Best Super Bowl ever for the Washington Redskins.

John Riggins breaks tackle on route to 43-year touchdown run in Super Bowl XVII.

It was the John Riggins,  Joe Theismann, Joe Gibbs era.  If  any DC newcomer wonders why these three are still treated with a certain awe in this town, look no further than Super Bowl XVII, January 1983.


It was the Redskins 2d Super Bowl.  (George Allen’s “Over the Hill Gang” had lost in 1972.)  The Skins had not won an NFL title since 1942.   Experts heavily favored the Miami Dolphins, still coached by legendary Don Shula.   Joe Gibbs was still new in Washington.  It was his second year, and he had started his first with the team going 0-5.  Joe Theismann, the quarterback, was a big talker, and John Riggins, the running back, an eccentric who had sat out a year arguing over his contract.  


It turned out to be one of the most exciting Super Bowl games, with see-sawing leads and the outcome hanging till the end.  I won’t try to describe it.  Instead, click here to see the highlights, including Riggins’s 43-year run that broke open the game with ten minutes left.   It’s a beauty (though sorry if the footage is a bit blurry).


Riggins won MVP that day with 166 yards as the Redskins beat the Dolphins, 27-17.  It was their first Super Bowl win, and first NFL championship in forty years.   They would play in three more Super Bowls, winning two of them (1988 and 1992) with quarterbacks Doug Williams and Mark Rypien.


And that would be the last.   Gibbs left the team after 1992, and the twenty years since then — a long dismal drought –  have been a blur of mediocrity or worse.   Gibbs returned briefly as coach in 2004-2007, but never regained the old luster.  In 1996, the team left beautiful, intimate RFK Stadium for big, faceless, impersonal, corporate FedEx Field (in contrast to the welcome new baseball stadium for the Washington Nationals, an architectural gem).  In 1999, local media mogul Dan Snyder bought the team and things got worse.  Occasional glimmers of hope seem always to disappoint.  Redskins fans, stupidly loyal to bad management, still pack the stands every week and keep the team profitable — resulting in no accountability and no improvement.


But I’ll stop grumbling and get back to the point.


So while the rest of America cheers the the New York Giants and New England Patriots, how about one last hurrah for the 1982-1983 Washington Redskins, and the best Redskin Super Bowl ever !!


Go Giants !!

THE GOLD RING: Read the opening chapter.

Today, just in time to make money in the new year, we give you the opening chapter of THE GOLD RING — the classic story of speculators Jay Gould and Jim Fisk and their daring plot to corner the US gold market, culminating in the disaster of Black Friday, 1989.  We hope you enjoy it.   nsider buying the full book.  . 







THE GOLD RING: 
Jim Fisk, Jay Gould, and Black Friday, 1869




Part I:  The Ring


                        Chapter I:  WAR



     On MONDAY MORNING, March 2, 1868, The New York Times carried a dispatch from Galveston, Texas, on the western frontier. A desper- ado named D. McKinney had shot a man named Clay Sharcy in nearby Navasota. McKinney had been drinking that morning and had drawn his pistol on saloonkeepers who refused to serve him free liquor. The sheriff arrested McKinney and set out, along with deputies on horseback, to deliver the prisoner to nearby Anderson to stand trial.

     But the people of Navasota took unkindly to outlaws in their town. That night along the road, the posse carrying McKinney was stopped by sixty armed men, “disguised and blackened.” The vigilantes disarmed the sheriff and deputies and then took McKinney and tied him securely, and hung him by the neck to a tree limb. The rope broke, so they hung the outlaw again to a sturdier branch that was more than ten feet from the ground. This time the rope held. The armed men dispersed, leaving McKinney’s body dangling in the wind.
    
     No further arrests were reported in the case.
  
     On that same morning in New York City, Cornelius Vanderbilt, the seventy-four-year-old “Commodore” and master of the New York Central Railroad, sent shudders through Wall Street by declaring war on his chief competitor, the Erie Railway Company. After months of legal sniping and maneuvering, Vanderbilt now threatened to gobble up Erie just as he had al- ready gobbled up the New York Central, the Hudson, and the Harlem River railroads in stock “corners” that had made heads spin. Backed by a personal fortune estimated at $30 to $60 million, Vanderbilt ordered his brokers on the Stock Exchange to buy Erie shares by the fistful. At the same time, his lawyers obtained decrees from friendly New York judges that prohibited Erie from is- suing any additional stock or convertible bonds.

     Then as now, stock-takeover wars gave smart operators an opportunity to get rich. Vanderbilt’s reputation for ruthless competition over the course of sixty years fueled their anticipation. His name had long been a household word. Vanderbilt—tall, physically tough, and handsome—had made his orig- inal fortune in steamships, running passengers first from Staten Island up the Hudson River and later to Europe. In 1856 the Commodore almost single- handedly organized the overthrow of the government of Nicaragua to preserve his exclusive right of transit across the isthmus to the Pacific. Years earlier, he had committed his own wife to an asylum until she agreed to live in a new mansion on Manhattan Island.

     Long before government securities regulations, antitrust laws, the Fed- eral Reserve, or any effective controls in the United States, big-money stock operations were bare-knuckle affairs. Wall Street after the Civil War was an untamed frontier, like Texas and the Wild West.

     Organized finance in New York dated back at least to 1792, when brokers had gathered under a buttonwood tree to trade real estate and old U.S. Con- tinental money. But the Stock Exchange remained small potatoes. Then the Civil War and the rise of the railroads launched a speculative fever in America. In December 1865 the Exchange moved from a small room on “Change Alley”—off Broad Street, near Wall—to a grand, hundred-foot tall marble palace on Wall Street.

     The men who now gambled their fortunes on the Exchange moved with swagger and bravado. “[S]tockbrokers are a jolly, good-hearted, free-and-easy class of men,” wrote observer Kinehan Cornwallis, “who spend their money fast when they are making it fast, and sometimes even when they are not doing so.”

