By Michael Kaufman

I had hoped the annoying email from the AARP would stop after I didn’t renew my membership a while back. I should live so long. They are relentless. And just in case I don’t look at my email, they make sure to send regular reminders via the U.S. Postal Service. Those I don’t mind quite as much. I want Crystal, our letter carrier, to keep her job, along with all the postal workers around the country whose jobs are being threatened by the austerity hawks in Congress.

Really, I don’t need an AARP card to show that I qualify for the senior discounts. And lately I’m finding their emails at least as annoying as the letters I get from Publishers Clearing House announcing in big, bold type that I could be the next winner of their Grand Prize. Look closely and there is small type saying “no purchase necessary,” and “odds of winning Grand Prize: 300,000,000 to one.” At least the AARP gave better odds in their email last month when they wrote, “Michael, We’re Giving Away $25,000 in the Brain Health Sweepstakes – Enter for Your Chance to Win.” I didn’t read any further: Brain health isn’t my forte.

Then there was one that said, “Michael, Intimacy After 50: What’s Normal?” I have to admit I was tempted to read that one just to see what they had to say on the subject. I imagine they don’t think highly of whips and chains and such. That reminds me of my favorite line from Eating Raoul where Paul Bartel as Paul Bland says, “I’m into S&M and she’s into B&D and we met at the A&P.” I like that movie.

There was one in January: “Michael, For a Limited Time Save 40% on the AARP Driver Safety course.” And in February: “Michael, For a Limited Time Save 20% on the AARP Driver Safety course.” That would have really bugged me if I were going to take a driver safety course and I’d missed out on that 40% off deal. There was another in March: “Michael, For a Limited Time Save 30% on the AARP Driver Safety course.” Now I’m waiting for that 40% off to come around again. When it does I’m going to jump on it. (I told you brain health isn’t my forte.) I figure you can never learn too much about safe driving.

The one on March 29 was kind of spooky: “Michael, Why Do Couples Split after 25 Years or More?” I didn’t look at that one either but I suppose they split for the same reasons couples split after fewer than 25 years. But the thing that was spooky about it is that Eva-Lynne and I would soon be celebrating our 25th anniversary. Was AARP trying to tell us something?

And then there was one that resembled a headline in the National Enquirer: “Michael, You Can Prevent Arthritis with These 7 Tips.” I have no idea what the tips are but it is way too late for me to prevent arthritis. I’ll tell you this though: If AARP can come up with some tips that will cure arthritis, I might consider renewing my membership. But for now I’ll pass.

At a time when issues of vital concern to seniors, when Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are on the chopping block, AARP sent, “Michael, These Inns Are So Fancy You May Never Want to Leave Your Room.” The accompanying text describes “Quaint inns for the astute and deep-pocketed traveler.” Of one, AARP wrote, “Countless repeat guests don’t blink at the $1,260-and-up nightly tab, which includes three sumptuous, made-to-order gourmet meals each day; plentiful outdoor activities, from snowshoeing to flyfishing; and personalized service that extends to round-trip transfers from distant airports.”

I replied to that one April 27: “Shame on you, AARP.” So far they haven’t answered.

Michael can be reached at michael@zestoforange.com.

 By Michael Kaufman

After an extensive review of research worldwide, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) has published its findings on the cancer risk to humans posed by exposure to cell-phone radiation and other devices involving radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as Wi-Fi.  The conclusions suggest that “it is time for all nations to review their cell-phone regulatory standards and testing procedures in order to protect their citizens from preventable risks,” says Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. Also, adds Moskowitz, who has read the entire 471-page WHO monograph, “It is critical that governments provide ample warnings to cell-phone users how to use their phones safely.”

In a press release posted April 19, Moskowitz points out that according to the IARC, “Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).”  Children are particularly vulnerable because “the average exposure from use of the same mobile phone is higher by a factor of two in a child’s brain and higher by a factor of 10 in the bone marrow of the skull.” Moreover, he notes, a child’s brain develops at a greater rate than the adult brain, adding to the risk.

The report represents the consensus of a “Working Group” of 31 international experts who met in Lyon, France, in May 2011. Moskowitz says that some recent studies that provide further evidence for increased cancer risk due to exposure to cell-phone radiation were not reviewed. Meanwhile, other recent studies have linked cell-phone radiation with other harmful effects on humans, “especially on sperm and the fetus.” The IARC reviewed research involving users of legally-acquired cell phones that had passed regulatory standards. Although users were exposed to “non-thermal doses of microwave radiation,” the IARC concluded there is some evidence that these exposures caused increased risk of glioma (a type of brain tumor that is often malignant) and acoustic neuroma (a benign tumor affecting nerves that run from the inner ear to the brain).  “Thus,” says Moskowitz, “it is time for all nations to review their cell-phone regulatory standards and testing procedures in order to protect their citizens from preventable risks. Also, it is critical that governments provide ample warnings to cell-phone users how to use their phones safely.”

