THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Cautionary Advisory

Here is a cautionary advisory from The Prairie Editor:

The discussion about 2016 presidential politics taking place
now will not, one year from now when the contest will have
begun in earnest, much resemble the discussion we will be
having then.

Today the pundits and potential candidates are spinning their
wheels in public. In private, of course, serious maneuvering
is already taking place, especially in the retention of consultants,
advisers and other campaign operatives, as well as initial contact
with major donors and the preliminary organization plans and
strategies.

First of all, we don’t know for sure who is running. Probably, we
know most of the candidates in both parties, but some of the
biggest names remain somewhat uncertain. Second, we don’t
know which candidates will have traction. Third, there are always
contenders who do much better than originally expected, and
those who do much worse. Fourth, surprises always happen
after the contest more formally begins, usually between Labor Day
the year before the election and New Year’s Day. Fifth, certain
late-breaking events, domestic and foreign, often can profoundly
shape the campaign season.

Only when the announced candidates are known, show their
political cards, begin their publicity campaigns, and appear in a
debate together, is the true chemistry of a presidential nomination
campaign visible. That is especially true since the 2012 cycle when
there were so many debates, as well as a number of late-entering
major candidates in the Republican contest. It has been said that
the two major parties will try to cut back the number of debates in
2016, but this will be easier said than done. This cycle, the contest
is open in both parties.

On the Democratic side, there is an early and seemingly
overwhelming favorite, Hillary Clinton, but she was similarly
dominant in 2007-08, before bring  upset by Barack Obama. In
2015, Senator Elizabeth Warren seems to be mounting a growing
campaign to replace Mrs. Clinton, and former Senator James
Webb has now appeared for some serious media attention. Should
Mrs. Clinton surprise everyone by deciding not to run, the bats
would be cleared from the liberal belfry, and a donnybrook would
likely result. Serious candidates such as Governor Andrew Cuomo
of New York could then possibly get in the race with former
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, California Governor Jerry
Brown, Vice President Joe Biden and a parade of other wannabes.

The Republican contest is now an open field. Perhaps as many as
a dozen or more conservative candidates could enter the race,
including a few bats from their conservative belfry, but the early
primaries and caucuses should narrow their number quickly to
much fewer contenders.

By December, 2015, we will have long known whether or not Mitt
Romney decided for another run, whether or not Jeb Bush’s
surname is a help or hindrance, whether or not the New Jersey
bridge incident still hurts Chris Christie, and whether or not Rand
Paul is more than niche candidate. We will also know much more
certainly whether or not there will be severe Obama “fatigue,”
especially among independent voters.

Even then, the real campaign will lie ahead. Who knew or forecast
in December, 2011, for example, that the lead in the polls for the
Republican nomination would shift back and forth over the next
few months between at least six candidates, that as late as the week
after the South Carolina primary, New Gingrich might win, or that
at the very end, Rick Santorum would be the last contestant left to
battle against Mitt Romney?

The discussion today about the 2016 presidential election might
bear little resemblance to the reality only a year from now, but
it does serve a purpose. It’s like batting practice and pitcher
warm-up before a baseball game. We watch for little signs and
revelations about the conditions and techniques of the players.
It’s also fun just to watch.

But it’s not the game itself when a lot more is at stake, and the
unplanned occurrences and the unpredicted chemistry of actual
competition come into play.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: It's Not Going To Be Your Older Sibling's Washington, DC

We used to say it’s not your grandfather’s world, and then we
said it’s not your parent’s world, but so much is changing so
rapidly that now we have to say it’s not your older sibling’s
world.

This will be especially true of Washington, DC which seems
to change its “atmosphere” appreciably every four to six years
or so, about the time difference between many oldest and
youngest siblings in a family. (Of course, this doesn’t work
literally if you're the oldest sister or brother, or you have no
siblings, but you get the idea.)

I’m not just referring to the changes of the party which controls
the White House.  Since January, 2009, there has been one
president, but control of the  Congress has varied. Nevertheless,
the political atmosphere has been essentially the same, i.e., the
Democrats in control and on offense, and the Republicans not in
control and usually on defense. Public policy has constantly, if
slowly, moved to the left, i.e., toward more and more federal
controls and regulation. Stalemate has occurred.

But it’s not just political. Washington sets the tone for much
media coverage, and in the past six years, under a Hollywood/
New York City bias to President Obama’s administration, for
much cultural tone as well.