     But Vanderbilt’s assault on the Erie Railway surpassed anything yet seen.
Vanderbilt was the biggest shark in this sea; the smaller carnivores smacked their lips at the coming feeding frenzy.

     Opposing the Commodore was an old rival, Daniel Drew, the Erie Rail- way Company’s seventy-one-year-old chairman and treasurer. A notorious stock manipulator, Drew veiled his shrewdness behind a country-bumpkin Bible-quoting front. Years before, when he was a cattle drover, Drew had fed his cows salt and let them drink gallons of water before weighing them for sale—the original “watered stock.” A trustee of the Methodist Episcopal Church and semiliterate, like Vanderbilt, Drew became Erie’s treasurer in 1853 and thereafter bilked the line mercilessly. As treasurer, Drew knew company secrets and could control or foresee every jiggle or waggle in Erie stock prices. Unhindered by today’s legal bars on insider trading, he made money every time.

     “I got to be a millionaire before I hardly know’d it, hardly,” “Uncle Dan’l” said. He had no intention of letting Vanderbilt walk away with his cash cow now.

     When it was first built twenty years earlier, designers had considered the Erie Railway a technological marvel. Stretching from Jersey City westward across New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Southern New York to Buffalo, it was the first rail link to the Great Lakes. There it connected to points west. But by the late 1860s, although still one of the United States’ corporate goliaths, the Erie had deteriorated from years of neglect. Engineers jokingly called the aging rails and roadbed “two thin streaks of rust.” Drew’s corrupt management of the company had earned Erie a reputation as “the scarlet woman of Wall Street.”

     Vanderbilt saw the Erie Railway as competition. By the early 1860s the Commodore had changed his business vision. He had sold his steamship em- pire and cast his lot with the United States’ newest transportation medium, railroads. Starting from scratch, Vanderbilt had built an empire of steel rails that would ultimately increase his fortune from $10 million to an unheard of $100 million during his last fifteen years of life. By 1867 the Commodore had dazzled the financial world by capturing and consolidating three moribund lines into the New York Central system, which now stretched from New York, north to Albany, then across to Buffalo, where it connected, like the Erie Railway, to points west.

     With Erie in his pocket, Vanderbilt could control all rail traffic between New York and the western frontier. No federal bans against regional monop- olies would be imposed for decades. So the Commodore, the self-proclaimed “friend of the iron road,” began buying up Erie shares and soon he controlled several seats on the board of directors.

     Confident and vain, Vanderbilt forced the issue in November 1867. He proposed a merger under which Erie and his own New York Central would set joint freight rates and pool their profits. To Vanderbilt’s surprise, the Erie board rejected the plan. Daniel Drew had corralled enough allies to outvote Vanderbilt’s directors. In February 1868 the board added injury to insult by agreeing with the Michigan Southern Railroad, the primary link from Buffalo to Chicago, to build a special narrow-gauge line from Chicago that would connect with Erie in the east, diverting traffic away from the New York Central.

     The Commodore steamed. The Erie Railway Company had deceived him.

     Throwing a tantrum, Vanderbilt announced that he would simply buy Erie and set policy as he pleased: no bother with tender offers, waiting periods, disclosures to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or other legal mumbo jumbo.

     It seemed the fight would be over before it began. Who could resist an on- slaught of Vanderbilt money and clout? Keen observers, however, knew that Vanderbilt and Drew had been banging heads for forty years in business wars over steamboats and railroads. And this time, Uncle Dan’l seemed oddly serene. Old Cornele could bluster all day long, but Brother Drew had two aces up his sleeve. In anticipation of the fight, Drew had elevated onto the Erie board two obscure young protégés cut from his own mold of fiscal connivance. They were quick, arrogant, and unscrupulous; to Drew’s mind, the smartest young men on Wall Street.

     So it happened that Jay Gould, thirty-one years old, and James Fisk, Jr., thirty-two, entered the annals of Americana.

Jay Gould

     At first, Gould and Fisk were nonentities in the conflict—”Mr. Fish” or “Fiske” or “J. Gould” to the newspapers. Jay Gould, quiet and fidgety, with in- tense eyes and a brilliant mind for numbers and detail, already had a purple reputation on Wall Street. In 1858 the twenty-two-year-old Gould had convinced an elderly New York millionaire named Charles Leupp to invest $60,000 in a tannery business that Gould managed. After a falling out, Leupp shot himself in the head with a revolver. Gossip, true or not, had it that Jay had cheated the old man and driven him to suicide.


     Psychoanalysts would have marveled at Jay’s upbringing. Born in 1836 to dirt-poor dairy farmers in rural Roxbury, New York, his mother had died when he was five years old. His father, John Burr Gould, outwardly ridiculed the boy, telling him he was “not worth much” around the farm. When Jay complained about going to school, his father locked him in the cellar for days until Jay’s five sisters raised a ruckus. A frail youngster, Jay had learned to survive by bending rules. He sometimes cheated at wrestling with his boyhood friend John Burroughs.

     When Burroughs complained, Jay had said, “But I’m on top, ain’t I?” One night when Jay was eight years old, a gang of fifteen gun-toting men dressed as Indians broke into the family farmhouse and dragged his father from bed. The men, part of a terrorist wave during the so-called “Rent Wars” in upstate New York, threatened to tar and feather John Burr Gould unless he joined their anti-landlord movement. He refused. His little son, watching from behind a door, admired how his father stood his ground. “Conscious of right, he shrank from no sense of fear,” Jay wrote.

     Jay went on to invent a mousetrap; he wrote and self-published a 450- page History of Delaware County and ran the ill-fated tannery with Leupp. Then he came to New York in 1858 to make his fortune. There he joined two other brokers in 1862 to form Smith, Gould, Martin &Company and started buying railroad stocks. Like other young men of destiny—J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie, among others—Jay avoided military service by purchasing a $300 replacement under the eminently unfair Civil War conscription acts.

     By 1867 he had accumulated a stake in the Erie Railway big enough to be courted by the embattled company treasurer.

Jim Fisk, dressed as “Admiral” of his
Narragansett Steamship Company.

