Political Offspring

Should Mitt Romney find himself sitting in the president’s chair next January, he would have done more than just unseat an incumbent. He would have ended three straight White House presidencies exclusively populated by distaff offspring. Indeed, six of the last 12 presidents sired daughters-only. Romney has five sons. 

Fathering daughters-only is a bi-partisan effort, though Democrats have done it more often than Republicans, four times to two. 

Dividing up male progeny by political party is harder as Ronald Reagan had five children, including two sons, while still a member of the Democratic Party. He didn’t shift to the GOP until 1962, four years after his youngest child, Ron, was born. Not counting Reagan’s output, Republicans spawned eight sons to just five for Democratic presidents.

Here’s the listing of the last 12 presidents and their offspring:

Harry S. Truman—Mary Margaret

Dwight D. Eisenhower—Doud Dwight, John Sheldon Doud 

John F. Kennedy—Caroline, John Jr., Patrick

Lyndon B. Johnson—Lynda Bird, Luci Baines

Richard M. Nixon—Patricia, Julie

Gerald R. Ford—Michael Gerald, Steven Meigs, Susan Elizabeth

Jimmy E. Carter—John William, James Earl III, Donnell Jeffrey, Amy Lynn

Ronald W. Reagan—Maureen, Michael, Christine, Patti Davis, Ron

George H.W. Bush—George W., John E., Neil, Marvin P., Dorothy

William J. Clinton—Chelsea

George W. Bush—Barbara Pierce, Jenna Hager

Barack H. Obama—Malia Ann, Sasha

If you’ve been fascinated this far into the blog, here’s another offbeat trend I’ve noticed—the daughters of prominent Democrats seem to have a passion for Jewish men. 

Last week Ashley Biden, daughter of Vice President Joseph Biden, married Dr. Howard Krein. A year ago Chelsea Clinton married investment banker Marc Mezvinsky. Caroline Kennedy married Edwin Schlossberg, an exhibit designer, in 1986.   

Perhaps they are all taking a cue from Caroline’s mother, Jackie Kennedy Onassis, who had a 15-year liaison with Maurice Templesman, a businessman and diamond merchant, until she died in 1994. 

Look for the Union Label

I never really knew any of my grandparents. My father’s parents perished in the Holocaust in Poland. I was barely two when my maternal grandfather died in New York. The only memory I have of my mother’s mother was a visit to a hospital room a couple of years later to see an old woman lying in a bed encased in a clear plastic oxygen tent. She died shortly thereafter.

The closest person I had to a grandmother was Bessie Trachtenberg. When my father came to America in 1939, he roomed with her family in Brooklyn for a while. She remained in his life, and ours, for more than three decades. We’d see Bessie every few weeks or so, usually for a Friday night or Sunday dinner. Though the meals were invariably at our home, Bessie would don an apron. She was a good cook. She made the best breaded veal chops. 

Bessie worked in a clothing factory. She was an active member of the ILGWU, the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. And that, dear reader, led to more loud discussions at the dinner table than any other topic. You see, my father owned and operated a non-unionized clothing factory. By all accounts he was a benevolent boss, his workers never once even organizing for a union vote. Bessie, on the other hand, helped the ILGWU establish union locals. She had a much more jaundiced view of management. So they would argue over and over about the value of unions.

Which brings me to this week’s news from Wisconsin that Governor Scott Walker had beaten back efforts to recall him because of his anti-union stands. Let’s also not discount the votes in San Diego and San Jose on Tuesday to scale back benefits for unionized municipal workers, including police and firemen. It’s not an easy time advocating for organized labor. There’s no doubt some unions have acted in less than savory means. Some union executives have become as domineering and untrustworthy as corporate executives. But it is also true that without unions uniform and equitable working conditions, for all employees, would not be as safe and progressive as they are today. 

It’s become acceptable to blame teachers, emergency services personnel and other municipal workers for the skyrocketing public debt of many government entities. In the past, union workers made concessions on wage hikes to secure more golden retirement pension and health care benefits. The politicians who approved those contracts were only too glad to pass the expense on to later generations. 