More than the conservative landslide of 2014 will change
Washington, DC. The Old Liberal Media institutions of CBS,
NBC, ABC in radio and TV, the aging patrician newspapers of
the New York Times and the Washington Post, the cable TV
networks, and establishment of left wing Hollywood movies
and personalities have been in steep decline. (The recent
SONY movie debacle is only another marker of Hollywood’s
mediocrity and declining audiences.)

This does not mean necessarily that conservative institutions
will automatically or even effectively replace the liberal
institutions. The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard,
Fox News,  Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and a growing
number of centrist and conservative commentators, are
reaching larger and larger numbers of Americans, it is true.
More and more entertainment figures are expressing openly
conservative views, but they remain in the minority.
University faculty and administration establishments remain
on the radical far left.

Outside Washington, DC, the nation is much more balanced
politically and culturally, and this coincides with something I
and others have been writing about for some time, i.e., the
movement of increasing influence to individual states, new
demographic and technological communities.

This will make the next two years a very interesting period,
with the Old Culture trying very hard to regain its dominance,
and the New Culture trying just as hard to take control. Nor
will the labels “liberal” and “conservative” suffice to describe
the competing forces. Creative individuals and groups now
considered in traditional liberal/conservative paradigms will
almost certainly break out from previous patterns. Some
liberals, it will also be true, will become more and more radical;
some conservatives will become more and more reactionary, and
although they will undoubtedly flavor the competition, and
obtain not a few sensational headlines, they will not define or
shape the new atmosphere. (Nor will the series of recent “protest”
outbreaks, excessively publicized by the Old Media, but really
representing only very tiny groups of organized and disciplined
radicals who routinely try to take advantage of sensational
incidents as a way to influence unsuspecting majority groups
both on the center left and the center right.)

The bigger question is whether or not Washington, DC will
continue its current decline, and whether the "atmosphere" in the
nation’s capital will matter as much as it dud when our fathers
and mothers regarded it as the place where the various groups,
factions, parties and opinions in the country came together to
do the nation's business, to debate and then legislate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!
HAPPY HANUKKAH!
AND WARMEST WISHES FOR 
THE NEW YEAR COMING
TO THE PRAIRIE EDITOR FAMILY 
OF READERS WORLDWIDE!

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Congressional Interregnum

Only a few more days remain of the ancien regime of
congressional stalemate which has been stamped on the
past four years of the Obama administration in
Washington, DC. This stalemate, however, has not occurred
in most of the individual states where Republican governors
and legislatures (and some Democratic governors, too)
have pursued innovative and economically prudent policies.

The president’s sudden left turn in U.S. policy to Cuba, not
unlike his unilateral initiative on immigration policy, were
not exactly surprises, nor without the motive of distracting
public attention from the important changeover in the
U.S. Congress where the opposition party now has clear
control.

There will be many changes after the first week of January
in the nation’s capital and capitol. The legislative agenda,
and all of its constitutional powers and prerogatives, will now
be in the hands of those who disagree with Obamacare,
expansion of bureaucracy, higher taxes and more regulatory
authority in the federal government. The president retains the
“bully pulpit,” but Congress now has unambiguous control
of the purse strings and the confirmation process.

The president had more the upper hand the past four years
with the Democratic control of the U.S. senate under the
autocratic hand of Harry Reid. Speaker John Boehner was
constantly at a strategic disadvantage as his party and his
colleagues were almost entirely shut out of federal policy
making. It will be fascinating to observe what both Mr.
Boehner and the new Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell have learned from their recent experiences in
dealing with Mr Obama.

The liberal Old Media makes much of the disagreements
about some policies within the Republican Party, especially
on immigration, Cuba, and healthcare, and that explains the
short-term strategy of Mr. Obama’s actions, hoping that
internal dissension will self-obstruct GOP opposition to the
larger liberal ambitions of creating a U.S. version of the
European welfare state.

Nice try, Barack, but I think John and Mitch have got your
number --- having obtained it through bitter experience over
the past six years.