     James Fisk, Jr., by contrast, was a chubby, outgoing showman who spent his money on women, diamond stickpins, and good times. A year older than Gould, Fisk first learned his business smarts as a teenager, when he worked as a barker with Van Amburgh’s traveling circus. Later he peddled housewares with his father through small towns in Vermont’s Green Mountains. When business was slow, James Junior persuaded his father to decorate his mer- chandise carts like circus wagons with bright colors and glittering harnesses and ride into town at a full gallop, handing out pennies and candies to children. The customers loved the spectacle. The business became so successful that Boston’s Jordan Marsh retail firm hired Jim as its Washington sales agent early in the Civil War.


     During the war, Jim distinguished himself in the cloak-and-dagger cotton smuggling trade. He bought cheap contraband cotton from Confederate ware- houses, sneaked it past Union lines, and shipped it north for Jordan Marsh to weave into uniforms for Lincoln’s army.

     Jim’s mother died when he was an infant, but his father and stepmother doted on him. When a schoolteacher whipped Jim for pulling a prank, his father was so indignant that he kept the boy home for months.

     Jim told a story about a woman who came to him one day when he was peddling with his father. She complained that Fisk Senior had cheated her on a handkerchief. The handkerchief had cost nine pence—a few pennies in the then-local New England currency.

     Jim thought a moment, then stuck up for Dad. “No! The old man would- n’t have told a lie for nine pence,” said he, “though he would have told eight of them for a dollar!”

     Jim Fisk migrated to New York in 1864 and proceeded to lose all his money in the stock market. Before he left town broke, he gave fair warning of his return. “Wall Street has ruined me, and Wall Street shall pay for it,” Jim said. He refueled his bank account in Boston and returned to New York the next year. He soon charmed his way into the good graces of Daniel Drew by doing favors for the Erie treasurer and acting as the old man’s agent on secret stock trades. By the time he needed to plant an ally on the Erie board, Uncle Dan’l had been much impressed by young Jim Fisk’s peculiar talents and his loyalty to him.

     Jay probably considered Jim Fisk a loud-mouthed buffoon when they first met on the Erie board in late 1867. Fisk likely shared the general view of Gould as a sinister manipulator. On the surface, they differed as night from day. But underneath, powerful forces bonded them. Both had experienced grinding rural poverty in the uncaring society of the mid-1800s; both had clawed their way up to affluence by their wits. Fisk and Gould shared a self- confidence that bordered on arrogance, a disdain for public opinion, and mountains of ambition.

     Prudent young men would have avoided a blood battle with the likes of Cornelius Vanderbilt. But Gould and Fisk had watched Uncle Dan’l Drew enrich himself from Erie. Now, given the chance of a lifetime, the two pro- tégés wanted their own turn at the trough.

     First, Drew’s lawyers found a friendly judge who issued decrees to nullify Vanderbilt’s decrees. Vanderbilt’s judges responded by decreeing the new de- crees null and void. As the legal eagles sparred with injunctions and counter injunctions, Fisk and Gould discovered a more potent weapon in the base- ment of Erie’s Wall Street offices—a printing press.

     Wasting no time and ignoring Vanderbilt’s court decrees, Gould, Fisk, and Drew got secret approval from their friendly board majority to issue $10 million in bonds convertible into shares of Erie stock, supposedly to purchase new steel rails and equipment for the Erie line. Saturday night and Sunday, March 8 and 9, the printing press cranked out page after page of fresh Erie stock certificates. On Sunday they issued 50,000 shares and parceled them out in two 25,000-share blocks to Fisk’s and Gould’s personal brokerages: Fisk and Belden, and Smith, Gould, Martin & Company.

     Jim Fisk explained the strategy: “If this damned printing press doesn’t break down, we’ll give the old hog [Vanderbilt] all he wants of Erie.”

     As the Stock Exchange prepared to open on Monday morning, March 10, the Erie directors lay in ambush. In these stressful moments, Jay Gould steadied himself by tearing corners of newspaper pages into confetti.

     Trading in railroad stocks on the New York Stock Exchange took place in the Long Room, a large, high-ceilinged chamber with tall windows that looked out onto New Street; it was unfurnished except for an elevated dais at the Wall Street end, and it had an upper gallery for spectators. It also had a separate gallery for telegraph operators, who flashed the latest prices almost instantaneously to brokers’ offices miles away. At ten o’clock every morning (including Saturdays), the chairman, standing on the dais, banged his gavel and called the first stock to trade for ten minutes, then the next, and so on down the list.

     When he reached Erie that morning, Vanderbilt’s agents grabbed the stock as fast as it was offered. The roomful of brokers raised a clamor. After the allotted ten minutes, the speculators rushed outside into the street to con- tinue the frenzy, leaving the deserted Exchange floor behind, oblivious to the winter cold. Mobs formed around the Drew and Vanderbilt brokers on the sidewalk as the price ran from $78 to almost $83 per share.

     Shortly after noon, the tide turned. Brokers allied with Gould and Fisk suddenly offered Erie stock in blocks of a hundred or five hundred shares. The mob sensed danger. An apparently unlimited supply of Erie stock was flooding the street. In a “violent panic,” the price dropped from $83 to $71. Vanderbilt brokers learned that one brokerage was delivering crisp, new certificates signed only the day before. The “bull clique” was “demoralized,” wrote a Herald reporter.

     Vanderbilt’s agents ran to the Commodore’s office with news of the watered stock and asked what to do. “Do?” Cornele roared. “Buy all the stock the sons-of-bitches offer to sell! They think they can pick my pocket, do they? Well, by God, I’ll show ‘em that there’s such a thing as law in this State!”

     Vanderbilt kept buying, but theatrics aside, his raid was dead. After spending $8 to $10 million on Erie stock, he was still no closer to controlling the company, and the value of his newly acquired shares was falling fast.

     Fisk, Gould, and Drew were elated. Flushed with victory, they met the next morning in their West and Duane Street offices. Stock Exchange messengers carried in bags of money—the proceeds from Vanderbilt’s purchases of funny stock. Like a medieval warlock and his two sorcerer’s assistants, the three men amused themselves by sorting the money and tying it into bundles.

