The beauty of Oregon

It's been over three weeks since I visited my friends Judy and John in Oregon. I've had time to reflect on my trip and how wonderful it was to be together. A short two-day trip, but truly memorable. I realize that life offers us opportunities to be together that don't really come again, at least not in the same way. They visited us here in Oslo last June, and this June I was able to visit them where they live in west Oregon. We were gifted our time together and I am very grateful for the gift. Time moves us steadily onward; we get older and perhaps the chances to be together will be less in the coming years. I hope not, God willing, but no one really knows for sure. I know many people my age who can no longer travel due to health problems; there are no guarantees, so it's best to take advantage of the opportunities as they arise. 

We used a day to travel by car from west to east Oregon, driving from Portland to Mount Hood (about a fifty-mile drive), with a stop in Hood River to visit Paloma, who is the graphic designer for my books. While we were in Hood River, we also stopped and watched the kite surfers being whipped about by the wind on the Columbia River. We then drove on to Mount Hood and ate dinner at the Timberline Lodge that is located on the southern flank of Mount Hood. The lodge is a National Historic Landmark, and well it should be, after having watched the video about its construction. It was built between 1936 and 1938 as a WPA project during the Great Depression. One of its claims to fame is that Stanley Kubrick used outside views of the lodge in the supernatural horror film The Shining (1980). 

The following photos don't really do these places justice, but they give some glimpses of the beauty of Oregon. Enjoy!

the view from the backyard of my friends' house

view from The Vista

Rowena Crest area

view from Rowena Crest area 

Mount Hood 

The film--The Farmer Takes A Wife, from 1935

The 1935 film The Farmer Takes A Wife was based on the popular 1934 Broadway play of the same name (see The Farmer Takes a Wife (1935) - IMDb). Sandy Schuman talked about this film in his presentation about the Erie Canal (see A New Yorker in Oslo: The Erie Canal: A Story of Building the Impossible--a New York Adventure Club webinar (paulamdeangelis.blogspot.com). Henry Fonda had a leading role as farmer Dan Harrow in the play, and reprised his role in the film. The film depicts life on the Erie Canal before the railroads were built; it was an important waterway that connected the mid-West with the Atlantic Ocean via the Hudson River in order to transport goods between Europe and America. There were many freight boats on the canal and a lot of life in the small towns along the canal. The active boat life on the canal was dominated by boat drivers who employed cooks, all of them loyal canal folk. They didn't want to hear any talk about railroads being built that would put them out of business. Few of them believed that railroads would replace their livelihood, and in the film, they were willing to fight anyone who supported the building of railroads and/or who believed that railroads were the future of freight transportation. Dan Harrow works on a canal boat in order to save up money for his life's dream--owning his own farm. He meets and falls in love with Molly Larkins (played by Janet Gaynor), a cook on one of the canal boats owned by Jotham Klore (played by Charles Bickford), a drunk and a bully. Molly can take care of herself; she's in love with canal life and has no intention of leaving it. Until circumstances change and she grudgingly has to realize that the time has come for her to leave it; she accepts Dan's proposal of marriage, but not without a few monkey wrenches thrown into the drama before it ends happily. The nice thing about the film was its depiction of canal life, the hustle and bustle of the small canal towns, the idyllic landscape along the canal, and the quaint characters that populated the canal towns. 

I recognized some of the songs from the film: Fifteen Miles on the Erie Canal (the Low Bridge, Everybody Down song); I've Been Working on the Railroad; Buffalo Gals Won't You Come Out Tonight. They're all songs that I remember from childhood from an LP that my parents had. I especially remember I've Been Working on the Railroad, especially the refrain Dinah blow your horn..... After watching The Farmer Takes A Wife, I understood more about life on the Erie Canal and how that came to an end once the railroads took over the same routes. 

What a rich and eclectic history America has. The more I learn about it, the more I want to learn. For example, DeWitt Clinton, who lived from 1769 until 1828, was a US senator, the mayor of New York City, and lastly the governor of New York State. As governor, he was responsible for construction of the Erie Canal, which was a big deal in the 1800s (construction started in 1817 and was finished in 1825). Think about this--the canal was 363 miles long and was finished in the course of eight years--very impressive. Clinton lived long enough to see it finished. 