Clearly something must be done to solve the solvency problem of government outlays. But let’s keep in mind that the workers we are subjecting to Draconian cutbacks many times are the foundation of our present and future. I’d argue teachers are no less important than parents in molding a child’s character and behavior, let alone the quest for knowledge. Are you ready to step outside each day to protect our safety from man, beast, the elements and other unknowns? How’s about riding on the back of a truck collecting garbage in the heat of summer, the frigid blasts of winter? 

We’ve become content with paying these essential workers, along with military personnel who guarantee our freedom and security at the risk of their lives, wages and now benefits that are not commensurate with the value they provide our society. A nurse in a unionized city hospital distributes more tangible, societal value than a hedge fund manager. A fireman contributes more human value than a stock trader. Even a janitor who keeps a school building clean has a job with more positive impact on society than someone crunching derivatives just to make money for money’s sake. 

Being a union member did not confer on them that pedigree. But it didn’t hurt, either.

I was a manager for more than 30 years in a non-union publishing company. I think I treated my editorial and sales staffs fairly, giving them above average salaries, incentives and bonuses to supplement and reward their efforts. I was under no obligation to do so. Indeed, many a year I had to fight upper management for the right to reward my editorial staffers with extra remuneration. 

When I began as a reporter at The New Haven Register in 1972, I earned $150 a week (that’s $7,800 a year for those mathematically challenged) plus a Christmas bonus of a 15-pound turkey, which priced out to about $7.50. After we voted in the Newspaper Guild two years later, my salary was frozen at its $200 a week level ($10,400 a year) during the negotiation period, which lasted more than two years. I left the Register before a settlement was reached. Under the terms won by the union, I would have earned $19,760 a year. Yes, some of that increase would have gone to pay union dues. But no one can convince me it was not the collective efforts of the Guild, representing union and non union workers, that brought financial dignity to the newsroom. 

If Someone Comes to Kill You ...

Most Tuesday mornings from October through early June I participate in a Bible study class at our temple. We’re making our way through Exodus this year. Part of today’s lesson from chapter 22 of Exodus dealt with the concept of self-defense. If a home invasion happens when it is light, it is not permissible to kill the intruder as it is presumed he would flee or surrender if discovered. However, if a thief enters a home at night, a resident may kill the intruder with impunity as it may be presumed the criminal would have had murderous intent if confronted. 

This reasoning led to a long-accepted rabbinic maxim, “He who comes to kill you, kill him first.” 

Today, June 5, was a most appropriate time to consider this precept. It is the 45th anniversary of the Six Day War, Israel’s pre-emptive strike on Egypt and Syria. (Interestingly and coincidentally, today the United States confirmed Al-Qaeda’s second in command had been killed Monday, presumably in a drone attack inside Pakistan.)

The 1967 crisis in the Middle East had been building for months. Egypt expelled United Nations peacekeepers who guarded the Sinai border with Israel. It closed the Straits of Tiran to ships bound for Eilat. A blockade is considered an act of war. Arab countries vowed to drive Israelis into the sea, to dismember the Jewish state. 

Jews the world over feared another Holocaust. Anyone with relatives or friends in Israel were doubly worried. My sister, Lee, was in Israel, studying at Hebrew University. For the last few weeks she had been packing crackers for army rations. 

Monday morning, June 5, 1967, I drove from our parents’ home to Brooklyn College, taking up my usual position at the Knight House “fraternity” table in the Boylan Hall cafeteria. Around 10, word started to trickle in that war had broken out. This was not the era of instant worldwide communications, of CNN or cell phones, of 24-hour news cycles. Israel controlled the dissemination of news from its territory. In those first, terrifying, stomach-churning hours, the only reports we heard were those coming from Egypt, communiqués about Arab troops advancing on Tel Aviv, of Zionists falling in a jihad of epic proportions.

It was not until well into the afternoon or early evening that the true picture of the day’s events became known. The startling revelation of Israel’s air power superiority, coupled with its armored division successes, exceeded even the most optimistic expectations of the 19-year-old country’s supporters. 