Nevertheless, the Republican leadership will need to exhibit
very skillful leadership of its increasingly conservative
membership in the Congress. It’s not only a free country, but
conservatives seem to be more independent-minded than
their liberal colleagues, at least in the past several years. On the
other hand, there are several very bright and thoughtful members
of the liberal party in Washington, DC, who now should consider
themselves free of the whipping hands of Mr. Reid and Mrs. Pelosi,
and if they exert themselves in the next two years, could do much
to bring their party back to the political center --- and thus possibly
to new victories in 2016 and beyond. Each party has its more
radical mavericks, for every Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren
there is a Ted Cruz and a Rand Paul, but the business of the nation
mostly takes place in the center.

That is where the contest of the next two years, and then in the
election of 2016, will take place. It is in that arena where the next
president will be selected. In the current interregnum, Mr. Obama
seems less interested in what will follow him than in a personal
agenda. That’s understandable, but not necessarily helpful to his
own interests beginning in only a few more days.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Quick Notes - December, 2014

As we approach the new year, with a Republican-controlled
Congress, a cascade of announcements for president in
both parties (and some declines), new executive orders by
President Obama, oil probably at below $50 a barrel, new
machinations in the Middle East, and lots of surprises,
it’s time for a survey of some recent news stories.

JEB BUSH has now formally announced an exploratory
committee for president. In current polls, he is either the
leading Republican committee, or close to it. The cliche
about his surname being an obstacle to his becoming
Bush 45, now seems to be wrong. If he does run (more than a
50% chance of occurring), he will be one of the frontrunners.
With his Hispanic-American family (including his son
GEORGE P. BUSH, now a statewide elected officeholder in
Texas), a Jeb Bush candidacy would probably keep fellow
Floridian and U.S. Senator MARCO RUBIO out of the race.

HILLARY CLINTON continues to delay her public decision
about her candidacy for president. Although an overwhelming
frontrunner is all early polls, she has faced considerable
criticism from within her own party, and her poll numbers
have declined. A draft-ELIZABETH WARREN boomlet has
appeared from Mrs Clinton’s left, and Massachusetts Senator
Warren has been gathering strength in the polls, most of it
apparently in the Democratic Party’s most leftist base.
Although Vice President JOE BIDEN says he is considering the
race, his poll strength seems to be based on his name recognition
and little more. My old friend MIKE MCCURRY, formerly
President BILL CLINTON’s press secretary, has written a
suggestion that Mrs. Clinton be appointed to the U.S. Supreme
Court (should a vacancy occur in the next 18 months). Is this a
trial balloon? Who knows?

Perhaps the most extraordinary freshman class of new U.S.
senators in memory is about to enter the national scene in the
nation’s capital. BEN SASSE (Nebraska) and DAVID PERDUE
(Georgia) are replacing other Republican senators, and THOM
TILLIS (North Carolina), JONI ERNST (Iowa), CORY GARDNER
(Colorado), TOM COTTON (Arkansas), BILL CASSIDY (Louisiana)
DAN SULLIVAN (Alaska) SHELLEY CAPUTO (West Virginia),
STEPHEN DAINES (Montana), and MIKE ROUNDS (South Dakota)
are replacing Democrats, and thus have given the GOP control of
the new senate by a 54-46 margin. This exceptionally strong class
includes five former members of the U.S. house, a state speaker of
the house, a pig farmer/state senator, two active officers in the
military, a former governor, a physician, successful businessmen
and a conservative college president. The usual rules about senate
freshmen keeping quiet and a low profile might not apply to this
group. The new Senate Majority Leader MITCH MCCONNELL
might have his hands full.

Rumors that former (2012) GOP presidential nominee MITT
ROMNEY might run again in 2016 continue to circulate, but now
that both JEB BUSH and New Jersey Governor CHRIS CHRISTIE
seem poised to run, this would seem to be much less likely. The
dark horse candidacy of DR. BEN CARSON, a black physician,
however seem to be the surprise at the early stage of the cycle,
as Dr. Carson, an outspoken and charismatic conservative,
shows up high in the polls despite being generally an unknown
national figure. The Republicans have a considerable number of
other big-name potential candidates, including the hard-charging
Senator RAND PAUL of Kentucky who was particularly active
helping candidates in 2012, including Majority Leader McConnell
who has virtually endorsed him.

Long-serving and highly popular Iowa Governor TERRY
BRANSTAD is leading an effort to scuttle the Iowa Straw Poll,
a fundraiser for the state Republican party and favorite event
of the national media, (but also a political graveyard for some
serious GOP presidential candidates --- most recently then-
Governor TIM PAWLENTY of Minnesota in 2012). This straw poll,
which traditionally takes place in the summer of the year before
the presidential election, has in recent years been the opening
salvo of the presidential campaign.