There were thriving societies in America in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and a lot of progressive thinkers lived during those times, DeWitt Clinton was one of them. Those who built the railroads in the nineteenth century were also progressive thinkers. Compared to our current society, household activities back in the 1700s and 1800s took longer to get done, travel and transportation were slow, and there were no telephones (until 1876) and computers (not until the twentieth century, at least in the form we know them). My point is that there was no lack of visionaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Many of them achieved great things and pushed the society around them to evolve and change. 

FDR, the New Deal, and socialist programs

I am currently reading Franklin and Eleanor: An Extraordinary Marriage by Hazel Rowley. It’s a very well-written account of Franklin D and Eleanor Roosevelt’s marriage, which cannot be described as conservative in any sense of the word. The backdrop for a good portion of their marriage is of course a major era in American history. FDR was an ambitious man, and set his sights on the governorship of NY State and on the presidency of the USA (with tremendous support from Eleanor, loyal employees and friends) at a time in the USA when the Great Depression had just about decimated society and normal living as the country had known them up to that point. The stock market crash in 1929 led to the collapse of banks. People lost their savings and homes, jobs were scarce, unemployment high, and there was widespread poverty. His weaknesses as a husband do not detract from his strengths as president--strong leader with excellent ideas for how to renew America. But I imagine he would have been an impossible man to live with--huge ego, very ambitious, wilful, jovial, charming, used to getting his way, aided and abetted by a mother who interfered royally in his marriage to Eleanor. Eleanor was also headstrong, but her obstinacy evolved out of the disappointments that she faced living with a man who mostly put himself and his needs first, even more so after he developed polio. She liked people, as did FDR, and surrounded herself with them. Many of their employees and friends lived in the same house as the Roosevelts for shorter or longer periods; 'they both enjoyed communal living' as Rowley writes. FDR lived his life as he saw fit, and extended the same courtesy to Eleanor, who did live her life as she wished once her children were mature. But I leave that to you to discover when you read the book. Suffice it to say that theirs was an open marriage in the true sense of the word. At the same time, they had a lot of respect for each other, were good companions, and were supportive of each other’s ambitions and professional desires. Theirs was a modern marriage that most of us would never opt for, even in these modern times, likely because divorce is more acceptable in our era than it was in theirs. But money also helped smooth their life together; they lacked for nothing. If they wanted to purchase a new house or a cottage, lack of money was no hindrance. Yet, they were very empathetic to the plight of Depression America and to the poor, and their legacy bears that out.

Herbert Hoover was the president before FDR. He believed in raw capitalism without any government intervention whatsoever. At that time, there was no bank deposit insurance as we have today (the FDIC--thanks to FDR), no federal welfare, and no unemployment relief. Hoover was adamantly opposed to these types of ‘socialist’ programs that would weaken/destroy American individualism and self-sufficiency. Hoover felt strongly that FDR’s ‘socialist’ agenda (minimum wage, old-age pensions, farm relief, unemployment relief through public works, bank deposit insurance) would destroy the country and warned the public that America under FDR would lead to the USA embracing Communism. FDR believed the opposite, and set about remaking America under his New Deal, instituting the National Recovery Administration (minimum wages, maximum weekly hours of work), the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (aid to the poor), the Public Works Administration (building of bridges, roads, schools), the Tennessee Valley Authority (building dams), and the Civilian Conservation Corps (planting trees, digging reservoirs). We can thank FDR for many of the ‘socialist’ benefits that we enjoy today. FDR knew that some people, despite their best efforts, simply don’t make it, and his point was that it was the duty of government to help them. This attitude is, dare I say it, almost Christian.

