns in our communities comes up but will be outraged every time there is an outburst of deadly bombings in the Middle East as they remind themselves how uncivilized those damn Arabs are.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Victims of their own greed
by Don Klein
The guest speaker addressed the annual meeting of a group of women bankers about 20 years ago. "You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. You have the easiest job in the world. You take my deposits and pay me 4 percent interest and loan my money out to borrowers at 10 percent. How can you not make money?"
He went on: "It’s like taking candy from a baby. There is no risk to you. How could you ever fail?"
What the speaker didn’t take into account was that bankers would soon reach the apex of greed that some of them will make bad loans that seem lucrative in the hopes of increasing profits through speculation. The speaker, by the way, was me, and I was so wrong that day.
I had been invited to speak at a luncheon of Maryland professional women bankers (I don’t recall the actual name of the organization) in suburban Baltimore. I thought my opening line would stir up the audience of about 100 women and by these words they would remember me since most of their guest speakers delivered dry kitsch when they got up to talk.
Instead of shocking the crowd, it was I who was stunned. First of all, they roared approvingly with laughter when I made the remark. And after the speech they gathered around me and expressed how humourous they thought my talk was. In their haughtiness they did not take what I said seriously.
At the time banking was considered sanctified and bankers were sacred cows. They knew all the quirks and pitfalls of money lending and it was unlikely that any borrower, and certainly not large numbers of them, would affect the solvency of the rock-ribbed institutions of long standing. Wrong again.
I recall the arrogance of bankers when my wife and I sought a loan for a small business we planned to open. These pompous loan officers would sit behind their oversized desks, look at our application, ask a few unctuous questions and then rule that we were not qualified for the loan we sought. That was years before these very same ravenous masters of monetary manipulation started giving out half-million dollar home loans to school bus drivers and supermarket cashiers.
They went from one extreme to another and wondered why they needed billions of taxpayers’ funds to save them from eradication. There is a five-letter word that describes bankers. It is: GREED. Profit was not good enough. Super profits were what their ravenous hearts demanded. When you match that attribute with lack of government controls, you end up in Wizard of Ozland where all you do is push buttons and move levels to get an outcome no thicker than onion skin.
Don’t think I am writing this because I am bitter about those banks which refused to give us loans. Eventually we got the start-up money we needed from a small neighborhood bank which recognized the value of our business plan and we did quite well with our small enterprise. We paid the loan back with interest, which is more than can be said of the horrible loans the big banks gave to unqualified borrowers decades after they turned us down.
One of the reasons it is absolutely essential that banks be regulated is because they never deal with their own money. They take your money and mine and play awful gluttonous games with it. They make large profits on OPMs (other people’s money) but they are often not very smart about it. They turn down good deals likes ours of relatively piddling amounts and fall victim to their own avarice by making bad deals for lots more money than we ever thought of asking for.
Here’s another instance of bank imbecility. I dealt with the same bank for more than 30 years when one of their own executives, working under the noses of top bank management, was stealthful enough to embezzled some $60-to-$70 million dollars. It was the bank’s stupidity that allowed the corrupt high executive to pull off the theft. And it was the bank’s ineptitude not to discover it for years.
The following weekend when I entered my branch of this bank to withdraw a trifling $100 the teller who had worked with me all these years and knew my name when I stepped to her window suddenly demanded personal identification. They were duped by one of their own so now the little depositors became the target of a crackdown. The teller apologized when I not only refused to show her ID but scolded her for acting like she didn’t know me.
Her answer was plaintive: "Oh that’s the new policy. We must ask for ID from everyone withdrawing cash, even long-time customers." They never demanded ID from me again. That bank soon was bought out and no longer exists.
Making sweeping policy without considering specific circumstances reminds me of the time I was carded in Los Angeles International Airport when I ordered a beer. The bartender demanded I show him ID. I looked at him in bewilderment. I was in my seventies at the time, and looked it, but that didn’t dissuade him. The policy at that saloon was to card everyone.
The American banking system and that silly Los Angeles bartender have many things in common. They are, besides being greedy, pompous, out of touch with reality, disrespectful to the community they serve, and stupid -- and deserve all the negative assessments they get.
As a result of these experiences I swore that I would never fly into Los Angeles International again if I had a choice and if a bank official who knows me ever asks for identification I will respond with, "Who among the bank’s loyal staff stole money this week?"
The guest speaker addressed the annual meeting of a group of women bankers about 20 years ago. "You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. You have the easiest job in the world. You take my deposits and pay me 4 percent interest and loan my money out to borrowers at 10 percent. How can you not make money?"
He went on: "It’s like taking candy from a baby. There is no risk to you. How could you ever fail?"
What the speaker didn’t take into account was that bankers would soon reach the apex of greed that some of them will make bad loans that seem lucrative in the hopes of increasing profits through speculation. The speaker, by the way, was me, and I was so wrong that day.
I had been invited to speak at a luncheon of Maryland professional women bankers (I don’t recall the actual name of the organization) in suburban Baltimore. I thought my opening line would stir up the audience of about 100 women and by these words they would remember me since most of their guest speakers delivered dry kitsch when they got up to talk.
Instead of shocking the crowd, it was I who was stunned. First of all, they roared approvingly with laughter when I made the remark. And after the speech they gathered around me and expressed how humourous they thought my talk was. In their haughtiness they did not take what I said seriously.