Sometimes it is hard for contemporary observers to fully comprehend the fragility of Israel’s existence. From being considered a David facing the Arab Goliath in 1967, the roles have been reversed in the ensuing 45 years. Yet even today a visitor to Israel cannot be anything but wary when hostile borders surround the state, which is but a speck of green in an otherwise sandy expanse. Artillery fire could easily reach Israel’s population centers back in 1967. As it can today. It’s too much to expect friendly neighbors. Secure, peaceful borders, however, are legitimate demands. But if one side is still determined to annihilate you, rising up early to kill them is not just a biblical injunction, it’s a present day imperative. 

News from the Weekend

One of the recurring themes of this year’s presidential election is the effort to portray Mitt Romney and family as being more than slightly different than the average Joe, Jane and their children. The Romneys do, after all, have a net worth in the $220 million range.

Nonetheless, I have no doubt Mitt and Ann can identify with coupon-cutting families across the country. Of course, the coupons Mitt and Ann are clipping are from zero coupon bonds, but what the heck, they have to cut along the dotted lines, as well, to get their money. 

Chilly enough for you (at least those of you in the northeast)? With temperatures barely in the 60’s, with the skies mostly overcast, I think I may have jinxed the weather for everyone by removing our heated mattress pad on Saturday for a summer hiatus. Who knew the weather gods would react so quickly? Please, accept my apologies.

The weather cooperated over the weekend, first for a Prospect Park picnic Saturday in honor of soon-to-be-son-in-law Donny’s 30th birthday (Ellie cooked delicious fried chicken with several homemade salads) and then on Sunday for Ellie’s bridal shower at our friend Linda’s house. The rains held off until the ladies had retired from the tented garden patio to the comfort of the living room to open presents and eat some scrumptious desserts.

I did the unthinkable Friday night—I switched from watching a NY Yankees game to a NY Mets telecast.

The Yankees had bulletined Johan Santana’s bid for a no-hitter had entered the ninth inning. How could any baseball fan resist being a witness to history? I must say, I was emotionally involved when Santana ended the no-hitter with a flourish, the way it should always end, with a strikeout. 

Santana’s exploits notwithstanding, I’m not ready to abandon the Yankees. But it was heartwarming, for one night, to share in the joy of the “faithful,” long-suffering Mets fan. 

One of the last decisions I pondered while at Chain Store Age in 2009 was to cut the frequency of our monthly magazine down to nine times a year. I bring this up because of an article in today’s NY Times about the choices several daily newspapers have made to trim publication down to several times a week (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/business/media/as-newspapers-cut-analysts-ask-if-readers-will-remain.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=business).

As it was for me, the decisions tried to balance reduced advertising revenue with the need to cultivate and inform readers on a consistent basis. Ultimately, my management team determined we could not provide monthly publication frequency. I retired before the cuts could be implemented the following year. 

Another Times article caught my eye over the weekend. It too involved my former employer and “gaydar,” the ability to detect someone’s sexual orientation by merely looking at them (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/the-science-of-gaydar.html?_r=1).  

In the early 1980s one of the vice presidents of our company thought I needed an executive editor. He brought a woman candidate to my cubicle for an interview. She was very experienced, but not really interested in business journalism. I enjoyed hearing her background, but we agreed it would not be a great match.

After she left the vice president settled into my office to ascertain my reaction. These were semi-"Mad Men" days, so you’ll pardon his crude choice of words when he asked “if she and I could get into bed together” (possibly in his defense, keep in mind that publications are “put to bed” when they are printed).  

Anyway, I responded “I don’t think so, besides, she’s a lesbian.” How did I know that?, he asked incredulously. Simple, she told me, including the fact she had a relationship with Betty Friedan. 

That was the last time he ever recommended any candidate to me.

Health Notes

Gilda’s far more well-read than I. She absorbs books, magazines, newspapers and Web sites at a prodigious rate. She finds way more articles than I do to pass on to her mate, especially ones on exercise, diet and health. I’m forever fed a full plate of ways to improve myself—less red meat, more exercise, more fruits and vegetables, more exercise, fewer sweets, even those with sugar-substitutes, more exercise. 