The USA did not become Communist under FDR. It strikes me that many of the current arguments used against President Biden at present are similar in tone to those used against FDR. The Trump supporters I know are constantly screaming about how the USA will become a socialist country under Biden. And I have to ask--how will that happen? What does he stand for that is so ‘socialist’? Increasing the minimum wage? About time, if you ask me. Basic healthcare for all citizens? About time, if you ask me. Cheaper college education? About time, if you ask me. At present, the only people really doing exceptionally well in America are the exceptionally rich--who have no problems buying homes, owning property, buying planes or cars or boats, traveling, educating their children, or buying the best medical and legal care they can find. The middle class, which most people in my parents’ generation belonged to, has changed dramatically. It’s hard to know where most people fit these days. Most people I know own their own homes or apartments, can afford to travel, can afford to eat out, and can afford basic medical care. But exorbitant medical costs due to medical emergencies (e.g. expensive cancer treatments) might wipe them out, likewise outrageous legal fees in connection with a lawsuit. Most of the people I know have good medical insurance, but they still watch their expenses (do they need that dental appointment or MRI now or can they wait?). The children of some of them attended college on scholarships, as I did when I went to college and graduate school. I additionally received tuition assistance (TAP) from NY State because my father was unemployed at the time I started college. Thank God for that socialist program. Without such programs, many of us might not have gotten the educations that we received. Yes, God helps those who help themselves. Everybody knows that, and most people want to work and make a life for themselves and their families. But God forbid your father or mother or both became sick or died, when you were about to start college. In Hoover’s time, most people would have said to you ‘tough luck, you’re on your own. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and stop feeling entitled’. And you probably would not have attended college, because only the rich could afford it. Nowadays, you can afford college thanks to the social programs that are in place to help you. I think it’s much better to live in a country with ‘socialist’ programs than to live in one run by someone like Hoover. That’s just my opinion. But before you disagree with me, think about some of the benefits you've enjoyed courtesy of 'socialist' programs. And then I'll be willing to talk to you. 

More FDRs and less Trumps

Americans are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. At the base of the Statue of Liberty is Emma Lazarus' poem that includes the lines “Give me your tired, your poor,  your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” They did come, the poor, the starving, the disenfranchised, the explorers, the adventure-seekers, and those who simply wanted a new start and a new life. My grandfather and grandmother (my father's parents) left Italy for a better life in America, as did so many Europeans at the beginning of the 20th century. Their lives in America were often difficult, they may have struggled to survive, but many of them worked hard, lived together in large non-private family units, saved money, and got ahead. Many of them became successful, including my grandfather.

The Great Depression changed all that for many of them, including my grandfather, but after that came FDR and his New Deal, which helped get America back on its feet, and introduced the idea that the government could be responsible for taking care of its people (not a popular idea at all in the late 1800s). People forget this--that the Works Progress Administration, Social Security, and many other programs were instituted to help unemployed Americans get back to work or to provide financial support for them when they retired. As Wikipedia writes:

The New Deal was a series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms and regulations enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States between 1933 and 1936. It responded to needs for relief, reform and recovery from the Great Depression. Major federal programs included the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). They provided support for farmers, the unemployed, youth and the elderly. The New Deal included new constraints and safeguards on the banking industry and efforts to re-inflate the economy after prices had fallen sharply. New Deal programs included both laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs focused on what historians refer to as the "3 Rs": relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy back to normal levels and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.

Wikipedia also writes: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was created in 1933 to maintain public confidence and encourage stability in the financial system through the promotion of sound banking practices. It is an independent federal agency insuring deposits in U.S. banks and thrifts in the event of bank failures.

And in 1944, the G.I. Bill was established; it was officially called the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. This bill was created to help veterans of World War II. It established hospitals, made low-interest mortgages available and granted stipends covering tuition and expenses for veterans attending college or trade schools. (Wikipedia). My father benefited from the GI Bill; it allowed him to pursue a college and a graduate school education. He always spoke highly of it.

