Prof. Boerner's Explorations

Commentary:

During the Cold War years, 1947 through 1990, the Olympic games held every four years was not just an athletic competition but another skirmish in the Cold War. But instead of firing guns, these battles pitted the athletic squads against one another. Countries tended to think more in terms of the politics than of the athletes involved, athletes that have spent years preparing for this single opportunity to compete against other world-class athletes.

This all came to a head for the 1980 Olympic Games to be held in Moscow. The previous year the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan in order to prevent a Islamic fundamentalist government from taking over the country. President Jimmy Carter, an advocate for Human Rights, objected to this violation of Afghanistan independence. Rather than confronting the Soviets directly on the battlefield, the U.S. and its Western Allies opted to boycott the Summer Olympic Games in Moscow.

While this was not fair to our athletes who had trained for their “shot at the Ring”, it was deemed as an appropriate response by the Carter administration. Of course, behind the scene we were supporting the Afghan mujahideen militants. This was just another of the “proxy wars” that were so typical of this period of time. In his State of the Union address in 1980, President Carter delineated the U.S. intent to counter military activities of any country, e.g. the Soviet Union, who threatened the flow of oil via the Persian Gulf.

In retaliation of the Soviets for our boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics and arming the insurgents in Afghanistan led to the boycott of the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The Soviet Union and most of the Warsaw block of Europe to boycott these Olympics. Turn about is fair play, I suppose. Ironically, we apparently didn’t learn any lesson from the disaster experienced by the Soviets in Afghanistan; we still went “blindly” into Iraq and Afghanistan where we still don’t have a face-saving exit strategy in these conflicts.

But it’s time to start our exploration into this whole scenario of Carter, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the west’s boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympic Games…  GLB

These Introductory Comments are copyrighted:
Copyright©2011 — Gerald Boerner — All Rights Reserved

[ 3669 Words ]
    

Commentary:

The U.S. Navy, as other navies around the world, had seen their most important type of ship, the capital ship, shift from the Ship of the Line to Dreadnoughts (Battleships) to Aircraft Carrier and Nuclear Submarine. These were the ships that were the most feared by enemies and packed with the greatest fire power. They enabled their battle groups become attack forces. During World War II the Japanese and American navies understood this; Germany and Great Britain did not. And a shift in battle strategies had taken place.

For the United States this process started with the conversion of a freighter (collier) to an aircraft carrier. The USS Jupiter was originally tasked to carry loads of coal for the steamships in the battlegroup during World War I; during World War II it counterpart would have been that of a tanker. In 1919 it underwent its conversion to an aircraft carrier to be rechristened the USS Langley. It was named after the early pioneer in powered flight as a competitor of the Wright Brothers.

It served well in the Pacific theater of World War II. Her role was that of a seaplane tender until it was damaged and sunk three months after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Following aircraft carriers were at sea during the attack on Pearl Harbor sparing the to come bank a few months later they destroyed most of the Japanese Navy’s aircraft carriers and set the tone of future naval engagements in the Pacific. This validates the wisdom of the U.S. Navy to adopt the aircraft carrier as an essential member of its fleet.

So, let’s get started with our exploration of our first aircraft carrier…  GLB

These Introductory Comments are copyrighted:
Copyright©2011 — Gerald Boerner — All Rights Reserved

[ 3498 Words ]
    

Commentary:

During the first vote on the ratification of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles that included the League of Nations, a coalition of Republicans lead by Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge and Democrats almost gathered the two-thirds vote to successfully ratify the treaty. This ratification would have been with the modification to Article X which related to the deployment of League of Nations peacekeeping forces without Senate confirmation. The failure to ratify left the end of World War I “hanging”.

President Wilson’s campaign for popular support for the League of Nations was cut short by a stroke. When Harding won the presidency in 1920, his isolationist stand bode poorly for another chance for ratification; the previous coalition was no longer intact. The Knox-Porter Resolution was passed the accept the terms of the armistice to formerly end our involvement in World War I. We had reentered our national cocoon!

The Treaty of Versailles was ratified by the other allies. And almost more important than the treaty was the creation of the League of Nations. Even though the latter was limited by the absence of the United States, the mandates included the protection of the French and British empires an the division of the German colonies between the two victors.

The hard lesson to learn from this experience still haunts us. We are a world power, but are somewhat capricious our exercise of that power. We have been involved in regional undeclared wars that drain our resources but don’t necessarily enhance our standing in the international community. Someday we will perhaps learn our lesson.

So, let’s start our exploration of the role of Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge in the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles…  GLB

These Introductory Comments are copyrighted:
Copyright©2011 — Gerald Boerner — All Rights Reserved

[ 3109 Words ]
    

Commentary:

One of the rallying cries of the American Revolution was “no taxation without representation.” The charters of most of the original thirteen colonies granted these colonies the rights to levy and collect taxes from the settlers to the exclusion of the British Parliament. This concept of the right to representation was earned for British subjects during the English Civil War.