     But Vanderbilt found no humor in the situation. Not only was the Erie raid a public embarrassment, it had become expensive. Even his own deep pockets felt the pinch.

     Vanderbilt wielded power beyond the sheer weight of money, though, particularly through his relationship with William Magear Tweed, the reign- ing boss of New York’s Tammany Hall, who in 1868 controlled the New York judicial system.

     Vanderbilt turned to George Barnard, a justice of the New York Supreme Court. Barnard had been handpicked, nominated, and sustained by Tweed and was widely known as a “slave of the [Tammany] ring.” Barnard was very helpful.

     New York State had only one level of courts at that time. New York Supreme Court judges held trials and issued orders with no appeal short of the United States Supreme Court. After a hastily called hearing, Judge Barnard found that Drew, Fisk, and Gould had violated the earlier injunctions by issuing the Erie convertible bonds. He declared them in contempt. Even as the trio then celebrated their victory over Vanderbilt’s stock raid, news arrived in their suite that New York police were en route to arrest them.

     Erie’s top directors had to choose between spending time in the Ludlow Street Jail, New York’s pen for civil cases, or getting out of town.

     By nightfall, Drew and a dozen other Erie officials had packed their money, stocks, bonds, and records—including the $8 million in cash fleeced from Vanderbilt—and were heading across the Hudson River. They would set up Erie-in-exile at Taylor’s Hotel in Jersey City, New Jersey—beyond the reach of New York justice.

     Fisk and Gould only narrowly escaped the law. They left Drew, and before leaving New York, they stopped at Delmonico’s restaurant at Broadway and Chambers Street to further celebrate their victory with steak and cham- pagne. A messenger interrupted their meal with news that the police were heading over to their table at that instant. Leaving dinner half finished, Fisk and Gould raced outside into a waiting carriage that took them down to the foot of Canal Street. There they hired a small lifeboat with two deckhands to attempt to cross the river.

     The fog that night was so dense that they almost collided with a steam powered ferryboat. After rowing in circles for hours in the cold, they landed in Jersey thoroughly drenched.

     Two other Erie directors who dawdled in New York were arrested by Barnard’s police and spent the night behind bars.

If you enjoyed the excerpt, click here to check out the book.  





Newt 1968: Gingrich led protests against nude censorship

Newt Gingrich as professor at West Georgia College, circa 1975. 

In the continuing spirit of our recent posts on the 2012 Republican candidates, we give you this nice piece of reporting yestersday from Reuters, sent to us by the Free Expression Network (FEN).  Enjoy… 

(Reuters) – Republican candidate Newt Gingrich attacks President Barack Obama as a “radical” and “community organizer,” but as a Tulane University graduate student in 1968, he helped lead an anti-censorship protest in defense of sexually explicit photographs.

While Republican foe Mitt Romney steered clear of the college campus tumult that year by doing Mormon missionary work in France, (see our post Mitt Romney Part III, the next “Baby Boomer” President? )  Gingrich warned Tulane’s president of an impending “clash of wills” over the university administrator’s decision to ban publication of explicit photographs in “Sophia,” a literary supplement for the student newspaper “The Tulane Hullabaloo.”


The episode illustrates some of the same pugnaciousness that Gingrich now displays as a candidate for the Republican nomination.

It also underscores a sharp evolution in his views on civil protest, an issue that has played out during the campaign because of the growing strength of the Occupy Wall Street movement. During a forum last November, Gingrich suggested that participants in the Wall Street protests, “Go get a job, right after you take a bath.”

.  ….


A spokesman for Gingrich’s presidential campaign did not respond to an email requesting comment.


Accounts published by the Hullabaloo, retrieved from university archives, describe the standoff over two artistic images the literary magazine sought to publish.


HUMAN BODY PARTS

One photo showed a Baton Rouge sculptor posing beside what was described as a “mechanized box” carrying “symbolic descriptions” of human body parts, including sex organs. The second image showed a naked sculptor posing with a statue that depicted what Hullabaloo described as “male and female figures with enlarged sexual organs.”


A proposed caption described one photograph as “an ironical statement on the fad for nudism.”


Tulane authorities at the time, including President Herbert Longenecker, banned publication, argued that the images “are considered to be obscene” and could expose the university to “criminal prosecution.”


Demonstrations erupted, including a picket of Longenecker’s residence.  Within days, the movement split into factions. Gingrich’s group called itself Mobilization of Responsible Tulane Students, otherwise known as MORTS.  The same day that MORTS announced its formation, student picket lines spread to the New Orleans offices of Merrill Lynch, a local bank, a  department store and a local TV station.


On March 11, 1968, MORTS leaders, including Gingrich, met with  Longenecker and other college officials. Typewritten minutes held in college archives show that Gingrich was one of the more outspoken leaders at the meeting, employing the kind of bombastic rhetoric that has been a trademark of his national political career.


“It is now a question of power and if the student body wants to demonstrate until May – we are down to a clash of wills,” Gingrich told Longenecker, according to the minutes, which were obtained by Reuters.  As the meeting concluded, Gingrich warned: “There will be increasing attempts of the student body … to test the guide-lines and test the administration. As long as the student body is aroused it will meet.”


Eventually, the protests waned and the university held firm on the photograph ban. Some members of Gingrich’s protest group later went on to form the Tulane Liberation Front, which occupied a student center and demanded that the swimming pool be opened to the general public.


Though college campuses were hotbeds for political dissent into the 1970s, Gingrich’s student activism waned. University records show that by the summer of 1969, his protest days were behind him. He had
persuaded Tulane to allow him to teach a non-credit course in futurology called “When You are 49; The Year 2000.”


Reporting By Mark Hosenball in Washington; additional reporting by Kathy Finn in New Orleans; Editing by Marilyn W. Thompson and Philip Barbara  http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=philip.barb

POLITICS: Why Newt Gingrich won South Carolina and may become President!