Imagine our lives without unemployment benefits, the GI Bill, Social Security, and the FDIC. I have personal experience with the importance of unemployment benefits, when my father was unemployable (due to illness) and out of work for almost two years and unemployment benefits helped us through that time, thank God. There would have been no other safety net. But when you look at all the benefits Americans enjoy and/or feel entitled to, it surprises me that the Trump-ites accept their existence. After all, FDR introduced what many die-hard Trump-ites would call socialist programs into American government; perhaps better put, FDR introduced Americans to the idea that government was there to help them, a philosophy that the rabid Trump-ites despise. A truly capitalistic country would not have allowed for Social Security, a program that even the Trump-ites will benefit from. But FDR was smart, and he did what he thought would benefit the country and get it back on its feet. It worked. Many of the programs were meant as temporary solutions, but some of them stuck and we still have them today, like Social Security.

I wrote a post back in February 2018 entitled More Lincolns and less Trumps: https://paulamdeangelis.blogspot.com/2018/02/more-lincolns-and-less-trumps.html . I have entitled this post More FDRs and less Trumps, because my respect is boundless when it comes to both Lincoln and FDR. We need more presidents like them. They were truly smart and empathetic presidents who did not need to spew their vitriol and anger out over the general populace with the sole intent of inciting unrest and division, and yes, more anger, as Trump does ad nauseam. 

Way to go, Dick’s Sporting Goods!

Thank you, Edward Stack, CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods, for doing something that not one politician seems to have the guts to do—take a real stand against the idiocy that passes for gun control in America. You did so on February 28^th, 2018, a day that should go down in American history as a turning point in the gun control war that has paralyzed politicians and polarized America. You got involved, you took a stand, you stood up for what’s right. You stated clearly that you were “deliberately steering your company directly into the storm over gun reform” and that you were “immediately ending sales of all assault-style rifles in your stores”. You also said that your store “would no longer sell high-capacity magazines and would also require any gun buyer to be at least 21, regardless of local laws” (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/business/walmart-and-dicks-major-gun-retailers-will-tighten-rules-on-guns-they-sell.html). Way to go, Dick’s Sporting Goods! I applaud you. You stood up to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and showed up the politicians for the spineless wimps they really are (so many of them are in the NRA’s pockets).

Walmart followed your example later in the day. I applaud them as well, and the many companies who stood up to the NRA last week, publicly ending their relationships (discounts, etc.) with them.

The NRA has about 5 million members according to many of the online sites I checked for information about this organization. The population of the USA in 2017 was 324,459,463 people. Five million members is circa 1.5% of the entire population. So tell me why this group wields so much power over America’s politicians? They’re no more than a minuscule percentage of the entire population. But they hold the politicians firmly in the palms of their hands. It all boils down to money, as does nearly everything in this world. They buy the politicians, and the politicians don’t want to lose the campaign contributions and support they get from the NRA, so their stances on gun control are those that are foisted on them by the NRA. The NRA are excellent lobbyists for their cause, I’ll give them that. But beyond that, I see no reason for why their points of view should determine public policy on an issue as important as gun control.

I am not opposed to hunters owning a hunting rifle (think Winchester or Marlin models) if the owner uses it to hunt animals or for protection out in the wild. But I have zero understanding for why any hunter would need an assault-style rifle like an AR-15 (used in wartime) to kill a deer or an elk. I have zero understanding for why any hunter would defend the use of assault-style rifles against any animal. They were designed for use in wartime, nothing more and nothing less. I don’t care if you are sound in mind and body; you cannot in good conscience defend ownership of assault-style rifles for hunting. My take on it is that you buy one of these rifles knowing full well that you may use it on a human being. You may think this is what it takes to defend your house, property and family. I have a hard time trying to imagine how you think or why you defend these weapons for personal use, together with the NRA. All I know is that how you think has evolved into how many people apparently think these days in modern America. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution certainly did not have assault-style rifles in mind when it said that we as Americans have the right to bear arms (The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"). Let’s amend that Amendment to something that makes sense, not continue to support a misguided idea that owning and using such weapons are protected by law. Really, use your heads, use the common sense God gave you. Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart finally did. Kudos to them. 