According to Moskowitz, 15 nations and the European Union have already issued precautionary warnings about cell-phone radiation. “Many of these warnings strongly encourage limiting use by children and teenagers, as well as adherence to cell phone manufacturers’ recommendations that you must keep the phone away from your body when it is turned on,” he explained, adding, “It is amazing what you can find in small print!”

So why has the WHO report fallen on deaf ears so to speak in the United States? Moskowitz thinks federal agencies have been in denial about health risks from cell-phone radiation because of “tremendous political and economic power” exerted by the wireless industry. “The industry has been very successful in co-opting many scientists worldwide and employs many of the tactics developed by the tobacco industry,” he maintains. Thus, despite numerous attempts, no state has been able to pass cell-phone precautionary legislation and San Francisco is the only city that has adopted a precautionary cell-phone ordinance. Even that may be gone soon, says Moskowitz, because of a lawsuit filed on behalf of the wireless industry in the federal courts. It appears that the “free speech rights of industry trump the public’s right to know.” The irony, he says, is that no one is suggesting that anyone give up using cell phones or Wi-Fi. “We are simply arguing we need to develop safer technologies, stronger regulations, and teach people how to use these technologies in a safe manner.”

My wife Eva-Lynne has already been putting all her calls on speaker phone at home and in the car, especially since her recent surgery to remove a parotid tumor adjacent to her right ear—the one she always used to put against the phone. It is a minor annoyance to have to listen to some conversations (especially when I hear her talking to her mother and suspect they’re talking about me) when I’m trying to focus on work. But it is well worth it if it can reduce the risk of cancer. And now I have no choice but to urge our kids to follow suit. The thought of listening to some of their conversations makes me shudder….. but it sure as hell beats cancer.

Michael can be reached at michael@zestoforange.com.

By Michael Kaufman

Brendan Gill, whose prose graced the pages of The New Yorker for more than 60 years, described Opus 40 as “the greatest earthwork sculpture I have ever seen” and deemed it “one of the largest and most beguiling works of art on the entire continent. “ Opus 40 has been listed in the National Register of Historic Places since 2001. The register is maintained by the National Park Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of the Interior, but that is the extent of the government’s contribution to maintenance of the 6 ½-acre bluestone sculpture created by Harvey Fite over a period of 37 years in an abandoned quarry in Saugerties. (This is where I would be inserting a photograph or two were it not for bandwidth issues that occasionally bedevil the Zest of Orange site. So here is a link to the Opus 40 home page, where you can see for yourself and read more about the history of the place: http://www.opus40.org/)

Opus 40 has special meaning for me: Next week Eva-Lynne and I will be celebrating the 25th anniversary of our wedding, which took place there. But it has even more meaning to Tad Richards. “This is an important and beautiful work of art, created by my stepfather Harvey Fite, and it’s been my major concern for the last quarter century,” Richards wrote in a recent email. “Our literature says that ‘with proper care and maintenance, Opus 40 could still be standing a thousand years from now,’ and this is true, but the proper care and maintenance is the key. We do a lot of maintenance every year…But there are some areas which need more than that… areas that will naturally sink, and there are areas that over time get clogged so that water can’t pass through freely, and it backs up and causes pressure.

“There are two places where there have been slight bulges for as long as I can remember – probably 50 years,” he continued. “With Hurricane Irene and the severe weather that came on the fringes of Hurricane Sandy, one of those areas finally blew out, and the other – on the main ramp – has gotten much worse, and needs to be attended to.

“We want to address these important issues this spring. The work will be supervised by a local master stonemason, Timothy Smith of Hudson… Now we need the money to do all this work. Won’t you please help?”

Richards knows these are difficult times for a lot of people in our region. “Any donation, however small, will make a difference,” he says. “If you can give more, that would be wonderful.” Donations to Opus 40 are tax deductible.

You can donate with Paypal or a credit card at www.opus40.org/donation — or you can also call Opus 40 at 845-246-3400 to donate by credit card, or send a check to Opus 40, 50 Fite Road, Saugerties, NY 12477.

“Or,” wrote Richards, “stop by so we can thank you in person! All of the money you donate will go directly to the fund. Our management fees are zero.” I will be making a donation as soon as I finish this post.

Michael can be reached at michael@zestoforange.com.

By Michael Kaufman

Across the street from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, where my wife Eva-Lynne had surgery recently, a sign welcomes visitors to the George Washington Carver Houses, home to more than 2,800 residents, most of whom will never see the inside of Mount Sinai Hospital unless they work there. The same is true of the many other public housing projects that extend further north into East Harlem, also known as Spanish Harlem because the majority of residents in the neighborhood are Latino. This is not because the people who live in the projects are healthier than other people. They are just poorer.