At the time banking was considered sanctified and bankers were sacred cows. They knew all the quirks and pitfalls of money lending and it was unlikely that any borrower, and certainly not large numbers of them, would affect the solvency of the rock-ribbed institutions of long standing. Wrong again.
I recall the arrogance of bankers when my wife and I sought a loan for a small business we planned to open. These pompous loan officers would sit behind their oversized desks, look at our application, ask a few unctuous questions and then rule that we were not qualified for the loan we sought. That was years before these very same ravenous masters of monetary manipulation started giving out half-million dollar home loans to school bus drivers and supermarket cashiers.
They went from one extreme to another and wondered why they needed billions of taxpayers’ funds to save them from eradication. There is a five-letter word that describes bankers. It is: GREED. Profit was not good enough. Super profits were what their ravenous hearts demanded. When you match that attribute with lack of government controls, you end up in Wizard of Ozland where all you do is push buttons and move levels to get an outcome no thicker than onion skin.
Don’t think I am writing this because I am bitter about those banks which refused to give us loans. Eventually we got the start-up money we needed from a small neighborhood bank which recognized the value of our business plan and we did quite well with our small enterprise. We paid the loan back with interest, which is more than can be said of the horrible loans the big banks gave to unqualified borrowers decades after they turned us down.
One of the reasons it is absolutely essential that banks be regulated is because they never deal with their own money. They take your money and mine and play awful gluttonous games with it. They make large profits on OPMs (other people’s money) but they are often not very smart about it. They turn down good deals likes ours of relatively piddling amounts and fall victim to their own avarice by making bad deals for lots more money than we ever thought of asking for.
Here’s another instance of bank imbecility. I dealt with the same bank for more than 30 years when one of their own executives, working under the noses of top bank management, was stealthful enough to embezzled some $60-to-$70 million dollars. It was the bank’s stupidity that allowed the corrupt high executive to pull off the theft. And it was the bank’s ineptitude not to discover it for years.
The following weekend when I entered my branch of this bank to withdraw a trifling $100 the teller who had worked with me all these years and knew my name when I stepped to her window suddenly demanded personal identification. They were duped by one of their own so now the little depositors became the target of a crackdown. The teller apologized when I not only refused to show her ID but scolded her for acting like she didn’t know me.
Her answer was plaintive: "Oh that’s the new policy. We must ask for ID from everyone withdrawing cash, even long-time customers." They never demanded ID from me again. That bank soon was bought out and no longer exists.
Making sweeping policy without considering specific circumstances reminds me of the time I was carded in Los Angeles International Airport when I ordered a beer. The bartender demanded I show him ID. I looked at him in bewilderment. I was in my seventies at the time, and looked it, but that didn’t dissuade him. The policy at that saloon was to card everyone.
The American banking system and that silly Los Angeles bartender have many things in common. They are, besides being greedy, pompous, out of touch with reality, disrespectful to the community they serve, and stupid -- and deserve all the negative assessments they get.
As a result of these experiences I swore that I would never fly into Los Angeles International again if I had a choice and if a bank official who knows me ever asks for identification I will respond with, "Who among the bank’s loyal staff stole money this week?"
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Fond memories of Army's 'Mr. Inside'
by Don Klein
When I was a young reporter I never liked writing obituaries. I always felt I was being punished by my editor for committing an umbrage. How wrong can youth be? Now I read obituaries every day because despite the sadness it often brings when realizing a life has ended, the story is usually the most elegant and evocative piece in the paper.
I read obituaries not for the reason an aging wag once explained "to make sure my name was not on it" but because it is a wonderful last tribute to someone who formerly lived a life of interest. We all live interesting lives whether we realize it or not.
Stop anyone on the street and if you can get them to talk about themselves, as reporters are more likely to do than most people, you will realize the remarkable factors that go into making a "normal" life. Besides, with most newspaper obits a reader gets that one last chance to spend time with someone they haven’t thought of for years.
Take Felix "Doc" Blanchard, the former West Point football star of the World War II era. Blanchard died this week in Texas at the age of 84, but when I was a callow youth in my early teens he was the rough and tough star of Army football when Army had the greatest football team of the day. The team never again attained such glory.
Every Saturday when Army football games were broadcast on radio – there was no commercial television in those days – I would find a suitable chair and sit on its edge to listen to the exploits of Blanchard and his sidekick Glenn Davis.
During Blanchard’s three years with Army, the team never lost a game.
Blanchard was called "Mr. Inside" because of his exceptional running talent erupting like a volcano up the middle of the field. Davis was known as "Mr. Outside" because he was speedier and could turn the corners better than his colleague. Between the two, Army football was invincible in those days and like any male adolescent during wartime I was completely enthralled by the duo.
Now with the death of Blanchard there comes to mind distinct memories of those wonderful days. Much like the death of actress Fay Wray five years ago, the curtain was closing on my memorable early years of star worship. Wray was the first actress to stir admiration for the opposite sex as she writhed in the clutches of King Kong in my prepubescent days. Blanchard came later and was probably the last of my teenage heroes. As I grew, I realized there are not nearly as many to admire as a child might have thought.
Davis died four years ago and now that Blanchard is gone the famed "touchdown twins" are no longer, but the memory remains. Blanchard scored 38 touchdowns in three years and Davis 59 in four.