When was America great? A short history of America during the past century

I’ve been reflecting upon the expression ‘Make America Great Again’. Trump made this expression the cornerstone of his campaign. Apart from the rose-colored glasses nostalgic aspect of it, I cannot find one period in American history that didn’t have social problems, unrest, wars, or unemployment. The America that we know was born of a successful, but bitter and violent break with Great Britain--the Revolutionary War (1775–1783). We experienced a bitter and violent Civil War (1861-1865) that pitted the Northern States against the Southern Confederate (slave) States--families against families, friends against friends and neighbors against neighbors. The war nearly tore the nation apart. It is estimated that close to 700,000 soldiers died, along with an undetermined number of civilians, making it the deadliest war in American history, but slavery,which was one of the main issues over which it was fought, was eventually abolished.

So bringing us to modern times, to what period in time do Trump and his supporters want to return America? There is not one decade in the past century of American history that has been without strife, unrest, war, terrorism, unemployment, or social problems. Following the devastating Great Depression (1929-39), the country needed to rebuild its infrastructure and to get people working again. FDR’s programs helped to do that. But I found out this past summer that FDR had his opponents, and that one of them tried to assassinate him in 1933. His name was Giuseppe Zangara and he was executed in 1933 for that crime. America became involved in WWII following the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, and that war did not end until 1945. The country had to deal with returning veterans and how to reintegrate them into American society; women’s roles also changed, as they were now encouraged to re-embrace home and family after having staffed the munitions factories while the men were at war. The 1950s saw the Korean War (1950-1953); the US involvement in that war was wonderfully depicted in the 1970 film M*A*S*H and the TV series M*A*S*H that ran from 1972-1983. The 1950s will be remembered for the intensification of the Cold War (1945–1991) between the USA and the Soviet Union and the rise of McCarthyism and blacklisting of people deemed to be Communists. Civil rights for African-Americans was also a dominant and polarizing topic in the period from 1954–1968, with the attendant protests led by Martin Luther King Jr. and others. The fight for equal rights for all Americans, regardless of color and ethnicity, was not a pleasant one in our history, and has never been, stretching all the way back to the protests about slavery in the years leading up to, during, and after the Civil War.

1963 saw the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; it remains unclear why Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy or whether he acted alone or was part of a wider conspiracy. His assassination and the reasons for it have been the subject of official inquiries and innumerable books and articles for the past half century. In 1964 America became involved in the Vietnam War. That war began in 1954 and ended in 1975, but its escalation and American involvement was what dominated the 1960s and early 1970s. I remember being in grammar school and discussing America’s role in this war; our teachers made us read the newspaper articles about the war and discuss them in class. It was an extremely controversial war that led to protests and societal division; many young people protested this war, not surprisingly because it was the young men of this generation that were being sent to fight in this war that many Americans meant we had no business fighting. TV news coverage showed the casualties of war and reported the body count in a way that most Americans had never seen or heard before. The anti-war outrage on college campuses also led to violent outcomes; one need only remember Kent State University in Ohio and the 1970 shooting of four unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard during campus protests. The music (think the Woodstock music festival of 1969), writing and art of that era, as well as the hippie subculture (often connected with the anti-war movement), documented the outrage and unrest. It was not unusual growing up to see the peace-and-love hippie icons juxtaposed with the ‘Archie Bunker’ types (think about the TV show ‘All in the Family’ that ran from 1971 to 1979). This is the era when we were teenagers, and it was impossible not to be affected by what we saw and heard. The Watergate break-in/cover-up was also the political scandal of the 1970s; the Watergate investigation and hearings led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon and to forty-eight government officials being found guilty of burglary, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and perjury, among other crimes.

By the time the 1980s arrived, the USA was involved in the Iran hostage crisis (1979-1981), which led to the loss of the presidential election by Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan. Reagan survived an assassination attempt in 1981 by John Hinckley Jr. During the Reagan years, inflation levels increased, in part due to his expansionary fiscal policies aimed at stimulating the American economy, including oil deregulation policies. In October 1987, Black Monday occurred. It was the largest one-day market crash in history. The repercussions were felt well into the 1990s as it ushered in a new era of stock-market volatility. The Reagan years were not without their own political scandals--namely the Iran-Contra affair. The Reagan administration sold weapons to Iran; the money from these sales was used to provide CIA aid to pro-American guerrilla Contras in Nicaragua (see Wikipedia for more information). The end of the Cold War occurred during 1989-1991; Reagan was praised for calling on Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, which did occur in 1989 and for working together with Gorbachev to end the Cold War.