I think I have figured out the message that worked among Republicans in South Carolina, has been driving the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street-ers, and could work nationwide in 2012.  It comes straight out of the 1976 movie Network.  

Click on top to see the original.  (Ignore the French subtitles.  This was the best clip I could find of the full scene.) Doesn’t he look more than vaguely like Newt?

Better yet, rent the movie from Netflix and see it in full context.  But before getting carried away, remember, in the film, Howard Beale (the ranting, mentally unstable newsman played brilliantly by Peter Finch) is totally exploited by the TV network executives (Faye Dunaway and Robert Duvall) , and ultimately assassinated on air when his ratings go down.   

The public hot button, then as now, is the same: rage.  Rage from the left, rage from the right, no matter.  We live in hard times: depression, recession, fear, unfairness, broken dreams, empty promises, corruption, shrill politics, arrogant finance, social gridlock, and the rest.  How can there not be outrage?   

The one who can figure out how best to tap it — be it Gingrich through his rants, Obama though his intellect, or someone else — will be hard to stop. 

GUEST BLOGGER: Joseph Farris on a soldier’s-eye view of World War II

Long before becoming a popular cartoonist for The New Yorker and other top magazines, Joseph Farris shipped out to World War II from his home in Danbury, Connecticut, as a young Army Private aboard the U.S.S. General Gordon in October 1944, bound for France as part of Company M, 398th Infantry.  Here, he found time to hone his craft through dozens of wartime sketches and paintings while sending over 400 letters home. He recently published an illustrated memoir of his wartime experience — A SOLDIER’S SKETCHBOOK: From the Frontlines of World War II.  We are happy today to give you an excerpt.  Enjoy….  

 

HILL 578

Our morale couldn’t have dropped much lower than on that fateful day of November 20th, 1944. The Company M morning reports coldly reported that Lt. Gray, our platoon leader, had been killed in action. He was tall, slender and handsome, probably in his 30’s. We were all fond of him and more importantly, we had full confidence in his leadership.

We were a heavy machine gun squad assigned to Co. L rifle company and because of the bulkiness and weight of our weapons, we lost contact with them. Hill 578 was steep and forested and Lt. Gray ordered us to pause while he tried to connect with Co. L. We smiled as he crawled past me. He knelt behind a tree and peered ahead when suddenly a shot rang out. It left a small, almost inconspicuous hole in the side of his head. We had suffered our first KIA during our first combat with the enemy. We heard that when the Germans retreated, they left behind one out of every ten as sniper. We now had to be alert in every direction-front, side, back, above and below for hidden mines.


Tech. Sergeant Ted Lederer immediately took charge, made contact with the rifle company and led us to the top of Hill 578 where we commenced to dig in when all hell broke loose. We quickly full-loaded my machine gun and the first gunner sprayed the area indiscriminately. I, the second-gunner, was feeding the ammunition belt. I looked up at the first gunner and was startled to see that he was covering his eyes with one hand and firing wildly with the other. I quickly pushed him aside and took over the gun. We didn’t expect to come out of the battle alive but after much firing, we finally wiped out the enemy. The first-gunner shamefully crawled down to the foxhole in front of us to see if the rifleman who had dived into his unfinished hole to escape our “friendly” fire was safe. The rifleman turned out to be a friend from the same hometown as the first gunner! The squad leader had also lost control of himself and both he and the first gunner were taken off the front lines and sent back. We never saw either again. I became squad leader. I was a battle hardened twenty-year-old.

 
Three enemy snipers had been captured and it was quite certain that one of the three had killed Lt. Gray. One of the rifle platoon leaders, a close friend of the Lieutenant’s, marched the prisoners into the woods. We heard three shots. Lieutenant Gray had been avenged.
Joseph Farris is has been a contract cartoonist with The New Yorker since 1971, and has done covers for The New Yorker, Barron’s, Harvard Magazine, ABA Journal, Indiana Alumni, Industry Week and many others. For almost twenty years his cartoons were featured in Stern magazine in Germany. Visit him at www.josephfarris.com.

GUEST BLOGGER: James Landers on the history of customer coupons

One of the original consumer “coupons,” innovated by Coca-Cola’s Asa Chandler in 1887.

Couponing has become increasingly popular in recent years, especially since the economic downturn of 2008 as consumers have to scrape by on less.  But coupons and the practices they support have been around for a lot longer in this country:

  • The first real coupons appeared in 1887 when the Coca-Cola Company was incorporated with drugstore owner (and soon-to-be business tycoon) Asa Candler as a partner. Chandler had the revolutionary idea of supplying soda fountains with free syrup and giving out slips of paper that entitled holders to a free drink. The campaign was incredibly successful.  By 1913, an estimated one in nine Americans had received a free Coke, for a total of about 8.5 million drinks. In this way the birth of the coupon coincided with, and heralded in, the ascension of an iconic American corporation.

 Candler invented the word “coupon,” from the French “couper”, which means “to cut.”

  • In the early 1900s, C.W. Post used widespread coupon distribution to market his new Grape Nuts breakfast cereal.  Each coupon offered a one-cent discount on a single box.  Post’s campaign too was extremely successful and helped both to skyrocket his own company while establishing the concept coupons in the American consciousness.
Post also utilized other innovative advertising techniques such as free samples, product demonstrations, and recipe booklets.  Other cereal companies followed Post’s example and promoted themselves by printing coupons on their packages; many continue to do so today.

  • Coupons grew more popular during the first half of the 20th century. They got a serious boost during the Depression of the 1930s, when people found it absolutely necessary to conserve money even on groceries. Clipping coupons became part of the household routine.

Chain supermarkets employed large-scale coupon giveaways during their expansion in the 1940s. These campaigns helped to cement their central position in the food industry and dominate the market over older, local shops.  In 1957, the Nielsen Coupon Clearing House, an institution dealing solely in coupon redemption, was founded.  Its creation symbolized the growing importance of the coupon industry in America.

  • The industry continued to grow in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, both in coupon users and methods of distribution. By 1965, half the households in America were using coupons.  Coupons began to appear in newspapers, on sales receipts at grocery stores, and on shelves in electronic form.