Naturally, I relish the few instances when I can defend my almost indefensible (prone) position of non-activity. Two months ago I forwarded to her an article from the NY Times on a study of how statins can cause muscle aches and fatigue. The Times said the effects may be especially pronounced in people who exercise. As I take Simvastatin to reduce my cholesterol level, I found comfort in the study. Of course, the study subjects were rats, but I’ve been called worse, so I identified with the results. 

Today, The Times front-paged more anti-exercise ammunition. “For Some, Exercise May Increase Heart Risks, Researchers Find,” screamed the headline (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/can-exercise-be-bad-for-you/?ref=health). The article suggested 10% of the population may fall under this risk classification. Not that I’m desirous of being susceptible to increased heart risk, but there’s no reason to tempt the Fates by openly inviting their wrath through exercise. Naturally, I sent the article along to Gilda. 

Another Times article today discussed the reluctance of patients to talk about their conditions with their physicians (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/). I generally don’t have that problem. Indeed, Gilda tells me I am too loquacious, providing extraneous data, at least in her view as a medical professional (a nurse practitioner). Could be I’m camouflaging my anxiety by talking too much. 

Anyway, my next annual physical is tomorrow. My blood work is generally good—cholesterol down to 165; HDL 41, LDL 79. Triglycerides, while still above normal, are 31% lower than six months ago. Still have to work to reduce my blood sugar levels, though. 

Here’s a headline from today I really like: “Murray Fights Through the Pain to Advance.” It’s over an article about Andy Murray advancing to the third round of the French Open despite back and leg ailments. As anyone who has played ball with me knows, I’m always complaining about sore knees, sore Achilles tendons and lower back pain. I play through it all, as well, though I don’t always win. By the way, in games I have pitched in so far this year, including a nine-inning stint a week ago, our softball team is 2-1 (overall, 2-2). 

It’s been months since I tried to see a free movie on a Tuesday. But with a new flick out titled “Bernie,” my brother’s name, I was compelled to try the other day. I arrived half an hour before the 4:10 pm showing, but the film, starring Shirley MacLaine and Jack Black, was sold out. “Sold out” is really a euphemism for senior citizens and the unemployed taking advantage of free film cards they get as part of our cable company triple-play package. “Bernie” is about a mortician who befriends a wealthy, nasty old lady in Texas who he eventually kills and stuffs into a freezer on her property. It’s based on a true story. I’m hoping it will be at least as entertaining as “Weekend at Bernie’s.” 

Speaking of my brother, he and wife Annette just returned from Vietnam, a side trip from a visit to Hong Kong. My sister Lee and husband David toured Vietnam two years ago when their son Jonathan was working in Singapore. I’m a little envious of these trips. Now, that is. I could easily have preceded them to Vietnam 40 years ago had I passed my draft physical. As I previously wrote, I flunked my physical by being underweight, the first time in my life I ever was proud of my physique. 

Here’s another sign the NY Yankees of 2012 are a shell of their former selves. Despite a recent power shortage, particularly with the bases loaded (they’re 0 for their last 17), the Yankees really need more starting pitching, given the inconsistencies of Phil Hughes and Hiroki Kuroda plus the season-ending injury to Michael Pineda. Yet, the George Steinbrenner-less Yankees did not, or could not, convince Roy Oswalt to join their staff. Oswalt signed a reported $5 million, one-year deal with the Texas Rangers, more validation that the mantle of baseball dynasty, at least in the American League, has been transferred to the Rangers, league champions the last two years. 

True, the free-agent Oswalt is coming off an injury-plagued 2011, but there is little doubt he would be at least as effective as Hughes or Kuroda. It’s painful to watch the Yankees slip into mediocrity, at best, insignificance, at worst. I never thought I’d miss George. 

It’s enough to drive a fan to drink. But in New York City, if Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way, you’ll be restricted in the size of sugary soft drinks you can purchase in a restaurant, deli or sports arena—no more than 16 ounces of pap per serving. It’s a health issue, part of Bloomberg’s continuous war on obesity and its causes. 