When they get sick they go to Metropolitan Hospital, a public facility administered by the city’s Health and Hospital Corporation. The doctors, nurses and other members of the healthcare team at Metropolitan do their best — but it is often not nearly enough, as described by comments posted online by patients:

“I had the misfortune of having to go the ER and not know any better. Please don’t go to this hospital, even if it’s the closest one and your life is in danger. My boyfriend and I recently spent nearly 10 hours in the ER just WAITING to get my test results back. The room I was in had chipped tiles and paint peeling off of the walls. The bathroom I had to use was possibly the most unsanitary one I’ve seen. The bathrooms at Starbucks and McDonalds are more sanitary…. There wasn’t an emergency call button to push in case you needed a nurse. I was lucky enough to have my boyfriend with me to flag down a nurse when I needed oxygen, but even then, that took forever to get a response.”

“After a short time in the ER waiting room, I did have to wait a few hours on a bed behind a curtain to see an actual doctor…. A male nurse was exceptionally professional and drew my blood and hooked me up to an IV. A female intern was also professional and asked me what the problem was. The actual doctor who examined me was to the point, but also professional. There were horrific moans and cursing and occasional screaming from other patients in the emergency room (homeless, very poor, mentally ill), and I felt I was going nuts listening to all this. So I am in awe of the people who have to work there every day. I could not do it.”

“Not a bad place, when considering that this is one of the only major hospitals in the area after Mount Sinai. However, this hospital lacks so many basic amenities that other locations such as Bellevue have. It seemed to me last time I went that doctors were not aware of what is going on with patients and the nurses double as the receptionists.”

Across town at Mount Sinai the waiting room is crowded but comfortable and several receptionists are on hand to direct people to their destinations. A food court one flight downstairs sells sandwiches, salads, bakery items, juice, soft drinks and Starbucks coffee. While waiting to be admitted, patients may read a brochure for “Eleven West at Mount Sinai,” a section of the hospital reserved for the super rich, so exclusive that none of the hospital employees I asked could even tell me how much it cost to stay there. None of the nurses or aides who cared for Eva-Lynne during her stay had ever entered its hallowed halls. Reading the description made me wish I was a sick rich guy.

“A total of 19 rooms and suites makes up Eleven West, each with its own private bathroom.” A photo shows a huge room with fine furniture and two windows offering magnificent views. “Premium features” available to patients include “cuisine that matches top New York City dining.” (Eva-Lynne got some watery cream of wheat for breakfast. The night before when she asked for a second cup of yogurt they said they were all out.) If only she had stayed in Eleven West. There “each meal is memorable….thanks to a private kitchen that offers gourmet meals three times daily to patients and their guests.” Culinary-trained chef Juliet DaSilva-Inniss’ “signature selections” include Moroccan Spiced Rack of Lamb served with Jewel Couscous and Sauteed Seasonal Vegetables, and Wild Salmon Wrapped in Yukon Gold Potato Crust served with Oven Roated Asparagus and Mango Aioli.” Which do you think Donald Trump would order if he had to go in for, say, a hernia or maybe a hair-transplant procedure?

Eva-Lynne really would have liked a couple of the other premium features too, especially the ”reverse sateen, 300-thread count bed linens” and complimentary monogrammed white robe“ upon admission.” She got scratchy sheets and the same unflattering green hospital gown that Jack Nicholson memorably wore in As Good As it Gets.  (If you didn’t see the movie, let’s just say that buns of steel he didn’t have.) She would also have enjoyed the “daily afternoon tea in the sitting room.” I can just hear her asking if they have chamomile and would they mind bringing some honey to go with it.

Maybe she would even have liked having a “private television with cable service.” We tried to get the one in her room to work so we could watch the current Korean drama, Love, My Love, but we couldn’t figure out how to put the order in. You had to use both the telephone in the room and the remote control of the TV to make the $10 payment. When one of the nurses saw us struggling she tried to help but after about 10 minutes of futility she gave up. “They changed the system,” she said. “It used to be much easier.” We didn’t mind that much because we had the DVR set to record that night’s episode and we watched it after we got home. (Yunsik still didn’t want Seunghi to marry Dongyeong for reasons too complicated to go into here. But one thing is for sure: No way is she going to end up with Taebeom!)

We didn’t get any “complimentary Belgian chocolates upon discharge,” either. We got a parking ticket. And we are still a whole lot better off than the people who have to go to Metropolitan Hospital for treatment.

Michael can be reached at michael@zesoforange.com.

By Michael Kaufman

Gerald Eskenazi described the stance perfectly in the Wall Street Journal. “When Stan Musial stepped into the batter’s box, he was unforgettable: He stood at the plate using a peculiar, corkscrewed stance, untwisting as the ball approached, rifling singles, doubles, triples and home runs in numbers few others ever reached. When this most amiable of men held a bat, he reeked of danger.”