But this did not guarantee that all subjects were entitled to vote for their representatives. They were NOT! Women did not gain the right to vote until the 20th century. And only about 3-5% of the men were given the vote through the use of property ownership requirements and/or poll taxes; these same mechanisms were used to limit the vote in this country after we gained our independence from British rule.

However, the non-voting citizenry were deemed to be “virtually” represented by those who were entitled to vote. The problem came to a head when the British Parliament levied a tax on all British subjects, including those in the American colonies, in 1765 in the form of the Stamp Act. This required that a stamp be applied to all paperwork; the proceeds of this task was intended to reimburse the crown for the costs incurred defending British lands from the French and Spanish during the Seven Years’ War, or as it was known in the colonies, the French and Indian War.

Objections to the Stamp Act were raised on two grounds. First there was the belief that only the colonies could tax their inhabitants; Parliament did not have such a right. Second, Even if the right of Parliament to tax the colonies were to be found legal for the defense of the colonies against the French, it could not tax then without representation of the colonies in Parliament. This request was rejected by King George III.

In the face of widespread resistance to the Stamp Act, Parliament repealed it on this day in 1766. That crisis was passed, but in the repeal law Parliament reserved the right to levy other taxes in the future. This set the stage for the Boston Tea Party’s protest against the Tea Tax. The battle lines were forming under the oratory of Patrick Henry in the House of Burgesses and the propaganda of Samuel Adams in the north. Conflict was coming.

But, let’s get on with our exploration of the elements in a little more detail…  GLB

These Introductory Comments are copyrighted:
Copyright©2011 — Gerald Boerner — All Rights Reserved

[ 4388 Words ]
    

Commentary:

Women are generally involved in revolutions, but generally behind the scenes in supporting roles. Of course, there are notable exceptions to this generalization from our Revolutionary War, namely Mollie Pitcher who continued to fire the cannon after her husband was killed and Betsy Ross who sewed our first flag (allegedly). But few have stood with the fighting men like Golda Myerson (Golda Meir) during the quest to establish the state of Israel in the British mandate in Palestine in 1948.

She was one of two women who signed the original Declaration of Independence for Israel. She held numerous cabinet posts during the establishment of the nation, including that of Prime Minister from 1969 to 1974. During her tenure, the Yom Kipper War was fought and won.

We take a closer look at this first “Iron Lady” of Israel; this term would be most famously applied to Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain. It is interesting to look at which countries have had strong women leaders in the top position, like England, Germany Israel, India, etc. We might examine what it is about these cultures that enable women to assume leadership roles. What permits this in these cultures? This question is beyond today’s quest, but will be covered in a future post (or series of posts).

So, let’s get going on today’s exploration of the political career of Golda Meir…  GLB

These Introductory Comments are copyrighted:
Copyright©2011 — Gerald Boerner — All Rights Reserved

[ 3596 Words ]
    

Commentary:

In 1968 our country was in the middle the civil rights movement, protests against the Vietnam War, the Hippie movement. Robert Kennedy was a ray of hope against the backdrop of politics as usual from the Democratic and Republican establishments. President Johnson, who called up 500K troops during the summer of 1965 for Vietnam, had just dropped out of the quest for reelection. Hubert Humphrey became the traditional Demo candidate, Eugene McCarthy was an old-school, anti-war candidate, but the young, anti-war, pro-equality candidate was Robert Kennedy.

Kennedy had performed well as Attorney General under both JFK and LBJ as well as Senator for New York was raising in the polls. On that fateful night in June, Kennedy had just been victorious in the California primary and was headed for the Democratic Convention with enough votes to wrap up the nomination. And then disaster hit in terms of an assassin’s bullet. Kennedy lie dead on the floor of the Ambassador Hotel. His assassin was taken down by one of the Rafer Johnson, Decathlon Winner in Olympics. Many of our hopes were dashed that night.

In just five years, we lost two members of the Kennedy clan to assassins. These Kennedys has been young, enthusiastic, visionaries, and dedicated to the people. From JFK, we received the challenge to place a man on the moon; we did. From RFK, we had the support for the civil rights movement and racial equality; we moved towards that goal. While JFK looked to the heavens, Robert Kennedy looked at his fellow mankind. In fact, RFK was asked to project when the U.S. would have its first African American President, he replied, “…in forty years.” Barach Obama was elected President exactly forty years after RFK’s death!

So, let’s get this exploration underway. We will look into RFK’s Political ascension and his key positions on critical issues…  GLB

These Introductory Comments are copyrighted:
Copyright©2011 — Gerald Boerner — All Rights Reserved

[ 3997 Words ]
    

Commentary:

The Mexican Revolution of 1910 was not a battle against foreign rule, but was an uprising led by Francisco I. Madero against longtime autocrat Porfirio Díaz. Diaz had become a dictator and the people wanted change. Without the ballot box as an option for change, the opponents of Diaz took up arms. Madero represented a more democratic option to the country. A Constitution was written to establish a representative democracy.