It’s disingenuous to argue sugared soft drink consumption doesn’t contribute to added weight and possibly to adult onset diabetes. Bloomberg’s opponents would argue he is dictating how people may live their lives, that he’s usurping (or is it un-syruping) their rights. Yet it is also indisputable the rising cost of health care for the obese and diabetic is a silent tax on everyone, that it is in the public interest to control consumption of products that destroy lives and cost the taxpayer to medicate. It’s just like efforts to fight tobacco use, or trans fats in restaurant food.

Now, as a long-time Coca-Cola drinker—the real stuff, not diet—until about 20 years ago, I can tell you some people do not gain weight from it. I wouldn’t have flunked that draft physical if Coke had packed pounds onto my frame. But Coke did play a part in elevating my blood sugar levels. 

I’m not thrilled the public and businesses would have some of their rights curtailed. But I am supportive of a government policy that aims to improve the quality of life for everyone, even if they don’t realize it’s in their best interests. 

Nixon's The One

It’s all over but the trite, obligatory ceremonial dropping of balloons and confetti on the Republican nominee for president of the United States, along with his wife, running mate and spouse, at the close of the GOP nominating convention in August in Tampa. It will be a perfunctory coronation of a standard bearer who by most accounts does not excite the party base except in the prospect he could defeat the incumbent because he would not scare too many Independents into believing a Romney administration would hoe so much to the right that women and minorities would find many of their rights put back in the closet while the middle class and blue collar workers put false hopes in the mantra of trickle down economics.

Two weeks ago David Brooks in The NY Times asked why Barack Obama is still competitive in the presidential race, given the problems with the economy and the resulting malaise of much of the public, his left-leaning ideological bent while the electorate slants more and more to the right, and the fact that 52% of those polled in a recent ABC News/Washington Post survey say the current level of economic inequality is acceptable (for the full article, follow this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/opinion/brooks-the-espn-man.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks).

It was an interesting take, but one that failed to properly put into perspective the failure of the GOP to seize the moment. Had Republicans put aside their ideological warfare, their divisive, anti-everything-and-anything progressive or compassionate during the primaries, they could have solidified their prospects come November. They could have selected a fiscal conservative, socially moderate candidate in the image of ... Richard Nixon.

How’s that for a shocker? I’m no Nixon fan, but his paranoia aside, Nixon did some fairly progressive acts during his presidency. Let’s ignore for the moment his foreign policy and war mongering. Did you know, for example, that during his presidency revenue sharing between the federal government and states began? He signed into law establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Equal Opportunity Employment Act and Title IX that provides funding for girls athletics programs in schools. 

He created the Office of Minority Business Enterprise, worked to increase the hiring of minority-owned contractors on large federal projects and favored affirmative action programs setting goals and timetables for minority hiring. Nixon signed into law the Voting Rights Act of 1970 that abolished voter literacy tests. He began the War on Cancer, banned cigarette advertising on television, increased social security benefits, established the National Business Council for Consumer Affairs. He founded the Drug Enforcement Administration. He signed the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973, the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act of 1974, the Fair Labor Standards Amendment of 1974 and the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974.

Sure, he might not have wholeheartedly championed all of these programs. But he didn’t veto them. He worked with Congress, a Democratic-controlled Congress. It’s safe to say Nixon would not be considered a true Republican by those controlling his party’s fate these days. Many have their doubts about Romney, as well.

Today’s Times brought another example of Romney-speak versus Romney-reality. According to James. E. Ryan, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, Romney’s education reform plan speech last week included a proposal to “give poor students and those with disabilities the right to attend any public school or charter school in their state.” Current law does not permit students to travel beyond their municipal borders (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/romneys-school-surprise/?scp=1&sq=james%20e.%20ryan&st=Search).

It’s a pretty radical idea, one that has the potential to revolutionize the distribution of education in our country. I strongly doubt, however, that Romney is being any more than demagogic in suggesting this radical idea. Are we sincerely to believe Mitt could get bedrock GOPers to support a change that would allow inner city youth to stream into their suburban communities? 

Let’s get real. This election will be about shared community versus individual greed, about tolerance versus dogma, about future opportunities versus past practices that included closed doors. For all his faults, Nixon’s accomplishments helped push our country forward. 