When I was a kid I often tried copying Musial’s unique batting stance. Let’s just say I did not reek of danger. I fared somewhat better when copying the stance of my hero, Duke Snider of the Brooklyn Dodgers. So what was a kid who rooted for the Dodgers doing copying Musial’s batting stance in the first place? Musial, who died last month at 92, played for the St. Louis Cardinals.

“Yes, he was St. Louis’s own—there are two statues of him at their ballpark—and he brought fame to his coal-country birthplace in Donora, Pa.,” wrote Eskenazi. “It was in Brooklyn, though, where he was tagged by fans as ‘the Man’ in honor of the way he regularly demolished the Dodgers. How many visiting ballplayers are regarded as a beloved foe?”   Eskenazi noted a certain irony in Musial’s appeal to Dodger fans, known for being emotional and rowdy.  “He was not flashy, or big or particularly fast. He greeted fans at the park with a low-keyed ‘Whattayasay, whattayasay.’” Unless my mind is playing tricks on me that is exactly what he said when he gave me his autograph on Stan Musial Day at the Polo Grounds in 1962. I think he homered in that game too. Musial was 41 at the time but he did the same thing to the Mets that he used to do to the Dodgers. The only difference was that most hitters on the opposing teams also clobbered Mets pitching that first season. (That year the Mets hitters also made most of the opposing pitchers look like Sandy Koufax.) Musial finished the 1962 season with a batting average of .330. He hit so well against the Mets he even decided not to retire for another year.

In 1964 I went with a group of friends to see the Mayor’s Trophy Game—a pre-season exhibition game between the Mets and New York Yankees—at the new Shea Stadium. But the start was delayed by rain and the game was canceled. Just as we left the ballpark to head for the subway a door opened and the entire Yankee team came out and began walking toward a team bus parked nearby. We stopped in our tracks and joined other Mets fans in booing. My friend Mike Saperstein looked Mickey Mantle in the eye and said, “You couldn’t tie Stan Musial’s shoelaces!” Mantle’s jaw dropped and we all laughed and slapped palms with Sap, as he was known to us all except one knucklehead who shall remain nameless who insisted on calling him Max. When finally asked why, he said, “Isn’t his name Max? Max Applestein.” (Ironically, both Mantle and Musial outlived Sap.)

I had no friends who were Yankee fans. Before the Mets came to town we had all rooted for the Dodgers or New York Giants, fierce rivals in the National League. But when it came to the Yankees, we had a united front that even Georgi Dimitrov would have envied. Only later did I come to appreciate Mantle for the great player he was.

But there was no one quite like Stan the Man.

Michael can be reached at michael@zestoforange.com.

By Michael Kaufman

I used to own a gun. I kept it hidden in a shoebox in the attic, where it remained unfired for years. I was comforted by its presence. I thought it might come in handy some day if a dangerous criminal came to our house, or maybe a gang of anti-Semites or the Ku Klux Klan. We lived in Englewood, New Jersey, at the time but hey, you never know. Besides, we have something in this country called the Second Amendment that says that American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.

The Founding Fathers of our Revolutionary government gave us this right so we could protect ourselves against any attempt by future government leaders to establish a dictatorship. Maybe I would need my gun to help keep the fascists from taking over. I could not have imagined that some 40 years later a delusional right-wing candidate for the United States Senate would speak openly about “Second Amendment remedies” or that gun-toting right-wing militia groups around the country would be preparing for battle against a government they perceive as barreling towards socialism. (The odd thing about this is that corporate rule in this country has never been stronger.) Some scary people are out there now with guns—and I’m not talking about the mentally ill ones who go on killing sprees at schools, movie theaters and other public places.

You can see some of them on the TV news: wackos like Ted Nugent (who predicted he’d either be dead or in jail if President Obama were re-elected) and the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre (who said in a 1995 a fund-raising letter to NRA members: “The semiauto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.”) Six days later NRA member Timothy McVeigh used a similar argument to justify using a fertilizer bomb hidden in a truck to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people including 19 children under the age of six.

I never thought about using a fertilizer bomb but sometimes I fantasized about using my gun to kill a Nazi war criminal, an old Hungarian guy who lived a few blocks from our house. The Hungarian government had been asking for years that he be sent to Hungary to stand trial. But the U.S. allowed him to remain here, accepting his argument that he couldn’t get a fair trial under that country’s Communist government. This man’s crimes were described by Charles R. Allen, Jr., in his book Nazi War Criminals Among Us (1963). Chuck Allen was one of my journalistic heroes, a great investigative reporter who devoted much of his work to exposing the presence of numerous Nazi war criminals in the U.S.  (For more information about his life and work, copy and paste “Charles R. Allen Jr (Saidel)” into your browser bar: The actual link is too long to print here but those search words will lead to a 2005 obituary and it is a darn good read.)