But, as so frequently happens during armed insurrections, some of those taking up arms decided to set up small kingdoms of their own. This was especially true in Mexico at the time since the power was centralized in Mexico City an was less apparent in those somewhat distant from the capitol. This scenario played itself out in northern Mexico in the stat of Chihuahua where Pancho Villa was appointed governor. Villa maintained a militia and frequently raided American settlements in New Mexico, land previously “sold” to the U.S.

These raiding forays across the U.S. border forced President Wilson to send Gen. John J. Pershing across the border to seek and destroy Villa’s army. It provided a training ground to train National Guard troops in a live battlefield. Likewise, it was a training ground for future general like George Patton. This special group under Pershing was retasked when the U.S. entered World Was I in 1917.

So, let’s jump into our exploration of the border confrontation between Pershing and Pancho Villa…  GLB

These Introductory Comments are copyrighted:
Copyright©2011 — Gerald Boerner — All Rights Reserved

[ 4073 Words ]
    

Commentary:

While it sounds like a rather mundane invention, Eli Whitney’s creation of the Cotton Engine, better known as the “Cotton Gin”, in 1793. He received a patent for his invention in 1794 on this day. He did not obtain his fortune from this device due to patent infringements; he did benefit financially from another invention, the use of interchangeable parts in guns! But the cotton gin provided some unexpected results.

Before the cotton gin, the process of separating the cotton fibers from its seed was very labor intensive. This made cotton less attractive to plantation owner than other crops. With the introduction of the cotton gin, cotton became a more attractive crop, especially in the deep south. This resulted in larger plantations, which required more slave labor. Thus, the cotton gin actually facilitated the use of the inhumane practice of slavery.

Slavery was opposed by the industrial north, but the textile industry was dependent on the cotton produced as a result of the cotton gin. So this invention really was a two-headed sword, so to speak: it created an industry that was dependent on slave labor. Even during the Reconstruction period, African Americans and the poor white population in the deep south were in virtual slavery under the share-cropping arrangement by which they survived.

But it’s time to explore the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney and its effects on the industrial revolution and the institution of slavery…  GLB

These Introductory Comments are copyrighted:
Copyright©2011 — Gerald Boerner — All Rights Reserved

[ 4135 Words ]
    

Commentary:

For many us, the term “impeach” is rather meaningless. It is an event included in Article II of the Constitution of the United States. It is the way a President or Supreme Court Justice can be removed from office. But the only time it has been invoked in recent history when it has been used was with President Bill Clinton; he was charged with impeachment by the House but not convicted by the Senate. I believe that the structure of our government by the Founding Fathers has worked quite well!

Previous to Clinton, the only President faced with an impeachment trial in the Senate was the case of Andrew Johnson. Johnson, Abraham Lincoln’s 1864 running mate and became President after Lincoln’s assassination. Johnson broke with the mainstream republican leadership in Congress; he became less supportive of the equality of the African American slave population. He was the head of the Executive Branch at a time when the southern states has not yet had their representatives returned to the Congress. The Moderate sector of the Republican Party was attempting to pass civil rights legislation BEFORE this occurred.

Johnson opposed too much civil rights to be granted to freed slaves. This included the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Johnson’s position on the civil rights and his administration’s organization was opposed by the moderates. This set the stage for the impeachment confrontation to follow.

So, let’s commence our exploration of the presidency and impeachment of Andrew Johnson…  GLB

These Introductory Comments are copyrighted:
Copyright©2011 — Gerald Boerner — All Rights Reserved

[ 3717 Words ]
    

Commentary:

When Franklin D. Roosevelt took his Oath of Office as our 32nd President in 1933, he faced the task of lifting our economy out of the Great Depression. During his first one hundred days in office, he was able to have the Congress pass into law a record number of bills in this period. Thus, this first 100 days of a new administration has become a metric by which succeeding administrations are judged.

FDR’s first target was the stabilization of the banking system. In the days leading up to the inauguration, the had been a run of withdrawals of funds from the banks. He shut the banks down for a period to stabilize the WITHOUT CAUSING A GENERAL PANIC. He therefore went on the radio to address the American people on his plans. This was the first “Fireside Chat” of what became a series of thirty-three broadcasts delivered during FDR’s Presidency.

One might debate the merits of the public safety net put into place during FDR’s “New Deal” program. We are seeing such a debate in progress today as the Republican-controlled House and trying to undo the new safety net spread to help the our nation to survive the current economic upheavals present today. While this may not be as severe an economic disruption as during the “Great Depression”, to those going through it May we have the wisdom to serve the people of our nation, not the “Good Old Boys Network”.

But, now let’s get on with our exploration with the first “Fireside Chat” held on this day in 1933…  GLB

These Introductory Comments are copyrighted:
Copyright©2011 — Gerald Boerner — All Rights Reserved

[ 3789 Words ]