The 1990s was a decade of prosperity for America. Kurt Andersen of The New York Times described it best in an excellent article from 2015: (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-best-decade-ever-the-1990s-obviously.html?_r=0):

America at large was prospering in the ’90s. The United States economy grew by an average of 4 percent per year between 1992 and 1999. (Since 2001, it’s never grown by as much as 4 percent, and since 2005 not even by 3 percent for a whole year.) An average of 1.7 million jobs a year were added to the American work force, versus around 850,000 a year during this century so far. The unemployment rate dropped from nearly 8 percent in 1992 to 4 percent — that is, effectively zero — at the end of the decade……..
From 1990 to 1999, the median American household income grew by 10 percent; since 2000 it’s shrunk by nearly 9 percent. The poverty rate peaked at over 15 percent in 1993, then fell to nearly 11 percent in 2000, more or less its postwar low. During the ’90s, stocks quadrupled in value — the Dow Jones industrial average increased by 309 percent. You could still buy a beautiful Brooklyn townhouse for $500,000 or less. And so on.
By the end of the decade, in fact, there was so much good news — a federal budget surplus, dramatic reductions in violent crime (the murder rate in the United States declined by 41 percent) and in deaths from H.I.V./AIDS — that each astounding new achievement didn’t quite register as miraculous. After all, the decade had begun with a fantastically joyful and previously unimaginable development: The Soviet Empire collapsed, global nuclear Armageddon ceased to be a thing that worried anyone very much, and the nations of Eastern Europe were mostly unchained.

The 1990s also saw the terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center by Al-Qaeda in 1993, so that decade wasn’t all rosy and joyful. I remember that day very well, because my brother worked at the World Trade Center. I was working in San Francisco at the time, and spent the day trying frantically to reach him, without success. It wasn’t until late in the evening that he called me to tell me that he had taken the day off and had not been at work. He hadn’t become aware of what had happened until the afternoon because he had not heard the news. So that first terrorist attack on the Towers affected me and my sister too; you would not want to experience the feelings I had when I thought my brother and others might have been killed in the bombing. During the 1990s Bill Clinton enjoyed a successful first presidential period, but the second period was marred by the Lewinsky scandal. The OJ Simpson trial of 1995 and the 1998 grand jury investigation of Bill Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky did not do much for elevating respect for the USA globally—they were media circuses that should never have happened. In many ways they helped to tarnish the good name of our country, at least for a while.

In 2001 George W. Bush succeeded Bill Clinton as president; his presidential era (until 2009) will be remembered for the Al-Qaeda terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers on September 11th 2001. Before that attack, no one had heard of Osama bin Laden, but after the attacks, the hunt for him began in earnest. Again, I was frantic that day as well, because my brother was still working in that area, having left his job at one of the Towers for a job nearby. But again, as fate would have it, he had taken the day off. Bush’s tenure was marred by the Iraqi WMD controversy, the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal, and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp‎ controversy. He did not succeed in hunting down Osama bin Laden; that was accomplished by the Obama administration. The 2000s were characterized by recessions and global financial scandals, as well as huge changes for the IT industry. The latter changes have impacted on the way we live now; nearly everyone is connected to the internet and now owns a cell phone, usually a smart phone. Cell phones have become an appendage, a part of us. We ‘don’t leave home without them’. The way we use cell phones and the internet has in turn impacted on how the media presents the news to us. Social media has overtaken the traditional news media as a news source, for better or for worse. The traditional news media are scrambling to keep up. The 2016 election will go down in history as one that was dogged by false internet news sites that are thought to have negatively influenced the election results. Most of them were rabidly pro-Trump and by extension rabidly anti-Clinton.