The advent of the Internet in the early 1990s brought the first appearance of online-distributed, printable coupons.  By 2003, 77% of consumers used coupons in some form. Over the next few years, new technologies like smartphone apps allowed for even more opportunities and mediums for coupon distribution.

  • The U.S. government distributed coupons for the first time in 2009 — over 64 million of them, each offering $40 off the purchase of a digital-to-analog television converter box.

The history of the coupon in America is the story of a single bright idea that spawned a booming and vital industry, one that continues to grow and diversify today, spurred on by the climate of economic instability just as it was in the 1930s.


 
James Landers is with the site Couponing that offers top-retailer coupon information, couponing tips and how-to guides.

Mitt Romney, Part III: The next “baby boomer” president?

That’s 19-year old Mitt Romney on the right, holding the sign that says “Speak Out! Don’t sit in!”  Romney was one of about 150 students protesting against an anti-draft “sit-in” at Stanford University in May 1966.  
Here’s one last thought about Mitt Romney before I drop the subject for the week–
As a proud member of the “baby boom” generation (born October 1951 and weaned on “Rocky and Bullwinkle“), I pay special attention to people my age.  And when it comes to politics, I always assume that anyone from my era who grew up in the late 1960s and early 1970s had to be shaped by it in some fundamental way.  But the question is — how?  
So far, we have had two “baby boom” presidents in America.  They were different as night and day:
  • Democrat Bill Clinton, born 1946,  spent the late 1960s in college (Georgetown, then Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, then Yale Law School), joined anti-War protests, enjoyed the chance to “not inhale” marijuana, avoided the draft, and emerged as a leftist George McGovern-style politico.
  • Republican George W. Bush, also born 1946, joined the opposite crowd.  At Yale he was a frat brother and “Skull and Bones”-er, then he joined the Texas Air National Guard (though carefully avoided Vietnam) before starting Harvard Business School.  You’d never catch him at some hippy anti-war rally, and his drug of choice was alcohol until he gave it up in the mid-1980s.

Anyone in college in the late 1960s knew both of these types.  But now we have Mitt Romney, possibly a third “baby boom” president.  Where does he fit?  Not surprisingly, someplace else. 

Mitt Romney (born 1947) spent most of the turbulent late 1960s out of the country.  In mid-1966, he left for a 3-year Mormon missionary assignment to France, a traditional rite-of-passage in his family.  During this time, stationed in Le Harve, then Nantes, Bordeaux, and Paris, young Mitt mostly kept away from politics, even as his father was running for President in 1967 and 1968.  (See Part II of this series.)  Mitt’s missionary work forbid him from smoking, drinking, or dating (though he already was committed to his future wife Anne back in the USA). 

He avoided military service in Vietnam during these years first through a student draft deferment and then a ministerial deferment.  


Still, Mitt had a point of view.  The Vietnam War was an increasingly hot issue in 1966 and 1967 as President Lyndon B. Johnson was escalating American involvement from 16,500 to almost 500,000 troops, mostly draftees.  Not surprisingly, protests centered on college campuses, and focused on the draft.    “Hell no !!  We won’t go !!!”      


At first, Mitt supported the War.  The photograph at the top of this post, published recently by the London Daily Mail,  shows 19 year-old Mitt at Stanford University — where he studied for one year before leaving for France.  Mitt is on the far right holding a picket sign.  Here’s how the MailOnline described the scene:  “The photograph was taken on May 20, 1966, shortly after a group of students had taken over the office of Stanford University President Wallace Sterling…. They were protesting at the introduction of a test designed to help the authorities decide who was eligible for the draft.  Mr Romney was one of approximately 150 conservative students who counter-picketed the sit-in.


In other words, Romney was protesting against the protesters — supporting the War and the draft, despite his own deferment.   

In France as a Mormon missionary during 1967-1969, Mitt hardly escaped the maelstrom.  He was present in Paris for the May 1968 Paris general strike and student revolt.  According to various accounts,  he was frequently challenged by French students about America’s role in Vietnam (France itself had left Vietnam in 1954 after its defeat at Dien Bien Phu), which Mitt always still backed.


When Mitt returned to the US in mid-1969 to finish school at Brigham Young University, his draft deferment ran out.  But he had luck on his side and drew a number 300 in the 1969 draft lottery, making him effectively exempt.  (Full disclosure: I pulled a number 14 in the 1970 lottery, creating some major life complications back then.  Maybe more on that some other time.)  Mitt was surprised at how things had changed while he was away, particularly his own father’s new strong views against the War.  Mitt quickly changed as well.  In 1970, the Boston Globe quoted him as criticizing the War.  “If it wasn’t a political blunder to move into Vietnam,” he told a reporter, “I don’t know what is.”  


By mid-1971, however, all this was over.  Mitt had enrolled at the Harvard Business and Law schools and was on to his next career in business and finance.


So what does this tell us about Mitt Romney?  Which side of the 1960s culture wars was he on? Apparently both at different times, and neither very strongly.   Mitt followed his own drummer — to France, to Brigham Young, and to Harvard.   And apparently he is following his own drummer still.



Special Feature: Primary Schedule Map

After Mitt Romney’s big win yesterday in New Hampshire, it remains to be seen if the Republican presidential nomination race now will quickly finish, or whether the anti-Romneys —  Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Santorum, Perry and the rest — can drag it out.  Either way, to help follow the action, here (below) is a special treat courtesy of our techno-wizard friends at ESRI in Redlands, California, the country’s leading  experts in cutting-edge Geospatial technology.

It is an interactive “smart map” of this year’s presidential primary contest.  Click on the different buttons (the map, the dates, the state names) and see what happens.

Smart maps like this (or “Geospatial Information Systems”) are one of the great innovation of our time, from the navigation systems in our cars to Google Earth to the data-rich displays on CNN and other TV networks to the GIS grids used by governments for complex infrastructure planning. This relatively simple one just scratches the surface.  Click here to see a few more.