Even now I don’t think it was so unreasonable to entertain thoughts about shooting the old Nazi. I knew from my few trips to the shooting range, however, that I’m not a good marksman: I never got close to a bullseye and was lucky to even hit the target. What if I missed the Nazi and shot an innocent bystander, a child, or even the guy’s wife?  I never fired the gun. The bastard died of old age.

One day my wife was looking for something in the attic and she noticed the shoebox. I had never told her or anyone else in the family about the gun. This led to an argument that I lost: She didn’t give a fig about Second Amendment rights, protecting our house from criminals, anti-Semites, racists, or the coming of fascism. We had children. As unlikely as it may have been for them to climb into the attic, find the gun in the shoebox, figure out how to use it….and to then shoot and possibly maim or kill someone (even themselves) with it—it wasn’t worth the risk. She was right. Statistics show that many more deaths occur to family members in the homes of people who have guns than in homes without the guns. So one day when I wasn’t home she threw it in a dumpster.

And if the government ever becomes so insufferable and tyrannical that the majority of people find it necessary to rise up against it,  those weapons you or I may own won’t help much. But that doesn’t mean all would be lost, either.

Gandhi, anyone?

Michael can be reached at michael@zestoforange.com.

By Michael Kaufman

I am always amazed when I hear some millionaire or billionaire (or their spokespeople in Congress or Fox News or talk radio) proclaim, “We’re broke!” According to them, our government no longer has the means to continue safety net programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

They themselves are not broke, of course. They’re doing just fine. And if you ask them, everyone in this country is pretty well off too, so we don’t really need the safety net anymore. They’re just symptoms of the “nanny state” anyway and that’s what’s wrong with this country by golly: all those people looking for handouts (you know, like retirees, veterans and disabled folks). You’ve probably heard statements of this sort (either on Fox News or on The Daily Show when Jon Stewart shows clips of the dumb things they say on Fox News):  “Poor people never had it so good as they have it now in the U.S. They have refrigerators, air conditioners and television sets. How bad off can they be?”

The Wall Street Journal published an article recently that even tried to make the case that the “middle class” in this country has not been harmed by the fact that real wages (adjusted for cost of living changes) have not gone up in decades as wealth has ballooned for a small percentage of people at the top of the economic ladder. According to the writer, wages aren’t a good measure anymore because of all the advances that have taken place that make life better for us all, as in healthcare, for example. (I’m not making this up.)

Another article in the WSJ a while back suggested that income disparity is good for everybody. The writer used Michael Jordan as an example. See, when Jordan was leading the Chicago Bulls to championships, his mediocre teammates got paid better, the arena was packed, which meant more people were hired to prepare and serve food and show people to their seats. Talk about a win-win. But a two-hour drive from Chicago would have taken the author to Freeport, Ill., and the shut down Sensata plant. Sensata, which manufactures sensor parts for the auto industry, is owned by Bain Capital, the private equity company founded by Mitt Romney. Despite a profitable 2011 Sensata laid off all the workers in Freeport last year and moved manufacturing to China—but not before forcing the American workers to train their replacements. Ironically, the plant was shut down the day before Election Day.

As described by Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America’s Future, “Bain’s business model is to purchase companies using ‘leveraged buyouts’ that borrow huge sums using the purchased company’s own assets as collateral, uses the borrowed money to immediately pay itself, then cuts costs by doing things like sending jobs to China, cutting wages and manipulating tax rules to cut taxes owed, along with standard big-business practices like consolidating business units, taking advantage of economies of scale not available to smaller competitors, squeezing distribution channels for price cuts, and other practices that bring competitive advantages.”

Bain is “entitled” to do this under the current laws of the United State of America. I think it’s about time we had some entitlement reform to stop this kind of thing from happening. If a U.S.-based company making good profits in this country wants to move to China, it should be allowed to do so only after providing extended health benefits and severance packages to each and every person who will lose a job as a reult of the move–or not be permitted to move at all.

Another entitlement in need of reform is the one that permits the underachieving or none-too-bright sons and daughters of wealthy people to attend great colleges and universities simply because a relative went there before. These “legacy students” are taking up space that might otherwise be given to hard-working students who have earned admission but whose families cannot afford the steep cost of sending them to a place like Yale or Harvard, for example. A worthy reform might be to require those who can readily afford it to pay for the education of one of those deserving people in addition to that of their own family member. The deserving individual would be selected at random from a pool of worthy candidates regardless of their race, creed or color. All they would have in common is that their families can’t afford to send them to the school. This would avoid the usual complaints about “reverse discrimination” that accompany affirmative action measures, while still advancing the goals because a disproportionate percentage of minority community members will be represented.

Why is someone who inherits a large piece of land “entitled” to sell it to developers for commercial use? Why is the concept of “private property” more important than preservation of the earth and the health of its inhabitants? Now there is some fertile ground for entitlement reform. Feel free to add your own. And for goodness sakes, let’s not allow them to take away the safety net:  Hands off Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid!

Michael can be reached at michael@zestoforange.com.