Trump supporters would have you believe that Obama has ruined America. I don’t see that or even understand what they’re talking about, but it’s clear that they’re not referring to Obama’s America when they talk about returning to a time when America was great. Are they talking about the 1990s? That was the Democratic Clinton era in the White House, Americans enjoyed prosperity, women were making good strides in the workplace, and gender equality and equal pay for women were accepted as the norm, among other things. Women had the freedom to choose between family and career, or to choose both. They could marry later and have their children later. The Trump folk would have to admit that a Democrat did something right, and it's doubtful that they would do so. The 1990s also saw great advances in science, with the advent of the genomics era and the impact of that on personalized medicine.

Given that Trump and his coming administration have a predilection for sexism, misogyny and white supremacy, I cannot see how the 1990s would appeal to them at all. So we go back further to the 1980s and the Reagan era. Women at that time had the freedom to choose between family and career, or to choose both, and many struggled with their decisions. But it was an exciting time for women in the workplace, and feminism had firmly taken hold. So the Trump folk cannot hold this decade up as a model era for American greatness either, because it simply doesn’t fit with the American values they hold dear. Let’s examine the 1970s. I cannot for the life of me envision that this decade, or the 1960s for that matter, could be of any interest to the Trump folk. These decades were peopled by hippies, counterculture people, rock artists, beat poets, anti-Vietnam war protesters, and civil rights activists, among others. Far too liberal and left-wing for the Trump folk.

Back even further to the 1950s. This is possibly the only decade that I can envision the Trump folk possibly liking. Minorities knew their place, women knew their place, white men had the power in society and in the workplace, and a lot of wonderful platitudes about God and country were uttered. Communism was anathema and Communists in all walks of life had to be rooted out. The Soviet Union was the enemy (and now Trump is courting Putin's friendship in an odd twist of events--you would have thought he and his administration would be anti-Putin). If you were a Communist, you hated God and Christians. Americans tend to forget that they don’t own God. There is no place in the bible where it says that the USA is God’s favorite country. It didn’t exist when Christ lived. So we should be careful about claiming God for ourselves when we talk about our Christian values and wanting to return to a time when America was great, especially if that time does not support true Christian values. The 1950s were hardly the greatest time in America, as I’ve described above.

I grew up in the 1960s and 70s. We enjoyed summer picnics with family, ice cream sundaes with family and friends to celebrate a successful school year, sitting on front stoops on summer evenings talking to the neighbors, playing with our friends, and taking vacations to the New England states and trips to amusement parks. Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter holidays were spent with family after we had been to mass in the morning. We went to Catholic grammar school, were taught by the nuns, and then some of us went our separate ways once it was time to go to high school. Life was fairly idyllic, as it probably is for most children who grow up safe and sound in good families with good parents. Once we got to college, our lives changed irrevocably, became uncertain, risky, and a bit scary. What would become of us, would we make it in society, would we get a job, would we succeed? Would we marry and have a family? Would we maintain our friendships? If I am nostalgic at times, it is for the times before everyone separated and went their own ways. When you could spend hours together with good friends and/or siblings and not think about time passing, when parents were still alive and in good health--all those things. Time doesn't stand still, and nostalgia is just that, a poignant and bittersweet reminder of happy past times. We cannot go back, no matter how much we might miss those times. Because each person has a period in his or her life that he or she might want to return to at times. But the point is that those times are as individual as the person who remembers them. They are not the same for all.

And that brings me back to returning to a time when America was great. We can't, because what truly makes America great is that has experienced, dealt with, and survived the problems that have been thrown at it during each decade since the early part of the 20th century. There isn't one best decade. America has been mired in controversy, wars and protests from the day it was born, and it has evolved, survived and flourished. It has kept its doors open to diversity and heterogeneity. It airs its dirty laundry to the world in a way that no European country ever has or will do. But despite Trump's win, I believe that the majority of America's inhabitants still believe in the real values on which it was founded—liberty and justice for all. That is what America stands for, and what I hope it always stands for.

A new America?