Presidential Primary Election Calendar Map
Use this timeline map to see the sequence of US primaries and caucuses in 2012. Clicking on a state will show you the number of registered voters and their political attitudes.

REALITY CHECK: Mitt Romney — Some relevant family history. Part II, “Brainwashing.”

Yes, Mitt Romney has flip-flopped.  In 2002, he ran for governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice moderate.  Today in 2012 he paints himself a dedicated pro-life conservative.  Who is the real Mitt?  This contradiction has raised alarms for true believers on both sides, making it his biggest single vulnerability today as a candidate for President of the United States.  


But Mitt Romney has navigated this minefield with spectacular ease.  It’s as if he’s been preparing for it his entire life.  And that, in fact, is where the real truth lies.  Mitt has a family skeleton on this point.

In Part I of this post (click here), I mentioned that Mitt’s father, three-term Michigan governor George W. Romney, also ran for the White House back in 1968, when Mitt was just 21 years old.  But George Romney in late 1967, just as his campaign was getting started, saw it collapse over a classic verbal gaffe — telling a reporter he had been “brainwashed” by Pentagon officials into supporting the Vietnam war.  (See the full actual 1967 clip, above.)


For his father George, this ultimate “flip-flip” exploded as a national embarrassment.  For young Mitt, it taught a painful lesson.


The gaffe

Son and father, Mitt and George Romney, with mother Lenore, early 1960s.

George Romney started his campaign for president with high hopes.  He had won his third election as Michigan governor in 1966 by a 580,000 vote margin, making him one of the most successful and popular Republicans in the country.  He had strong backing from Party leaders wanting to avoid a repeat of Barry Goldwater’s disastrous 1964 defeat.  He led Richard Nixon by 8 full points in the Gallop Poll for the Republican nomination at the opening of 1967.  


But George Romney still had to address the key burning issue facing the country that year: the Vietnam War. 


Since August 1964, when President Lyndon B. Johnson had pressed the US Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorizing military intervention in South Vietnam, Johnson had escalated American involvement from 16,500 to almost 500,000 troops in 1967, including large numbers of draftees and accompanied by massive bombing of the North.  Casualties mounted; over 30,000 US soldiers would die under LBJ’s watch with no clear strategy and no end in sight.   


Still, at this early stage, few American politicians dared to publicly criticize the War for fear of being labelled disloyal, unpatriotic, or weak — despite the fact that an increasingly militant antiwar movement was taking hold across the country.  


George Romney had visited Vietnam in 1965, been briefed by military leaders, and been an early strong supporter of the War.  But like many Americans, he grew skeptical over time.  On August 31, 1967, in a routine interview with Detroit station WKBD-TV, reporter Lou Gordon confronted Romney on the issue.  He quoted Romney’s early support of the War, then quoted his recent criticism, and asked about the contradiction.  The result was disaster.

Listen to Romney’s answer (click on the image above).  At the time, most people simply heard the word “brainwashing” and ignored the rest.  And why not?  It was a terrible choice. Barely a decade since the Korean War in which North Koreans used psychological torture against American POWs — actual “brainwashing” — it sounded whiney and evasive, like Romney was charging the American generals with bad faith, while also acknowledging his own ignorance and suggesting some psychological disorder.  All this, plus he was criticizing a wartime president with soldiers under fire.


The reaction was immediate.  Vermont Governor Philip H. Hoff, a friendly Republican who had accompanied Romney on his 1965 trip to Vietnam and attended the same briefings with the generals, called Romney’s remark “outrageous, kind of stinking … Either he’s a most naïve man or he lacks judgment.”  Senator Eugene McCarthy (D.-Minnesota), running against LBJ for the Democratic nomination, turned it into a joke, saying that in Romney’s case, “a light rinse would have been sufficient.”  Within days, Romney’s support cratered, plummeting from 24% down to 14% in the Gallup Poll, giving Richard Nixon a large lead.


After that, critics would label Romney as indecisive and  inept.   Two weeks before the New Hampshire primary in March 1968, New York governor Nelson Rockefeller would announce his own availability for the Republican nomination and George Romney would pull out of the race.  


But listen to the rest of Romney’s actual answer to the 1967 question — not just the word “brainwashing.”  What he said, in sum, was that on his original 1965 visit to Vietnam, the generals gave him an unrealistic, over-optimistic report based on bad information, and that, since then, he had done his own independent homework, studied the facts, and changed his mind.   The bottom line?  George Romney was right about Vietnam.  LBJ and his generals had misled the country into a war that ultimately cost some 58,000 American lives.

Impact on young Mitt
Young Mitt Romney was not at his father’s side during this crisis.  Instead, Mitt was off in France in 1967 and 1968 on a Morman missionary adventure.  Still, he followed his father’s campaign closely.  At the end, he received a letter from his father telling him simply “Your mother and I are not personally distressed. As a matter of fact, we are relieved.”    


Mitt as a 21 year-old, certainly understood his father’s 1967 views on Vietnam, and was even quoted himself as criticizing the War in a 1970 interview with the Boston Globe.  “If it wasn’t a political blunder to move into Vietnam,” he told the reporter, “I don’t know what is.”    


Recently, Mitt Romney talked about the episode to the Washington Post, how it made him more cautious and circumspect.  “My own experience has taught me you have to exercise care,” he explained.   For instance:   “After 9/11, I got a question about whether the [Olympic] Games [which he was then managing in Salt Lake City] would be cancelled if another terrorist incident occurred … I could see the headline.  ‘Romney May Consider Canceling the Games’ … So I knew I couldn’t answer the question directly.  I said that it would be ‘unthinkable’ to cancel the Games.”


As for the “brainwashing” episode itself, Mitt said this: “My father later did not look back…. It was not a big issue in our house.”  


Let’s hope that Mitt Romney learned the right lesson from his father’s 1967 disaster.  Right or wrong, in politics, how you say something can be just as important as what you say.   Mitt has had several years to prepare to explain his flip flops on Obama’s health care bill, his Massachusetts pro-choice statements, and the rest.  You won’t hear Mitt Romney complain about being “brainwashed” by anyone.  But hopefully, this will not stop him in the future from actually keeping his mind open and changing it when it’s the right thing to do.