By Michael Kaufman

I did a double take the other day when I saw the drawing of a face on the cover of a used book on sale in front of Ye Olde Warwick Bookshop. Only the cigar protruding from the man’s mouth told me it wasn’t the face of my father. The title of the book is You’re Entitle’ and the man smoking the cigar is its author, Harry Golden.

You’re Entitle’, published in 1962, was not nearly as successful as its predecessors, Only in America (1958), For 2¢ Plain (1958) and Enjoy, Enjoy! (1960). Those were his best known works, composed of selections from his writings in The Carolina Israelite, a newsletter he published from Charlotte, N.C., from 1942 to 1968. The newsletter enjoyed a national circulation via mail subscriptions. Golden used its pages to voice his opinions on many issues of the day, most famously his opposition to the segregation laws that still held sway in the southern states.

In the introduction to You’re Entitle’, his son, Harry, Jr., asks, “How many men can say—My father is a brave man?” He describes his father as “this fat little guy, short of breath, with his cigars and ideas in Charlotte; this immigrant and Yankee in the native- born South; this Jew in the citadel of Anglo-Saxon Protestantism; this integrationist in a land of segregation; this happy reformer among the complacent….He is the champion of many causes—some lost—but many, like the cause of the Southern Negro, that will inevitably be won.”

I would have bought the book if only because of the face on the cover that reminded me of my father; not to mention that pop had been an admirer of Golden. I was also intrigued by the title: I’ve been thinking a lot lately about “entitlements” and all the recent yammering about “entitlement reform.” Neither my father nor Harry Golden lived to see the election (and re-election!) of the first African-American president, which both would have celebrated. But I doubt either would care much for his willingness to embrace any  “entitlement reform” that would entail cuts in funding and benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Golden dedicated the book to his father, who emigrated to America from the Galicean town of Mikulinz. “All his life he spoke a halting English, though he certainly made his ideas clear enough,” wrote Golden. “He was enamored of the phrase, ‘You’re entitle’.’ In his youth, Golden would correct him, saying, “It ends with a d, Poppa.” His father would nod understandingly “but the next time it still came out, ‘You’re entitle’.’

That word, wrote Golden, “was the expression of a free man. No one was entitled in Eastern Europe. You served in the army for 10 years and it entitled you to nothing. Your taxes entitled you to no franchise. But in America men were free and entitled…” Golden wrote those words in 1962. My, how times have changed.

Here is what Golden said in a brief paragraph on foreign relations: “One of our crass stupidities is not realizing the strength of the most potent legislation of our times—social security.” He expresses annoyance that the benefits of social security are not broadcast in Spanish. “Uncle José returns to one of the Latin-American countries after working 30 years in the United States and there he sits every month and Uncle Sam sends him a check—magnifico!” Golden believed that providing social security in this manner would create goodwill towards the United States and diminish the appeal of communism among people in those lands. Today social security itself is under attack by right-wing idealogues, such as Paul Ryan, and it is almost unthinkable for anyone to advocate that it and other benefits, such as health care, be provided to undocumented workers.  In a later passage he suggests that both Republicans and Democrats need to change their attitudes towards the peoples of the rest of the world. “We need to accept humanity, and understand that these are people like ourselves.” Disrespecting someone’s homeland by calling it a “banana republic” will only antagonize the people who live there, he explains.

“It was easy to lick Mexico, to send the Marines to Paraguay, to patronize the Panamanians. And we never paid the slightest attention to many Latin Americans of considerable stature we had among our own people. Instead we sent New Englanders as ambassadors, men who had no sympathy for these people. Behind them came the big companies, vast mechanical monsters systematically removing the oil and the sugar and the raw materials. With friendship and a sense of partnership, discarding the ‘banana republic’ attitude, we could have built a tremendous moral force among our neighbors that would have been a model for the world.”  We know how that worked out. Our leaders still like to say we are a “model for the world” and we seem to like to hear it.  But it hasn’t sold too well to people in Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay and Venezuela in recent elections in those countries.

I have a few more things to say about entitlements, but I think I’ll save them for next time. I’ll end this post with a few more words from Harry Golden. Why? Because you’re entitle’ of course!

“All the upheavals and protests around the world have been triggered by one singular need—the need for human dignity. This is true in countries where the most unbelievable poverty exists….where sanitation conditions are as primitive as they were in the 12th century; yet when the students get out on the square to do their snake dance and shout slogans it is not for wages or shorter hours or for increased foreign aid from the United States. In every case it has had to do with their status as human beings, their need for acceptance as part of the open society of mankind, as equals.”

Michael can be reached at michael@zestoforange.com.

By Michael Kaufman

You probably never heard of Elfriede Scholz or Irene Wosikowski. I hadn’t heard of these two heroic women either until I learned about them from a most unlikely source: an article in the current issue of the journal Clinical Anatomy titled, “The Women on Stieve’s List: Victims of National Socialism Whose Bodies Were Used for Anatomical Research” by Sabine Hildebrandt, M.D. I also never heard of “Stieve’s List” before I read the article by Hildedbrandt, a lecturer in the division of anatomical sciences at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.