I remember a particular day from that era. My grandfather was in a hospital not too far from where we lived in the Bronx. My mother had six sisters and three brothers and many of them used our apartment as a pit stop before or after visiting grampa. On a November Saturday in 1944 Army was playing either Navy or Notre Dame when my Aunt Rose and Uncle Sol from Brooklyn dropped off their sons, my younger cousins, Philly and Irwin, while they visited the hospital.
I had just turned 16 so my mother explained to me how to put up a pot of spaghetti for us three boys while the grownups were visiting the ailing patriarch. Everything went well until I drained the spaghetti into a serving dish and put it, mixed with sauce, on the kitchen table. The radio was blasting away reciting the resolute exploits of Blanchard and Davis.
I was glued to the squawking box during one of the more exciting moments of the game and when I turned back, Philly and Irwin had their hands deep into the pasta bowl and were stuffing their mouths without utensils like cavemen. Today all three of us are grandparents and still whenever I see my cousins I think of the time they ate handfuls of spaghetti like Fred Flintstone while Blanchard and Davis made it a perfect football day for us.
Davis was more of a ladies man and even went on to become one of Hollywood actress Terry Moore’s numerous husbands. He also played professional football for two years with the then Los Angeles Rams. In contrast, Blanchard turned down all offers of personal fame and professional football to become an officer in the Air Force (this was before the Air Force Academy was started in Colorado Springs) and served honorably until he retired as a colonel in 1971.
He served a brief spell as an assistant football coach at West Point. But his greatest achievement was how he inspired a bunch of adolescent boys during a very dark period in the country’s existence. No one did a better job than he on his school’s football field, the first to win the Heisman Trophy as the best college football player while still just a junior. Then after graduation he fulfilled his obligation as an fighter-bomber pilot officer. He flew 84 combat missions over North Vietnam.
Blanchard was all but forgotten as he served in the Air Force and for decades few people heard about him. But kids like me will never forget reading the exploits of the touchdown twins week after week for three consecutive football seasons. At the time I thought the excitement this pair generated would never be equaled, and it wasn’t.
The US Military Academy previously retired Davis’s uniform number 41 and, before he died, West Point announced it would retire No. 35, Blanchard’s famous uniform number. It is fitting that no future Army football player wear these two numbers. It is hard to conceive that ever again there will be two such great running backs playing for the same team at the same time as Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside.
When I was a young reporter I never liked writing obituaries. I always felt I was being punished by my editor for committing an umbrage. How wrong can youth be? Now I read obituaries every day because despite the sadness it often brings when realizing a life has ended, the story is usually the most elegant and evocative piece in the paper.
I read obituaries not for the reason an aging wag once explained "to make sure my name was not on it" but because it is a wonderful last tribute to someone who formerly lived a life of interest. We all live interesting lives whether we realize it or not.
Stop anyone on the street and if you can get them to talk about themselves, as reporters are more likely to do than most people, you will realize the remarkable factors that go into making a "normal" life. Besides, with most newspaper obits a reader gets that one last chance to spend time with someone they haven’t thought of for years.
Take Felix "Doc" Blanchard, the former West Point football star of the World War II era. Blanchard died this week in Texas at the age of 84, but when I was a callow youth in my early teens he was the rough and tough star of Army football when Army had the greatest football team of the day. The team never again attained such glory.
Every Saturday when Army football games were broadcast on radio – there was no commercial television in those days – I would find a suitable chair and sit on its edge to listen to the exploits of Blanchard and his sidekick Glenn Davis.
During Blanchard’s three years with Army, the team never lost a game.
Blanchard was called "Mr. Inside" because of his exceptional running talent erupting like a volcano up the middle of the field. Davis was known as "Mr. Outside" because he was speedier and could turn the corners better than his colleague. Between the two, Army football was invincible in those days and like any male adolescent during wartime I was completely enthralled by the duo.
Now with the death of Blanchard there comes to mind distinct memories of those wonderful days. Much like the death of actress Fay Wray five years ago, the curtain was closing on my memorable early years of star worship. Wray was the first actress to stir admiration for the opposite sex as she writhed in the clutches of King Kong in my prepubescent days. Blanchard came later and was probably the last of my teenage heroes. As I grew, I realized there are not nearly as many to admire as a child might have thought.
Davis died four years ago and now that Blanchard is gone the famed "touchdown twins" are no longer, but the memory remains. Blanchard scored 38 touchdowns in three years and Davis 59 in four.
I remember a particular day from that era. My grandfather was in a hospital not too far from where we lived in the Bronx. My mother had six sisters and three brothers and many of them used our apartment as a pit stop before or after visiting grampa. On a November Saturday in 1944 Army was playing either Navy or Notre Dame when my Aunt Rose and Uncle Sol from Brooklyn dropped off their sons, my younger cousins, Philly and Irwin, while they visited the hospital.
I had just turned 16 so my mother explained to me how to put up a pot of spaghetti for us three boys while the grownups were visiting the ailing patriarch. Everything went well until I drained the spaghetti into a serving dish and put it, mixed with sauce, on the kitchen table. The radio was blasting away reciting the resolute exploits of Blanchard and Davis.
I was glued to the squawking box during one of the more exciting moments of the game and when I turned back, Philly and Irwin had their hands deep into the pasta bowl and were stuffing their mouths without utensils like cavemen. Today all three of us are grandparents and still whenever I see my cousins I think of the time they ate handfuls of spaghetti like Fred Flintstone while Blanchard and Davis made it a perfect football day for us.