REALITY CHECK: Mitt Romney – Some relevant family history. Part I, Goldwater 1964.

It is no secret that Mitt Romney — this week’s Iowa Caucus winner and now clear frontrunner for the Republican 2012 presidential nomination — is not the first member of his family to seek the White House.  Mitt’s father, three-term Michigan governor George W. Romney, also made the attempt back in 1968.  Mitt was just 21 years old at the time, and his father came achingly close before seeing his campaign for the Republican ticket collapse over a classic verbal gaffe — telling reporters he had been “brainwashed” by Pentagon officials into supporting the Vietnam war.  But more on that later.


  Then-Michigan Gov. George Romney (father of now-presidential
candidate Mitt Romney), seated in 1964 with then-Republican presidential
candidate Barry Goldwater, whom Romney refused to enforse and called
an “extremist.”  At the podium is future president Gerald Ford, then still 
a Congressman from Michigan.

Mitt’s father also played a key role in the bitter 1964 Republican split over its nomination that year of Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, the arch-conservative who lost in a landslide to Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson while inspiring future conservative leaders like Ronald Reagan.  This is where we’ll start right now.

Today’s 2012 Republican presidential contest has much in common with 1964.  Then as now, conservative activists had launched a strident revolt against what they considered a much-too-“moderate” party elite.  
Today, the two sides are personified by Mitt Romney, the more moderate, versus several competing conservative “anti-Romneys” — Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and the rest.    Back in 1964, these two sides were led by Goldwater on the right and, for the moderates, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller.  George Romney stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Rockefeller.
It is easy today to forget the passions of 1964.  President John Kennedy had just been assassinated a few months earlier in November 1963.  Americans feared nuclear annihilation from Soviet Russia, and agitation for (and against) Civil Rights reached its peak.  The watershed 1964 Civil Rights Act passed the Senate that summer only after a two-month filibuster.   
Barry Goldwater, a World War II Air Force pilot, two-term US Senator, and author of  The Conscience of a Conservative, happily represented the far right.   He saved his sharpest elbows for eastern moderates in his own Party.  “[S]ometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea,” he once told reporters in 1961.  As for Russian communists, he joked that the U.S. military should just “lob one [nuclear bomb] into the men’s room of the Kremlin” and solve the problem for good.  
Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act which, in the heat of that year, drew major attention, especially in the South.  He denied being racist, but when asked to renounce prejudice in a formal way, he refused — presumably to avoid offending southern white supporters. In your heart you know he’s right,” chanted friends.  Enemies replied: “In your guts, you know he’s nuts.”


Nelson and Happy Rockefeller on their 1963 honeymoon.

 Nelson Rockefeller, by contrast, oozed with eastern elitism.  The wealthy grandson of Standard Oil titan John D. Rockefeller, the New York governor not only practiced liberal big-city politics but also crossed a cultural taboo in 1963 by divorcing his wife and immediately marrying a women fifteen years younger named Happy who also had recently divorced her own husband and ceded him custody of their four children.  Few doubted that the two had carried on a secret affair for years.  In 1964, adultury still mattered.

Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller fought a string of bitter primary contests in early 1964, but Goldwater’s triumph in California gave him by far the most delegates.  When the Party met for its nominating convention at the Cow Palace in San Francisco, tension boiled.  A last-ditch stop-Goldwater effort quickly materialized.  Leading it was George W. Romney.

George Romney had been elected Michigan governor in 1962.  A former auto executive, he had created a state income tax and, like Rockefeller, was a strong civil rights backer.  In June 1964, watching the growing split in his Party, Romney had no trouble picking sides.  He joined 12 other Republican governors that month in blasting Goldwater, declaring “I will do everything within my power to keep him from becoming the party’s presidential nominee.”  Reaching the convention in San Francisco, he told the platform committee to “unequivocally reject extremism of the right and the left” — a clear slap at Goldwater and his followers.

Charges of “extremism” against Goldwater crescendoed over the next few days, culminating in an ugly scene as Nelson Rockefeller himself was loudly booed when he addressed the convention(see clip above).  Eight different candidates received first ballot votes (including 41 for Romney), but this was not enough to stop the inevitable.  In accepting the nomination, Goldwater shot back at his critics: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”  

After San Francisco, Republican moderates abandoned the party in droves.  Still, Barry Goldwater hoped he might be able to win over George Romney.  He reached out, and Romney apparently was willing to try to bridge the gap.  That August, just prior to a meeting in Pennsylvania, Romney sent Goldwater (via his vice presidential running mate Congressman William Miller (R-NY)) a brief statement on civil rights and asked Goldwater to endorse it as a way to de-fuse the issue.  According to journalists Roland Evans and Robert Novak, the statement read in part as follows: “The rights of some must not be enjoyed by denying the rights of others.  Neither can we  permit states rights at the expense of human rights.”

Goldwater refused, and after that George Romney drew the line.  He refused to endorse Goldwater or to appear with him publicly.  Later, he wrote Goldwater a twelve page private letter explaining his reasons, focusing on civil rights  In the end, Romney won re-election that year as Michigan governor by 380,000 votes as Goldwater was losing the state by over a million.

All of which brings us back to Mitt Romney and 2012.  Talking a few years ago to Tim Russert about his father (who died in 1995), Mitt described the 1964 confrontation in these terms: “my dad walked out of the Republican convention in 1964 in San Francisco in part because Barry Goldwater in his speech gave my dad the impression that he was someone who would be weak on civil rights.”

As Mitt Romney today prepares to fight the conservative wing of his modern Republican Party in a contest not much different from the Goldwater insurgency of 1964, will Mitt have the same backbone as his father to stand up for his “moderate” beliefs, even at the cost of catcalls and boos from the right wing chorus?   Stay tuned…..

In Part II, we’ll talk about that “brainwashing” episode.   I think you’ll be surprised at the truth…..