The list everyone knows about with regard to the Nazis is (of course) the one kept by Oscar Schindler for the purpose of saving lives. Professor Dr. Hermann Stieve (1886-1952) was no Oscar Schindler. Rather, Stieve, a leading anatomist at the University of Berlin and the Berlin Charité Hospital “exploited the killing programs of the Third Reich to conduct studies on the female reproductive system,” according to William E. Seidelman, M.D., professor in the department of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, who has researched the complicit role of the medical profession in Nazi atrocities.

The “perturbing category of eminent exploiters” includes “illustrious universities, research institutes and, in one documented instance, an eminent museum — whose quarry were the cadavers of Jewish and non-Jewish victims of Nazi terror,” wrote Seidelman in an article published in 1999 in Dimension (a journal of Holocaust studies). “These macabre spoils of Nazi slaughter remained in these institutions’ collections (anatomical, pathological and anthropological) for decades after the end of the war.” They are “tangible evidence” of the shameful role played by medicine and medical science in the crimes of the Nazi regime.

“When a woman of reproductive age was to be executed by the Gestapo, Stieve was informed, a date of execution was decided upon, and the prisoner told the scheduled date of her death,” said Seidelman. “Stieve then studied the effects of the psychic trauma on the doomed woman’s menstrual pattern. Upon the woman’s execution, her pelvic organs were removed for histological (tissue) examination. Stieve published reports based on those studies without hesitation or apology.”

Incredibly, after the war this monster lectured medical students on studies he had conducted on the migration of human sperm, studies performed on the bodies of women raped before their deaths in Gestapo execution chambers. According to Seidelman, “Stieve discussed this research before an audience of appalled but silent medical students in East Berlin.” Despite his horrific past, Professor Dr. Hermann Stieve was dean of the faculty of medicine at the prestigious Humboldt University in Berlin; a lecture room and sculpted bust were dedicated in his honor at the Berlin Charité Hospital.

As described in Hildebrandt’s article, Stieve gave post-war authorities a numbered list of the names of women whose bodies he had used for research purposes. (The document is now in the Federal Archives in Berlin.) The anatomy department in Berlin received bodies directly from the execution sites. (Documentation on the executed prisoners is kept at the Memorial Site for the German Resistance in Berlin.)

Hildebrandt is not the first anatomist to write about Stieve’s list. But she is the first to try to put a story and name to all the victims who have remained anonymous since their bodies were used for anatomical teaching and research during the Third Reich. “Only with a story and a name,” she explains, “is it possible to make these persons visible as individuals with full lives and hopes for a future that was denied them.”

Her study presents a group portrait and recounts selected biographies of the 174 women and eight men on Stieve’s list. Most were women of reproductive age, two-thirds were German. The majority were executed for political reasons. At least two pregnant women, 34-year-old Hilde Coppi and 20-year-old Liane Berkowitz, were members of the Berlin-based resistance group Rote Kapelle (Red Orchestra). Their executions were postponed until after the delivery of their children and some time was allowed for breastfeeding.

Elfriede Scholz, number 105 on Stieve’s list, was born in 1903 in Osnabrück. She was the sister of Erich Maria Remarque,  pacifist author of All Quiet on the Western Front, who had emigrated from Germany in 1933. Scholz worked as a seamstress, and, according to Hildebrandt, “was twice unhappily married and lost an infant daughter to a heart condition in 1923.” During the last years of her life she lived and worked in Dresden. In the summer of 1943 she was denounced by neighbors after saying she would shoot Hitler willingly if given the opportunity.

Scholz was arrested and charged with “undermining the military.” Senior judge Roland Freisler told her during the trial that “your brother unfortunately escaped us, but the same will not happen with you.” She was found guilty and executed on Dec. 16, 1943. Her brother did not learn of her death until 1946 and only later learned from press reports about the fate of her body at the hands of Stieve.

Irene Wosikowski, number 179 on Steive’s list, was working for the French resistance when she was betrayed by a German informer and taken into custody July 26, 1943. Born in Danzig in 1910, Wosikowski lived in Kiel and Hamburg, where she joined a communist youth organization. She fled Germany in 1934 and after time in Moscow and the Czech Republic, moved to Paris, where she worked as a newspaper correspondent while working with French resistance groups.

In 1940, Wosikowski and other German nationals were interned by French authorities in a camp in Gurs, from which she fled to Marseille and continued her political work until her betrayal. “Despite severe and continued torture by the Gestapo in Marseille and later in Hamburg,” writes Hildebrandt, “she did not give up the names of her colleagues.” Irene Wosikowski was sentenced to death on Sept. 13, 1944, in Berlin and executed on October 27.