Davis was more of a ladies man and even went on to become one of Hollywood actress Terry Moore’s numerous husbands. He also played professional football for two years with the then Los Angeles Rams. In contrast, Blanchard turned down all offers of personal fame and professional football to become an officer in the Air Force (this was before the Air Force Academy was started in Colorado Springs) and served honorably until he retired as a colonel in 1971.
He served a brief spell as an assistant football coach at West Point. But his greatest achievement was how he inspired a bunch of adolescent boys during a very dark period in the country’s existence. No one did a better job than he on his school’s football field, the first to win the Heisman Trophy as the best college football player while still just a junior. Then after graduation he fulfilled his obligation as an fighter-bomber pilot officer. He flew 84 combat missions over North Vietnam.
Blanchard was all but forgotten as he served in the Air Force and for decades few people heard about him. But kids like me will never forget reading the exploits of the touchdown twins week after week for three consecutive football seasons. At the time I thought the excitement this pair generated would never be equaled, and it wasn’t.
The US Military Academy previously retired Davis’s uniform number 41 and, before he died, West Point announced it would retire No. 35, Blanchard’s famous uniform number. It is fitting that no future Army football player wear these two numbers. It is hard to conceive that ever again there will be two such great running backs playing for the same team at the same time as Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Distorting equality of employment
By Don Klein
Back in 1978 reverse discrimination became an issue when Alan Bakke, a white male, was rejected twice by a medical school that accepted less qualified minority applicants. Because the University of California had reserved 16 places out of 100 for minority students, Bakke’s application was turned down.
The case went to the Supreme Court which ruled against the quota system employed by the university but in a confusing decision upheld the overall concept of affirmative action.
Dubbed reverse discrimination by many, the concept of providing opportunities in education, employment and promotion at the expense of other non-black qualified individuals has come under fire through the years. It is a tough nut to crack.
Affirmative Action was adopted in this country to redress discrimination that had persisted despite civil rights laws and Constitutional guarantees. In "leveling the playing field" it opened many doors for advancement of African-Americans and has improved life for those who took advantage of the opportunities that became available. But there are times it has backfired and actually promoted discrimination of guiltless non-blacks.
Take the case of Frank Ricci, a New Haven, Conn., firefighter for 11 years. He felt qualified to be promoted to lieutenant, so he gave up a second job he had at the time, studied for 13 hours a day and hired an acquaintance at the cost of $1,000 to read textbooks into audiotapes for him. Ricci is dyslexic. It paid off. Ricci scored sixth among 77 candidates who took the test.
That was in 2003, but Ricci was not promoted. No one was. Why? Because none of the 19 blacks who took the test qualified for promotion. As a result New Haven has promoted no fire department lieutenants in the last six years.
"The city says it was merely trying to comply with a federal law that views job requirements like promotional tests with great suspicion when they
disproportionately disfavor minority applicants," The New York Times reported. "The fact of the matter is it’s a flawed test," said Victor A. Bolden, the city’s acting corporation counsel.
That hardly assuages Ricci and 16 other firefighters, including a Hispanic, who have banded together to sue the city alleging racial discrimination. They claim reverse discrimination on the basis because no blacks could be promoted because none passed the test, no whites would be promoted either.
The case goes before the United States Supreme Court.
How the court will rule on the case is impossible to predict, but there is one thing that is easy to see. The people of New Haven who depend on the fire department to protect them in cases of conflagrations are being shortchanged because of a quirky interpretation of the law. It appears that the city believes it is more important to deny the fire department needed front line leadership because one element in society – who are minorities – failed to meet the established standards.
It is clear that time-honored tests are established to fill the upper ranks with qualified personnel and since none of the black candidates qualified, no one was promoted. All this in the name of affirmative action. Indeed the city’s defense against the discrimination charges is founded on the grounds that since no one was promoted, no one can claim discrimination.
It is interesting that instead of appointing non-black candidates the city took the weird step of trying to avoid controversy by sidestepping all appointments. The alternative would have been to lower standards so a minority could have been appointed, but the city avoided that trap by doing nothing.
Facts of this kind have been undermining the civil rights movement for decades. Affirmative action has resulted in more blacks attending schools of higher education but many have been labeled, rightly or not, as token graduates with no real scholastic achievement. Of course, this ignores the many qualified blacks in all fields of endeavor, but preferential treatment which results in jobs to the least qualified among us sticks in the throat of most people.
Now that a half-black, half-white man is operating out of the Oval Office you would think that equality has been achieved in America, yet these employment bugs keep rising their ugly heads.
Affirmative action has been a part of American scene for nearly a half century. Much has been achieved in that time. Barack Obama’s ascension to the highest public office in the land, and the most powerful world figure, is the crowning accomplishment of American democracy. But he and his wife were successes even before he was elected president last year. It is a tribute to how far the African-American community has come.
Yet with that glorious background we still stumble around on the local level denying earned rewards to others if somehow in the scheme of things minority candidates do not measure up for equal promotions. Can you imagine what would have happened if only black candidates had passed the lieutenant’s test and no whites qualified? Would the city have held up promotions in the name of racial equality?
It reverts back to an old contention. Activists say the systems are stacked against blacks and ignore the fact that many blacks have succeeded under the very same rules that some insist are barricades to their future. Black firefighters have proved their worth in virtually every fire department in the country so why use the narrow focus of one community to withhold advancement for all because just a few minorities failed the test?