Prime Minister BINYAMIN (“Bibi”) NETANYAHU of Israel has
called for new elections, With its multiple parties in the Israeli
Knesset (parliament), the politics of the Jewish state are dizzying
in their permutations and complications, but few are betting
against the wily incumbent at this point.

Conservative and nationalist political parties and movements
are springing up and strengthening across the nations of the
European Union, most of it apparently provoked by the recent
immigration of workers from north Africa and former colonies.
Even Conservative Party Prime Minster DAVID CAMERON of
Great Britain is facing a strong challenge from a new party on
his right. Socialist Prime Minister FRANCOIS HOLLANDE of
France seems particularly endangered. 2015 could be a year of
considerable political change in Europe.

The decline in the price of oil is so far the biggest economic story
in the world, and the current price (about $55 a barrel) is
transforming economies, helping some (consumer nations) and
harming others (exporting nations). How far down the price of oil
will go is very uncertain, and it is likely to remain a very major
story in 2015. Economic columnist Robert Samuelson, one of the
savviest writers on the subject, says the fall in crude oil prices,
and subsequent lower prices at the pump, is a huge “windfall”
for consumers, and could help much of the world economy,
assuming consumers spend most of their fuel savings.

The Chinese economy appears to be in turmoil. As the now
largest economy in the world, its gyrations could have major
and hitherto unexpected impact across the globe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: What Will Determine The 2016 GOP Nominee?

The discussion about who might be the 2016 Republican
nominee for president has begun, but it so far has
barely touched on the real ingredients of a successful
campaign.

In fact, so far the discussion is overwhelmingly about the
personal ideology of the various possible contestants, and
how that ideology fits the current assessment of the GOP
electorate by whomever is conducting the discussion.

I suggest that this is exactly the wrong approach to the
question, and almost certain to lead to wrong conclusions.

First of all, here is my list of prerequisites for any serious
candidate in 2016:

A charismatic and likeable public personality, the ability
    to speak well, debate effectively, and generally think well
    on his or her feet, without making chronic gaffes.

A broad knowledge of U.S. public policy, critical national
    problems and issues; this probably gained from credible
    previous experience in government and/or business.

The instinct and the skill to remain on offense at all levels
     of campaigning and in all campaign circumstances.

Have as few personal controversies as possible, and to
     make the decision to put those vulnerabilities he or she
     does have out in public for airing as early as possible.

A national network of political organizers and staff at
    local and state levels. For those who have run before, such
    a network is probably already in place, and might be quite
    large. It might be much smaller for first-time presidential
    candidates, but needs to be structured to expand quickly
    and efficiently.

A fundraising  organization which either already has
    direct contact with major party funders, or can, if the
    candidate emerges as a major contender, make those
    contacts quickly. Further, a fundraising effort which does
    not use most of the funds to pay for the fundraising.

Close counsel and a working campaign team who think  
    creatively, can challenge the candidate, and organize the
    candidate’s campaign employing original strategies which
    take advantage of the contemporary (and not necessarily
    the historical) make-up of the electorate, the party’s voters
    and their concerns.

A political image which is enhanced by clearly stated
    public policy ideas and principles that separate the
    candidate from his or her competitors.

A public political personality which can appeal to voters
    of the majoritarian center of American politics.

The luck of being able to be the right person at the right
    time, and to have unanticipated developments break their
    way.

Obviously, no candidate is strong on all these points. Some
of these points have more weight than others. The candidate
and his campaign cannot control some of them The eventual
nominee, if he or she is to win the presidential election, will
fulfill more of these points than will his or her rivals, but the
combinations are not pre-established and predictable.

There will be a very large field initially for the Republican
nomination. Presumably, at this point, the Democratic field
will be smaller, and barring the unforeseen, not as competitive.
It would take a dramatic turn of events for Mrs. Clinton to be
denied her party’s nomination. Mrs. Clinton could surprise
everyone and choose not to run, or Senator Warren could emerge
as the 2016 Barack Obama, but neither of those now seem likely.