Memorial Day Thoughts

Madonna and Lady Gaga are no strangers to controversy. Now they are providing an almost parallel case study of tolerance by two of the worlds great religions, Islam and Judaism. Lady Gaga had to cancel her June 3 concert in Jakarta, Indonesia, after fundamentalists railed against her as a devil, not being in the best interest of Islamic morals. Violence was threatened. 

Madonna, meanwhile, has been targeted by Jewish extremists. Her concert in Tel Aviv Thursday is still on but there's no guarantee she will not submit to religious pressure, too, or that protests could mar the event.

FYI, Lady Gaga has scheduled a Tel Aviv concert for August.

On another religious note, here's something I overheard in a car full of teenagers last week: “Why is the devil evil if he punishes bad people?” Feel free to discuss among yourselves.

One of the most emailed stories from The NY Times last week profiled Robert Page, the founder and CEO of Replacements Limited (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/business/replacements-limiteds-stand-for-gay-marriage-draws-repercussions.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1338241661-BqQxE1UZC3c8Xh5s2X9OYA). Replacements is a host’s salvation for filling in missing or broken pieces of discontinued china, crystal and flatware. 

Page outwardly supported opposition to the North Carolina constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a position that has hurt Replacements’ business. Page is gay; with his partner of 23 years he is the parent of 13-year-old twins adopted in 1999 in Vietnam.

I've known Page since 1991 when my magazine profiled him as an Entrepreneur of the Year selected by Ernst & Young. About 10 years ago I visited Page in his showroom outside Greensboro, N.C. He couldn’t have been more gracious and proud of his company.

I know all the reasons businessmen avoid taking public stands on controversial issues. Here are two comments posted on The Times Web site about the story. They pretty much capture the sentiment surrounding the plus and minus of speaking out: 

“Any smart business person will tell you that picking a public political fight is almost always bad for business. Good intentions rarely bring profits,” said Robert from Tuckahoe.

On the other hand, Rob from New York City said, “How sad more people aren't like Mr. Page and stand up for what is right. ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’” That quote is from Edmund Burke.

I wonder if Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana believes in that quote. Recently defeated in a Republican primary by a conservative candidate who has openly said he would not compromise with Democrats (actually, Richard Mourdock said his view of bipartisanship entails Democrats acceding to GOP positions), Lugar told CBS’ Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer Sunday he has no plans to campaign for Mourdock. As part of his explanation for being defeated, Lugar opined, “A large portion of the Republican Party of Indiana believed, apparently, in the idea of individualism as opposed to community, a sense of compromise, or a sense of talking across the aisle."

Fair enough, but if he were truly a patriot, Lugar would campaign against such narrow-mindedness. He’d put country over party. If he truly believes Mourdock and those similar to him, who have taken control of the Republican Party and turned it into a bastion of individualism versus community, how could he not support candidates who would embrace compromise, even if they are Democrats?

It’s taken me two weeks to get to it, but I’ve started to fill out the crossword puzzle from the May 13 Sunday NY Times Magazine. Lo and behold, I’ve uncovered an anti-birther bias. The correct answer to the clue for 41 Down, “Obama’s birthplace,” is “Hawaii.” 

Take that, you skeptics, including the secretary of state of Arizona (who just dropped his threat to keep Obama off the ballot if he couldn’t verify his birth certificate), Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona who has fielded a voluntary investigation unit into the matter in Hawaii, and Donald Trump who once again is stoking the fires of disbelief Barack Obama was born in the United States and qualifies to be president.

Ah, well, it’s Memorial Day, a time to reflect on the service and sacrifice men and women provided our country in support of the liberties we hold dear, including the right to challenge reality. Last evening Gilda and I had the pleasure of spending time with a veteran of World War II, Herb Bilus, and his family. Herb served in the Coast Guard and was part of a landing craft team that ferried troops to the shores of Normandy on D-Day. At 91, he’s slow afoot but still sharp as a tack. 

Memorial Day weekend has special significance for our family, as well. Twelve years ago, at the national collegiate Ultimate Frisbee championships in Boise, Idaho, our son Dan started dating Allison. Six years later they married.