Let’s go back to the days before affirmative action when the black community had the legitimate claim that they were being discriminated against even when they were qualified. It was a justifiable charge. That’s when competent blacks were pushed aside by less qualified candidates. There was a time when that was true, and that was discrimination that needed to be corrected.
What happened in New Haven is a distortion of equal employment rule. True discrimination is when someone who is qualified is denied a job, as in the white firefighters’ case, and not when someone who is unqualified is not.
Back in 1978 reverse discrimination became an issue when Alan Bakke, a white male, was rejected twice by a medical school that accepted less qualified minority applicants. Because the University of California had reserved 16 places out of 100 for minority students, Bakke’s application was turned down.
The case went to the Supreme Court which ruled against the quota system employed by the university but in a confusing decision upheld the overall concept of affirmative action.
Dubbed reverse discrimination by many, the concept of providing opportunities in education, employment and promotion at the expense of other non-black qualified individuals has come under fire through the years. It is a tough nut to crack.
Affirmative Action was adopted in this country to redress discrimination that had persisted despite civil rights laws and Constitutional guarantees. In "leveling the playing field" it opened many doors for advancement of African-Americans and has improved life for those who took advantage of the opportunities that became available. But there are times it has backfired and actually promoted discrimination of guiltless non-blacks.
Take the case of Frank Ricci, a New Haven, Conn., firefighter for 11 years. He felt qualified to be promoted to lieutenant, so he gave up a second job he had at the time, studied for 13 hours a day and hired an acquaintance at the cost of $1,000 to read textbooks into audiotapes for him. Ricci is dyslexic. It paid off. Ricci scored sixth among 77 candidates who took the test.
That was in 2003, but Ricci was not promoted. No one was. Why? Because none of the 19 blacks who took the test qualified for promotion. As a result New Haven has promoted no fire department lieutenants in the last six years.
"The city says it was merely trying to comply with a federal law that views job requirements like promotional tests with great suspicion when they
disproportionately disfavor minority applicants," The New York Times reported. "The fact of the matter is it’s a flawed test," said Victor A. Bolden, the city’s acting corporation counsel.
That hardly assuages Ricci and 16 other firefighters, including a Hispanic, who have banded together to sue the city alleging racial discrimination. They claim reverse discrimination on the basis because no blacks could be promoted because none passed the test, no whites would be promoted either.
The case goes before the United States Supreme Court.
How the court will rule on the case is impossible to predict, but there is one thing that is easy to see. The people of New Haven who depend on the fire department to protect them in cases of conflagrations are being shortchanged because of a quirky interpretation of the law. It appears that the city believes it is more important to deny the fire department needed front line leadership because one element in society – who are minorities – failed to meet the established standards.
It is clear that time-honored tests are established to fill the upper ranks with qualified personnel and since none of the black candidates qualified, no one was promoted. All this in the name of affirmative action. Indeed the city’s defense against the discrimination charges is founded on the grounds that since no one was promoted, no one can claim discrimination.
It is interesting that instead of appointing non-black candidates the city took the weird step of trying to avoid controversy by sidestepping all appointments. The alternative would have been to lower standards so a minority could have been appointed, but the city avoided that trap by doing nothing.
Facts of this kind have been undermining the civil rights movement for decades. Affirmative action has resulted in more blacks attending schools of higher education but many have been labeled, rightly or not, as token graduates with no real scholastic achievement. Of course, this ignores the many qualified blacks in all fields of endeavor, but preferential treatment which results in jobs to the least qualified among us sticks in the throat of most people.
Now that a half-black, half-white man is operating out of the Oval Office you would think that equality has been achieved in America, yet these employment bugs keep rising their ugly heads.
Affirmative action has been a part of American scene for nearly a half century. Much has been achieved in that time. Barack Obama’s ascension to the highest public office in the land, and the most powerful world figure, is the crowning accomplishment of American democracy. But he and his wife were successes even before he was elected president last year. It is a tribute to how far the African-American community has come.
Yet with that glorious background we still stumble around on the local level denying earned rewards to others if somehow in the scheme of things minority candidates do not measure up for equal promotions. Can you imagine what would have happened if only black candidates had passed the lieutenant’s test and no whites qualified? Would the city have held up promotions in the name of racial equality?
It reverts back to an old contention. Activists say the systems are stacked against blacks and ignore the fact that many blacks have succeeded under the very same rules that some insist are barricades to their future. Black firefighters have proved their worth in virtually every fire department in the country so why use the narrow focus of one community to withhold advancement for all because just a few minorities failed the test?
Let’s go back to the days before affirmative action when the black community had the legitimate claim that they were being discriminated against even when they were qualified. It was a justifiable charge. That’s when competent blacks were pushed aside by less qualified candidates. There was a time when that was true, and that was discrimination that needed to be corrected.
What happened in New Haven is a distortion of equal employment rule. True discrimination is when someone who is qualified is denied a job, as in the white firefighters’ case, and not when someone who is unqualified is not.
Monday, April 6, 2009
A dreary world indeed!!
by Don Klein
There is an American tragedy developing and its has nothing to do with the financial meltdown. It is much more serious and longer lasting than that. It is the gradual demise of the American newspaper.
If you don’t think that is a tragedy then you have been taking too much of your life for granted. The Wall Street crisis will be resolved in time. We all know that. Things will gradually stabilize in the financial world. It always has. There will be changes but soon enough people will be buying stocks again and making money from it.