Some factors, in my opinion, are quite over-rated. National name
recognition clearly helps in early polls, but can quickly fade as the
contest begins in earnest. Family name, or the legacy factor, was
much demolished in the 2014 midterm elections (Senators Pryor,
Landrieu, Udall, Begich and candidate Nunn all lost in spite of
having popular family forebears). Although the Democrats had
much more money in 2008 and 2014, money was not the
determining factor in those elections.  Big-name endorsements are
always tempting for campaigns, but they actually do not usually
shift many votes at all.

Innovation is often a hallmark of a successful national campaign.
This goes back to at least the campaign of Abraham Lincoln, who
only months before the GOP convention which nominated him was
at the bottom of a list of nine, eight of whom were better known
than he was. Employing an unprecedented use of the media and
technology, and having networked in his party for years before,
Lincoln rose quickly. Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and Obama
also employed technological and other innovative strategies to
propel them to the presidency.

Presidential campaigns tend to focus on the lessons from the
previous cycle without thinking about new conditions and
factors in the new cycle.

Governor Chris Christie, having skillfully overcome a
potentially serious controversy in his home state of New Jersey,
got himself elected the chair of Republican Governors
Association, and spent the entire 2014 campaign raising money
and showing up to campaign for GOP governors across the
nation. The unexpected success of so many GOP gubernatorial
candidates in 2014 will pay enormous dividends for Mr. Christie
should he become a candidate. Senator Rand Paul also campaigned
strenuously for senate candidates across the country, including
vital support for his Kentucky colleague Mitch McConnell, now to
be the senate majority leader. Mr. McConnell, not considered to
be close ideologically to Mr. Paul, nevertheless has already
virtually endorsed him for president. Mr. Paul has also carefully
cultivated a broader image of his isolationist and libertarian
views.

Much is now made, in both the liberal and conservative media,
about the difficulty for an “establishment” (translate as more
moderate) Republican figure to win the nomination in 2016.
This presupposes that ideology weighs more than the desire of
most Republican and independent voters of varying conservative
views to win back the presidency in 2016. I made this same point
before the 2014 election about more radical right wing challengers
to incumbents and other solid candidates in house and senate races.
The conservative grass roots wanted to win in 2014; and I suggest
they will also want to win equally or more so in 2016.

The 2016 primary and caucus system lies ahead. Early winners
in these events have advantages, but serious candidates who can
survive to the later series of primaries and caucuses can win
their party’s nomination.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
  

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Closing The 2014 Book

The massive wave election of 2014 in the U.S. senate races
was completed Saturday, December 6 when Republican Bill
Cassidy defeated incumbent Democratic Senator Mary
Landrieu by a landslide 12 points in a run-off in Louisiana.
That will give the GOP at least a 54-46 margin, and a gain
of 9 senate seats.

Two U.S. house seats had run-offs in Louisiana at the same
time, and Republicans won both of them, giving them a
246-188 margin in that body. One seat remains undecided,
in Arizona’s 2nd district where a Republican challenger leads
the Democratic incumbent by 161 votes before the recount.
That recount will be completed by December 17. The
Arizona secretary of state does not expect the recount to
change the leader, based on previous recounts. Should the
GOP candidate win, the 247-188 margin would be the largest
for the conservative party in many decades.

While political stalemate lies ahead, as it has existed since
the 2010 midterms when the GOP won back control of the
U.S. house, the ability of the “lame duck” President Obama
to control political and policy events will have been severely
curtailed by the loss of liberal control of the U.S. senate,
especially in terms of presidential appointments which must
be approved by the senate.

President Obama has so far indicated that his personal
political course has not been changed by the 2014 election,
but the combined GOP leadership in the Congress has many
cards to play over the next 18 months until the 2016
presidential and congressional election campaign begins.
House Speaker John Boehner especially has been through
four difficult years of his relationship with the White House,
and so far is indicating he will be, now joined by Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a formidable opponent.

Conventional wisdom has suggested that the upcoming
stalemate might ultimately benefit the Democratic nominee
for president (now presumed to be Hillary Clinton) in 2016,
but that also presumes that the majority of U.S. voters will
want the stalemate to continue past January 20, 2017 when a
new president is inaugurated. (The U.S. house almost certainly
will remain in GOP hands, and the large margin gained in 2014
in the U.S. senate makes it more problematic for the Democrats
to regain control of that body.)

The more the president now refuses to compromise with the
Republican Congress, the more difficult his final two years
will make it for the Democratic nominee of his party to
succeed him in 2017. The agenda of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi
administration was unambiguously rejected at the polls in
2014 in an election that was “nationalized” in large part by
President Obama himself.