And so, for many people, the unthinkable happened last Tuesday, November 8th. Donald Trump won the presidential election. My husband told me before I had even gotten out of bed the next morning, and my first response was s**t. Not because it was a real surprise to me (it wasn’t), but because I sensed that the repercussions would be negative. And they have been, for many people. It was as though the world turned upside-down, strong hardy trees were uprooted, and nothing was the same anymore. It was finding out through the gloating of Trump supporters on Facebook, some of whom are friends that you thought you knew, that you don't really know them. I have resisted the desire to delete them from my friends list, but that may change if they continue to gloat. Because the gloating has a hard edge to it, and because there is little to no tolerance of beliefs or opinions other than their own; your different opinion is almost viciously dismantled. Some of them are white people of privilege, with nice homes, nice cars and money for vacations and eating out several times a week. They are not lower middle class; they have worked for the success they have attained and they deserve it, but now that they have attained it, they have forgotten how they struggled. They are angry at the minorities they perceive are taking away their jobs and who are getting healthcare for free. I know this may be a problem, but I don't know that Facebook is the place to tackle it or to vent your hatred of these people. I cannot believe some of the articles posted by some of these people. Why not get involved in politics yourselves? They say they are not racist, and I’d like to believe them. But I don’t know if I can, because they do not stand up against the appointment of the white supremacist Steven Bannon as Trump’s chief strategist. They are not furious about the fact that the Ku Klux Klan is planning a parade in December (on my birthday as far as I’ve heard) to celebrate Trump’s win. Because it’s not just Democrat versus Republican anymore; it’s white America against multicultural America (many of whom may be racist themselves, but that’s another story because they are not verbalizing their vitriol so I have no way of knowing and commenting on it).

My disappointment extends to the Christian community as well. I am Catholic, and during the summer when I was in NY, I listened to different clergy members in person and on TV basically endorse Trump from their pulpits. Why? Because he is anti-abortion. Many of us are; but I do not vote on that one issue alone. Many of the Trump supporters did just that—voted for him because he is anti-abortion. Maybe that makes them better Christians and Catholics than I am. I am not in a position to judge them since I don’t know what is really in their hearts. It’s a true dilemma for me. Should I have voted for Trump just because he is anti-abortion? Is that the definition of a good Catholic? Then I am not one. Yet Christ said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I hope that Christ will judge me on every other thing I do for my fellow human beings—my fight for justice in the workplace, my standing up against the bullying I see around me—again mostly in the workplace, my embracement of people of all colors and religions (something I’ve done all my life because I had parents who did the same and taught us that—I have friends from Africa, India, Iran, Europe and the States, who are Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Protestant and Catholic), my big heart that always makes room to include one more person into a social circle, my willingness to listen and understand the other side. Do I lose my temper at times and get angry? Do I lose my patience? Do I hate stupidity when I see it? The answer is yes to all those questions. And the answer will continue to be yes because I am a human being. There is nothing to forgive concerning the other side. The Trump supporters have done nothing wrong personally to me. And yet, I have moved away from them in my heart. I will be better off emotionally right now for having done so, even though I feel bad about saying that, because it doesn't sound Christian. We'll see what the future brings.

This past week has been quite upsetting to me emotionally. Before the election, I had a lot of anxiety, and after it, a lot of sadness. I feel sorry for American families who are split down the middle; sibling against sibling, parent against child—when it comes to who they voted for and why. Thanksgiving is coming up next week, and there is a lot to be thankful for. But it may be very difficult to focus on that because of the hurt feelings on both sides. I am not going to be one of those who calls for healing or tells people to get over it. I think this is one of the first times in my adult life that I have seen America wake up from its stupor to find itself possibly going over the cliff. I will tell people to stand up and fight for what they really believe in, even if it means that they cut ties with some people they know. Because isn’t that what Christ preached? He said "If you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower. You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life". I’ve never really understood that preaching until this past week. Standing up for what we believe in may separate people, and it may cause grief and tears. But it may be the first real act of courage that we perform in our lives, whether we like it or not. No one said we would like it. We were not promised a rose garden on this earth.

Goodbye Palisades, Hello LG Tower!

Please join the fight to stop LG from building its high-rise tower in Englewood Cliffs NJ, that will RUIN the Palisades. This fight can be won if enough people voice their opinions, boycott LG and step up to the plate to fight. Let's win this for future generations. Because if we lose this fight, the beauty of this historic natural park/landmark will be destroyed forever.