Not so with the demise of newspapers. That is an entirely different problem and once gone will never return and the America we knew during the life of this country so far will have been changed forever.
What’s so important about the existence of newspapers, you might ask?
Several things but the most important is that the foundation of a healthy operating democracy is a free and open press. The only way a democracy works properly is if the people know what is happening. Democracy depends upon an informed public to make the right decisions.
Without a well established and healthy press the public will be fed a soft diet of misinformation from a self-serving government and treacherous business elements -- and people will never know the truth if the truth doesn’t serve powerful interests. Special interest groups will become more muscular because their one sided stands will go unchallenged by the light of facts thrown on most subjects by a free press.
You think television news will take over and fill the gap left by vanishing newspapers? Don’t fool yourself. Virtually all local TV news originates with newspaper reporters covering the community served by their papers. Local TV reporters read the local newspapers carefully before they go out on assignments for that day’s TV news. Who will provide those sources without a live press in action.
Local TV stations cover City Hall, the state houses, police and fire activities, but little else. They don’t have the resources of an active and diligent newspaper with reporters spread all through the many communities.
Even national news, with the possible exception of Washington government coverage, is provided by local papers.
How would we learn about ex-Illinois Gov. Blagojevich’s plans to sell a senate appointment if it weren’t for the Chicago newspapers?
How would we learn about how badly wounded Iraq veterans were being mistreated at Walter Reed Hospital if not for reporters at The Washington Post?
How would we know about the horrors in the aftermath of hurricanes if it weren’t for local reporters getting out and speaking to victims, rescue workers and local officials seeking hard facts?
How would we know about the trials and tribulations of survivors of 9/11 victims in New York if local Manhattan papers didn’t do the hard legwork?
It goes on and on. The worst part is that without the press as a watchdog the big wheeler-dealers in the country will run away with everything and no one would be able to stop them. Welcome back robber barons. Eliot Spitzer would still be governor if The New York Times didn’t catch him cheating.
Newspaper losses have already been felt throughout the country. The Rocky Mountain News in Denver closed just a few weeks ago, so did the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and lesser newspapers around the country. The New York Times has been laying off staff every few months lately and The Washington Post is inducing editorial workers to take early retirement.
Many papers are facing questionable futures. The Chicago Tribune, once the most outspoken editorial voice in the mid-west is in serious financial trouble as is its rival the Chicago Sun-Times, so is the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. If these papers disappear who will be around to report the skullduggery of local officials and businesses?
During World War II there were nine daily English languages newspapers in New York plus an unknown number of foreign language dailies. They all were profitable. In Baltimore the Sunpapers (morning, evening and Sunday) were giant cash cows for their owners. But that was when newspapers were the most efficient mass market advertising vehicles around. It was before television with its even greater advertising appeal.
And though reduced advertising revenues is the cause for today’s failing newspapers, the fault lies deeper than that. The trouble is young people can’t be bothered to read newspapers. Or perhaps any kind of reading other than text messaging. They can’t spell like kids used to and they don’t have the attention span to devote to anything other than the pablum served up on television or the hypnotic appeal of the internet.
Whatever the reason the end for newspapers may be near and when it comes it will greatly diminish the ability of people in this country to govern themselves. I don’t think Thomas Jefferson or Abe Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt or Franklin Roosevelt, if any of them were alive today, would be happy about it. Neither am I, but I am glad I am too old to live to see such a listless and avaricious world.
If I can’t hold a newspaper in my hands in the morning and read about what’s happening in the world, the day turns solemn indeed. I’d know that someone is taking my country away from me, but won’t know who because there would be no newspaper to reveal the information. I would be sick indeed.
And so should you. If you love democracy, a world without newspapers would be dreary undeed.
There is an American tragedy developing and its has nothing to do with the financial meltdown. It is much more serious and longer lasting than that. It is the gradual demise of the American newspaper.
If you don’t think that is a tragedy then you have been taking too much of your life for granted. The Wall Street crisis will be resolved in time. We all know that. Things will gradually stabilize in the financial world. It always has. There will be changes but soon enough people will be buying stocks again and making money from it.
Not so with the demise of newspapers. That is an entirely different problem and once gone will never return and the America we knew during the life of this country so far will have been changed forever.
What’s so important about the existence of newspapers, you might ask?
Several things but the most important is that the foundation of a healthy operating democracy is a free and open press. The only way a democracy works properly is if the people know what is happening. Democracy depends upon an informed public to make the right decisions.
Without a well established and healthy press the public will be fed a soft diet of misinformation from a self-serving government and treacherous business elements -- and people will never know the truth if the truth doesn’t serve powerful interests. Special interest groups will become more muscular because their one sided stands will go unchallenged by the light of facts thrown on most subjects by a free press.
You think television news will take over and fill the gap left by vanishing newspapers? Don’t fool yourself. Virtually all local TV news originates with newspaper reporters covering the community served by their papers. Local TV reporters read the local newspapers carefully before they go out on assignments for that day’s TV news. Who will provide those sources without a live press in action.
Local TV stations cover City Hall, the state houses, police and fire activities, but little else. They don’t have the resources of an active and diligent newspaper with reporters spread all through the many communities.
Even national news, with the possible exception of Washington government coverage, is provided by local papers.
How would we learn about ex-Illinois Gov. Blagojevich’s plans to sell a senate appointment if it weren’t for the Chicago newspapers?