On the other hand, the Republican legislators will need to be
skillful as the party in opposition. Some of their more radical
members could play into the hands of their liberal
opponents by trying to insist on unpopular or unwise courses
of action.

The Republicans, unlike the Democrats, also do not have a
likely presidential candidate. A competitive, and possibly
bitter, primary/caucus season lies ahead, beginning in January,
2016 (which is only a bit more than a year away). Candidates
do matter, as 2014 clearly demonstrated, and the GOP will
need to put forward a strong nominee in the next cycle.

Otherwise, their current advantages, especially the growing
fatigue with a Democratic president, could be lost. The
outcome in November, 2016 is still very much an open
question, and a book yet to be written.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Ten More Amazing Facts From History And Science You Probably Didn't Know About

1.   TRAGIC NEWS IN GERMANY IN JANUARY, 1945,        
      THE SINKING OF THE NAZI VESSEL WILHELM
      GUSTLOFF WITH THE LOSS OF ABOUT 8000 
      LIVES, WAS THE WORST SINGLE SHIP DISASTER 
      IN HISTORY (I PREVIOUSLY WROTE ABOUT
      THIS INCIDENT).  BUT AN EVEN BIGGER STORY 
      FOR GERMANY, THEN IN THE FINAL DAYS OF  
      ENDURING 12 YEARS OF NAZI BARBARISM AND
      TYRANNY, WAS THAT MORE THAN ONE
      MILLION GERMANS CIVILIANS AND SOLDIERS 
      WERE EVACUATED FROM EAST PRUSSIA (NOW
      POLAND).  "Operation Hannibal"was the largest short-term
      military evacuation by sea in history, dwarfing the more
      celebrated British evacuation at Dunkirk in 1940. It rescued
      these ethnic Germans from advancing Soviet troops bent
      on revenge for the atrocities committed by the Nazi armies
      in Russia. However, once back in Germany, many of these
      refugees and soldiers were swept up in the chaos of the
      end of the war, and did not fare well.

      [Further reading: Death in the Baltic by Catherine J. Prince]
    
  2. GAVRILO PRINCIP, WHO ASSASSINATED
      ARCHDUKE FRANZ FERDINAND IN SARAJEVO IN
      1914, AN ACT WHICH DIRECTLY CAUSED WORLD   
      WAR I, WAS NOT EXECUTED BUT DIED OF
      PNEUMONIA IN CAPTIVITY IN THERESIENSTAT  
      PRISON  IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA IN APRIL, 1918.
      In one of history’s cruelest ironies, Theresienstat
      became one of the most notorious concentration
      camps of the Holocaust of World War II --- the war
      and the Holocaust. having led directly from World
      War I. (An added irony is that Princip’s first name
      is Serbo-Croatian for the Hebrew name for “Gabriel”
      which means “”messenger of the Lord.”
     
  3. CRIMEA, NOW A CRISIS POINT BETWEEN        
      RUSSIA AND UKRAINE, WAS MORE THAN 1000
      YEARS AGO PART OF A JEWISH KINGDOM.
      The Khazars were an Asian Turkic people who in
      the 4th century A.D. conquered the area north of
      the Black Sea, including the Crimean peninsula.
      Grown rich from taxing the silk caravans that
      passed through Khazar lands, the kingdom became
      powerful and very rich. In the 8th century, the king     
      and the Khazar elites converted to Judaism,
      although there are conflicting stories about why and
      how it happened. Jewish rule was relatively brief,
      but it is an amazing story considering the
      subsequent tragic history of the Jews in the same
      place a thousand years later.     
     
  4. ONE OF THE OLDEST ETHNIC GROUPS IN
      EUROPE HAS NOT EVER HAD THEIR OWN
      NATION. THE RUSYNS (OR CARPATHO-RUSYNS)
      SPEAK THEIR OWN LANGUAGE, AND HAVE A
      DISTINCT RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL
      HERITAGE. An ancient people who have lived in
      the area around the Carpathian Mountains in
      central Europe for the past thousand years, the
      Rusyn lands have been part of Russia, Ukraine,
      Austro-Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and Romania.
      In 1919, after World War I, various Rusyn leaders
      traveled to the Versailles Conference in Paris to
      plead for their own nation, but were denied. Today,
      many of the 4 million Rusyns live in the U.S.