Scholz and Wosikowski are but two of many heroic victims described by Hildebrandt: “The women and men on Stieve’s list came from all walks of life—they were domestic and industrial workers, homemakers, teachers, and academics, some were politically interested, others not. None of them volunteered to be dissected as Stieve’s research subject. On the contrary, many wanted their remains to rest with their families.

“This history is a reminder to modern anatomy that ethical body procurement and the anatomists’ caring about the body donor is of the utmost importance in a discipline that introduces students to professional ethics in the medical teaching curriculum.” It is also a reminder of the heroism of Elfriede Scholz, Irene Wosikowski and countless others who died resisting fascism.

Michael can be reached at michael@zestoforange.com.

By Michael Kaufman

Dear Bill O’Reilly,

I’m writing to wish you a chag sameach, which in case you didn’t know means “joyous holiday” in Hebrew. Oh, I know you celebrate Christmas this time of year and I hope you and your family have a joyous one. I also know you think people like me are waging a “war” on your beautiful holiday. We aren’t. Maybe no one has tried to explain this to you before because it’s easier to just get mad and assume you are being an ignoramus (not an unreasonable assumption considering some of the things you’ve said about other matters). But in the spirit of the season I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt.

When I say “people like me” I include Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, persons of other non-Christian faiths or backgrounds, Wiccans, agnostics and atheists. There are a lot of us in this country, Bill, all with different ways of celebrating in a special way during this time of year. Over the past few decades, many Christians have become aware of this and are now more inclusive when extending holiday greetings to people other than family and friends they know are also Christians. I can’t speak for the broader “people like me” grouping but I appreciate this gesture of inclusiveness. From what I gather, it strikes me as a very “Christian” thing to do. At the same time, when a well-meaning stranger wishes me a Merry Christmas, I usually smile and say, “Same to you.”

But when I see you on TV complaining about the “war” on Christmas I’m struck by the anger in your voice. You sound mad sometimes even when you say, “Merry Christmas!” as though you’re uttering a defiant cry against tyranny: “Take that, you atheists!” Clearly you are missing the point; so maybe I can help.

Try to look at it this way: Suppose you as a Christian were a member of a small minority in the U.S. Suppose the majority were Jews of varying levels of observance and affiliation, but virtually all of whom celebrate Chanukah. Imagine yourself getting a haircut a month or so before Christmas and your barber says, “Are you getting ready for Chanukah yet?” Turn on the radio to listen to music and you hear “The Dreidel Song” on every station. (I guarantee you would soon be feeling like I do when I hear “The Little Drummer Boy.”) Even beautiful, spiritual Jewish holiday songs will get on your nerves after a couple of weeks. You would rather hear “Silent Night.” You go home and almost every house aside from yours has a menorah in the window. As Chanukah draws near, a group of neighbors and/or strangers stand in front of your home and sing Jewish songs, including the annoying “Dreidel.” You want to watch a movie on TV and they are showing “The Miracle of Chanukah” and “A Rugrats Chanukah,” or maybe a classic nostalgic film from the 1930s: “Yiddle With His Fiddle,” starring Molly Picon, or “Tevye the Dairyman,” starring the great Maurice Schwartz.

Now let’s add some hypothetical historical context: Suppose it had been the Christians who were forced to convert to Judaism or die during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Suppose the Holocaust had been the other way around. What if there had been pogroms against the few remaining Christians in Eastern Europe even after World War II was over. Perhaps I should add a few words about pogroms.

According to the Jewish Virtual Library, pogrom is a Russian word designating “an attack, accompanied by destruction, looting of property, murder, and rape, perpetrated by one section of the population against another.” During the 1980s one of my best friends at work was a young man who had graduated from Fordham University after attending Catholic schools as a child in New York. Before he met me he’d never heard of a pogrom. I explained that Jewish people in Eastern Europe were the frequent targets of murderous mob violence at the hands of Christians, and that these events often took place during the Christmas or Easter holidays.

Maybe you already knew about the pogroms, Bill. But a reminder certainly can’t hurt.  I’m only a generation or two away from family members who feared for their lives when Christmas and Easter came around. Please know that I don’t associate you or other Christian Americans with any of the events I’ve mentioned, just as you don’t hold me responsible for what happened to Jesus (or at least I hope you don’t). When I was growing up there were some kids who called me “Christ killer” and “dirty Jew.” But maybe now it will be clearer to you why some people may have a somewhat different perspective about the holidays than you do.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of things I enjoy about Christmas, especially the “peace on earth” and “goodwill” aspects. I like the festive lights. And I even enjoy some of the music: I never get tired of hearing Nat Cole sing “The Christmas Song.” And  I know it’s been said many times many ways, Bill, but I suspect it has never been said quite this way to you: CHAG SAMEACH, BILL O’REILLY. MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Michael can be  reached at michael@zestoforange.com.