How would we learn about how badly wounded Iraq veterans were being mistreated at Walter Reed Hospital if not for reporters at The Washington Post?
How would we know about the horrors in the aftermath of hurricanes if it weren’t for local reporters getting out and speaking to victims, rescue workers and local officials seeking hard facts?
How would we know about the trials and tribulations of survivors of 9/11 victims in New York if local Manhattan papers didn’t do the hard legwork?
It goes on and on. The worst part is that without the press as a watchdog the big wheeler-dealers in the country will run away with everything and no one would be able to stop them. Welcome back robber barons. Eliot Spitzer would still be governor if The New York Times didn’t catch him cheating.
Newspaper losses have already been felt throughout the country. The Rocky Mountain News in Denver closed just a few weeks ago, so did the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and lesser newspapers around the country. The New York Times has been laying off staff every few months lately and The Washington Post is inducing editorial workers to take early retirement.
Many papers are facing questionable futures. The Chicago Tribune, once the most outspoken editorial voice in the mid-west is in serious financial trouble as is its rival the Chicago Sun-Times, so is the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. If these papers disappear who will be around to report the skullduggery of local officials and businesses?
During World War II there were nine daily English languages newspapers in New York plus an unknown number of foreign language dailies. They all were profitable. In Baltimore the Sunpapers (morning, evening and Sunday) were giant cash cows for their owners. But that was when newspapers were the most efficient mass market advertising vehicles around. It was before television with its even greater advertising appeal.
And though reduced advertising revenues is the cause for today’s failing newspapers, the fault lies deeper than that. The trouble is young people can’t be bothered to read newspapers. Or perhaps any kind of reading other than text messaging. They can’t spell like kids used to and they don’t have the attention span to devote to anything other than the pablum served up on television or the hypnotic appeal of the internet.
Whatever the reason the end for newspapers may be near and when it comes it will greatly diminish the ability of people in this country to govern themselves. I don’t think Thomas Jefferson or Abe Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt or Franklin Roosevelt, if any of them were alive today, would be happy about it. Neither am I, but I am glad I am too old to live to see such a listless and avaricious world.
If I can’t hold a newspaper in my hands in the morning and read about what’s happening in the world, the day turns solemn indeed. I’d know that someone is taking my country away from me, but won’t know who because there would be no newspaper to reveal the information. I would be sick indeed.
And so should you. If you love democracy, a world without newspapers would be dreary undeed.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Filthy lucre
By Don Klein
We used to make lots of fun when growing up by suggesting money was the root of all evil. When we were young we often used the phrase "filthy lucre" to describe how money dishonored otherwise nice people. We knew it was wrong to influenced by cold cash but secretly we all hoped to have an opportunity to be so tainted.
As we moved through life we noticed that the concept of filthy lucre was alive and well everywhere we turned. People, try as they may to do the right thing often are swayed by the lure of money. Immature boys would hone their athletic skills at the expense of a good education not because they loved sports but because of the prospect of making big bucks as a pro.
Little girls, some as young as five, are entered into beauty contests with eyes focused on an ultimate career in films so they could dress up in fancy clothes and live an eventual life of luxury as a superstar. The prospect of success and the money that goes with it seems to drive the ambitions of many.
Most of these end up as disappointments, but that doesn’t stop the next wave of youngsters from trying.
You would think politics is different. Many say they went into public service because of a earnest desire to do good. They say they want to improve the lot of the people, but once elected or appointed to powerful office, the filthy lucre syndrome takes hold. Often the influence of money is subtle and almost imperceptible, often it is bold and ugly.
Why would a respectable politician like Tom Daschle need to place his career in jeopardy for the sake of a chauffeur driven car provided by an organization that wants a Congressional connection? Why would a solid, up by his bootstraps John Edwards, need a sordid love affair at the potential height of his political career? Why would Charles Rangel, a senior member of the House of Representatives seek a $10 million gift from AIG to build a school in his honor?
The answer is power. If you got it, you use it, you take advantage of it.
Power was what got Newt Gingrich in trouble in 1997 when he was brought up on ethics charges by the House of Representatives, when he was House Speaker at the time. There were 84 charges filed against him but the most serious was claiming tax-exemption status for college courses he ran for political purposes. He paid a fine for $300,000 and resigned his seat for the 1999 term.
What brought him down? Filthy lucre, again.
Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a Vietnam veteran who served multiple terms in the House of Representatives admitted taking bribes to the tune of $2.4 million from defense contractors and another $1 million in other bribes. He denied it at first than confessed and eventually was sentenced to prison in California.
And then we have the bizarre case of Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana. When the FBI raided his home in 2006 suspecting bribery funds extracted from a defense contractor, they found $90,000 in cash in his freezer. Another $10,000 was wrapped in freezer food containers. After a series of trials and appeals, Jefferson finally was defeated for reelection in 2008.
The answer rings in our ears over and over again: Filthy lucre. Filthy lucre. Filthy lucre.
These are just a few of the recent cases, but we keep learning over and over again what motivates many of our trusted lawmakers. It not always is money. There are other ways to satisfy an individual’s need to exercise power. Bill Clinton found it in a satellite office adjacent to the Oval Office. Others found it in writing suggestive letters to Congressional pages.
The most notable – in terms of rank -- of all cases of political greed during last half century was Spiro Agnew, the vice president in the Richard Nixon administration. The full impact of the Agnew scandal never reached absolute momentum because ten months later, Nixon, who himself was neck deep in a personal scandal, was forced to resign or face impeachment in the wake of the Watergate case.