     [Further reading: The People From Nowhere by 
            Robert Magocsi]

  5. ONE OF THE VERY FEW NATIVE FOODS OF THE
      AMERICAN MIDWEST RECOGNIZED GLOBALLY
      AS A GOURMET DISH, MINNESOTA WILD RICE,
      IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE RICE FAMILY BUT IS
      A GRASS. There are four kinds of true wild rice.
      The most well-known is native to the northern
      prairies, including especially northern Minnesota.
      Other varieties are native to eastern U.S., Texas
      and China, and varieties have been transplanted to
      California, but the primary commercial crop is
      from Minnesota.   
     
  6. THE MOST CELEBRATED SPY OF WORLD WAR II
      WAS A CATALAN WHO HAD TO SIGN UP FIRST AS 
      A NAZI AGENT IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED 
      BY BRITISH INTELLIGENCE AS THEIR DOUBLE
      AGENT.  Juan Pujols, known universally by the cover
      name “Garbo,” devised and implemented the
      greatest military deception in modern history by
      fooling Hitler and the German Wehrmacht to think
      the primary Allied invasion of Europe in 1944 would
      be at Calais and not at Normandy. Even three
      months after D-Day, “Garbo” persuaded the Nazis
      to hold vital divisions at Calais, waiting for an
      imaginary army invasion that did not come, and
      many consider Garbo’s efforts was a vital part of
      D-Day’s ultimate success.
      
      [Further reading: Agent Garbo by Steven Talty]

 7. THE FIRST SCIENTIST TO CONCEIVE THE
     THERMONUCLEAR REACTION IN HYDROGEN,
     A DISCOVERY THAT LED DIRECTLY TO THE
     H-BOMB, WAS NOT AN AMERICAN, NOR A
     GERMAN NOR ANY EUROPEAN. The first physicist 
     to do so was, ironically, the Japanese physicist
     Togutaru Hagiwara who revealed his discovery at
     lecture in Kyoto in May 1941, seven months before
     Pearl Harbor. Although the first H-bomb was not
     exploded until 1954, Hagiwara was also a pioneer
     in the theories which led to the first A-bomb
     exploded over Hiroshima in August, 1945’

     [Further reading: The Making of the Atomic Bomb by 
            Richard Rhodes]   

 8. ARAMAIC WAS THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE
     OLD TESTAMENT. Although Hebrew and Arabic are
     today derived from it, it is still a living language for
     about two million Assyrians, a Christian people who
     live in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq where they have
     faced persecution for centuries. (A senior member of
     the U.S. house of representatives, Anna Eshoo of
     California, is the only Assyrian-American in
     Congress. 
    
 9. KING FAROUK OF EGYPT, WHO WAS OUSTED
     FROM POWER BY THE EGYPTIAN MILITARY
     IN 1952, THE SAME GROUP NOW IN CONTROL
     IN THAT COUNTRY, WAS ONE OF THE WORLD’S
     FOREMOST NUMISMATISTS OR COIN
     COLLECTORS. His fabled collection included at
     least one of the most valuable coins ever issued by
     the U.S. Mint, the 1913 “Liberty” nickel (one sold for 
     $5 million in 2007) He also owned an “unofficial” 1933 
     U.S. gold double eagle that sold at auction for the highest
     price for any coin in history, $7.4 million.
    
10.WHEN THE U.S. DOLLAR WAS CONVERTIBLE TO
     GOLD, THE PRICE OF GOLD WAS $35 AN OUNCE,
     AND LATER, $42 AN OUNCE AND THEN $44 AN
     OUNCE. From 1933 until recently, the U.S. Mint did
     not issue gold coins, and they were not legal tender.
     Nevertheless, gold coins have been bought and sold
     on the collector’s market throughout the nation’s
     history. In 1971, the U.S. ended converting dollars
     into gold. At that time, common dates of twenty
     dollar gold pieces were routinely bought and sold
     for under $50 each (There was almost exactly one
     ounce of gold in those “double eagles”). When gold
     reached its all-time peak in 2011, those same gold
     pieces traded at about $1900 each. Today the price of
     gold is about $1200 per ounce. (Gold coins of all
     denominations which have numismatic value can
     exceed the official price by significant amounts --- as
     can be noted in the previous “amazing” fact of
     history.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.