Agnew’s situation had nothing to do with Watergate but was just as surly. He was charged with receiving a $10,000 cash bribe in a plain envelope on White House grounds. The bribe allegedly was a payoff to Agnew who when governor of Maryland had provided lucrative state contracts to a contractor.
On October 10, 1973 the country was treated to the dismaying specter of the vice president of the United States pleading no contest to bribery charges in a Baltimore court. In exchange for his resignation Agnew was sentenced to three years of unsupervised probation and fined $10,000, the exact amount of the bribe.
Filthy lucre at its zenith, but pretty small by today’s standards.
When you have power, your have privileges. That’s the way it should be. Executives, like mayors, governors ad presidents deserve respect, deserve their prerogatives and entitlements. It comes with the job. They have nice offices, usually a home provided by taxpayers, have large staffs working for them, are given personal security and officially provided speedy and comfortable transportation. It’s a tough job and deserves rewards.
But those rewards cannot be monetary and cannot be in exchange for official action because legally no one is said to be above the law, especially elected officials sworn to serve the people.
The enticement of filthy lucre has to be controlled.
We used to make lots of fun when growing up by suggesting money was the root of all evil. When we were young we often used the phrase "filthy lucre" to describe how money dishonored otherwise nice people. We knew it was wrong to influenced by cold cash but secretly we all hoped to have an opportunity to be so tainted.
As we moved through life we noticed that the concept of filthy lucre was alive and well everywhere we turned. People, try as they may to do the right thing often are swayed by the lure of money. Immature boys would hone their athletic skills at the expense of a good education not because they loved sports but because of the prospect of making big bucks as a pro.
Little girls, some as young as five, are entered into beauty contests with eyes focused on an ultimate career in films so they could dress up in fancy clothes and live an eventual life of luxury as a superstar. The prospect of success and the money that goes with it seems to drive the ambitions of many.
Most of these end up as disappointments, but that doesn’t stop the next wave of youngsters from trying.
You would think politics is different. Many say they went into public service because of a earnest desire to do good. They say they want to improve the lot of the people, but once elected or appointed to powerful office, the filthy lucre syndrome takes hold. Often the influence of money is subtle and almost imperceptible, often it is bold and ugly.
Why would a respectable politician like Tom Daschle need to place his career in jeopardy for the sake of a chauffeur driven car provided by an organization that wants a Congressional connection? Why would a solid, up by his bootstraps John Edwards, need a sordid love affair at the potential height of his political career? Why would Charles Rangel, a senior member of the House of Representatives seek a $10 million gift from AIG to build a school in his honor?
The answer is power. If you got it, you use it, you take advantage of it.
Power was what got Newt Gingrich in trouble in 1997 when he was brought up on ethics charges by the House of Representatives, when he was House Speaker at the time. There were 84 charges filed against him but the most serious was claiming tax-exemption status for college courses he ran for political purposes. He paid a fine for $300,000 and resigned his seat for the 1999 term.
What brought him down? Filthy lucre, again.
Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a Vietnam veteran who served multiple terms in the House of Representatives admitted taking bribes to the tune of $2.4 million from defense contractors and another $1 million in other bribes. He denied it at first than confessed and eventually was sentenced to prison in California.
And then we have the bizarre case of Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana. When the FBI raided his home in 2006 suspecting bribery funds extracted from a defense contractor, they found $90,000 in cash in his freezer. Another $10,000 was wrapped in freezer food containers. After a series of trials and appeals, Jefferson finally was defeated for reelection in 2008.
The answer rings in our ears over and over again: Filthy lucre. Filthy lucre. Filthy lucre.
These are just a few of the recent cases, but we keep learning over and over again what motivates many of our trusted lawmakers. It not always is money. There are other ways to satisfy an individual’s need to exercise power. Bill Clinton found it in a satellite office adjacent to the Oval Office. Others found it in writing suggestive letters to Congressional pages.
The most notable – in terms of rank -- of all cases of political greed during last half century was Spiro Agnew, the vice president in the Richard Nixon administration. The full impact of the Agnew scandal never reached absolute momentum because ten months later, Nixon, who himself was neck deep in a personal scandal, was forced to resign or face impeachment in the wake of the Watergate case.
Agnew’s situation had nothing to do with Watergate but was just as surly. He was charged with receiving a $10,000 cash bribe in a plain envelope on White House grounds. The bribe allegedly was a payoff to Agnew who when governor of Maryland had provided lucrative state contracts to a contractor.
On October 10, 1973 the country was treated to the dismaying specter of the vice president of the United States pleading no contest to bribery charges in a Baltimore court. In exchange for his resignation Agnew was sentenced to three years of unsupervised probation and fined $10,000, the exact amount of the bribe.
Filthy lucre at its zenith, but pretty small by today’s standards.
When you have power, your have privileges. That’s the way it should be. Executives, like mayors, governors ad presidents deserve respect, deserve their prerogatives and entitlements. It comes with the job. They have nice offices, usually a home provided by taxpayers, have large staffs working for them, are given personal security and officially provided speedy and comfortable transportation. It’s a tough job and deserves rewards.
But those rewards cannot be monetary and cannot be in exchange for official action because legally no one is said to be above the law, especially elected officials sworn to serve the people.
The enticement of filthy lucre has to be controlled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
