Category: Lessons we have learned

Lessons we have learned as the years have passed

1962 Cuban Missile Crises: We came close

January 21, 2024 (updated January 24, 2024) Published by

Mrs. Bender in my 4th grade class told us:

“Children get under your desks and cover your heads!” Then she uttered the words that forever stuck in our young brains: “Duck and Cover!”

She was guiding us through a drill in case of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union.

Can you imagine? What would hiding under our desks do to protect us in case of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union? Nothing. But that is the reality we lived through in 1962

The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 remains as one of the most critical moments in the Cold War era: the United States and the Soviet Union were ON THE BRINK OF NUCLEAR WAR! The roots of the crisis can be traced back to the geopolitical tensions of the time, with the Cold War setting the stage for a high-stakes confrontation that had the potential to alter the course of history and possibly to change humanity forever.

At the heart of the crisis was that the Soviet Union started to deploy ballistic missiles to Cuba. A move that would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Cold War. The United States, led by President John F. Kennedy, perceived this as a direct threat to its national security. The discovery of Soviet missile sites in Cuba on October 14, 1962, marked the beginning of a tense and perilous 13-day standoff.

At different times in our nation’s history, we have been blessed to have the right leader in place at the right time. During the Civil War, we had Lincoln. During the Great Depression we have FDR and during the Cuban Missile Crises, we had John F. Kennedy. Thank goodness, Kennedy’s response to the crisis was calm, measured but resolute. In a televised address to the nation on October 22, 1962 Kennedy announced the discovery of the missile sites in Cuba and he outlined a series of measures to address the threat. These measures, known as the quarantine or blockade, aimed to prevent further Soviet shipments of offensive weapons to Cuba. Kennedy demanded the removal of the missiles and declared that “any attack launched from Cuba would be considered an attack by the Soviet Union”, triggering a full-scale response from the United States. Nuclear war – that which the world has feared ever since the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima – had possibly arrived!! Can you imagine?

The world watched with bated breath as the world’s two superpowers engaged in a diplomatic and strategic deadly dance. Behind the scenes, secret negotiations took place between Kennedy and then Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. The crisis reached its peak when Khrushchev sent a letter to Kennedy on October 26, 1962 offering to dismantle the Cuban missile sites in exchange for a U.S. commitment not to invade Cuba and the removal of U.S. missiles in Turkey. This letter opened a window of opportunity for a peaceful resolution.

Kennedy’s decision-making during the crisis was awesome. It truly showcased a delicate balance between resolve and restraint. While he faced pressure from his military advisors to take more aggressive action, Kennedy chose to pursue a diplomatic solution, avoiding a direct military confrontation with the Soviet Union. The successful resolution of the crisis, often attributed to Kennedy’s leadership and statesmanship, highlighted the importance of diplomacy in averting nuclear catastrophe.

The Cuban Missile Crisis had profound implications for the Cold War and international relations. The crisis prompted both superpowers to recognize the need for arms control and to establish a hotline between the White House and the Kremlin to facilitate direct communication in times of crisis. The Limited Test Ban Treaty, signed in 1963, marked a step towards reducing nuclear tensions.

In hindsight, the Cuban Missile Crisis serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of nuclear brinkmanship and the importance of diplomatic solutions in times of crisis. It showcased the inherent dangers of the Cold War rivalry and the potential for miscalculation that could lead to catastrophic consequences. The resolution of the crisis demonstrated that, even in the midst of intense ideological conflict, leaders could find common ground to avert a global catastrophe.

In conclusion, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a key moment in history which tested the leadership and decision-making of both Kennedy and Khrushchev. The resolution of the crisis through diplomacy underscored the fragility of the Cold War balance and the imperative of finding peaceful solutions to avoid the specter of nuclear war. The lessons learned from the Cuban Missile Crisis continue to resonate in contemporary geopolitics, emphasizing the critical importance of dialogue and cooperation in addressing global challenges.

Kent State

Kent State: 4 Dead in Ohio 54 years later

January 20, 2024 (updated January 20, 2024) Published by

“Tin soldiers and Nixon coming
We’re finally on our own
This summer I hear the drumming
Four dead in Ohio”

With these lines, Crosby, Stills and Nash started their heart-wrenching song about the May 4, 1970 shooting at Kent State University which to this day stands as a powerful reminder of a tragic moment in American history. Has it really been 54 years since the deaths of 4 students protesting the Vietnam War on the campus of Kent State University in Ohio? This moment represented the clash between anti-Vietnam War protests and the use of deadly force by the National Guard on Kent State University Campus in Ohio. This event unfolded against the backdrop of a deeply polarized nation grappling with dissent and discord surrounding the Vietnam War.

The roots of the May 4, 1970 tragedy can be traced back to President Richard Nixon’s decision to expand the Vietnam War into Cambodia in late April 1970. This move further fueled anti-war sentiments, leading to widespread protests across college campuses, including Kent State University in Ohio. The students at Kent State, like many others nationwide, expressed their powerful opposition to the Vietnam war, fearing the loss of more American lives.

On May 4, 1970 tensions reached a boiling point at Kent State when Ohio National Guard troops were called in to control the protests. The situation quickly grew, with confrontations between the students and the National Guard becoming increasingly heated. Tear gas was used in an attempt to disperse the crowd, but instead of quelling the unrest, it heightened the sense of chaos and anger among the protesters.

In a tragic turn of events, a group of Guardsmen, armed with live ammunition, opened fire on the unarmed students. The gunfire lasted for 13 seconds, resulting in the deaths of four students—Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, Sandra Scheuer, and William Schroeder—and injuring nine others. The incident sent shockwaves throughout the nation, prompting a wave of protests and demonstrations.

The Kent State shooting served as a strong reminder of the dynamics at play during times of civil unrest and raised questions about the use of lethal force against unarmed civilians. The incident sparked a national debate about the government’s response to dissent and the limits of free speech. The phrase “Four Dead in Ohio,” immortalized in the lyrics of Neil Young’s protest song “Ohio,” became a rallying cry for those opposing the war and mourning the lives lost at Kent State.

The Aftermath: The aftermath of the shooting saw a significant shift in US public opinion. While some Americans condemned the students for their protests, many others sympathized with their anti-war stance and voiced opposition to the use of deadly force by the National Guard. The incident also fueled a broader anti-establishment sentiment, contributing to the growing divide between the government and segments of the population.

The Kent State shooting had a lasting effect on the nation’s psyche and policies. In its wake, universities across the country reevaluated their approaches to handling protests, and there was increased scrutiny of the government’s use of force against its own citizens. The incident played a role in shaping the anti-war movement and contributed to the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam.

In conclusion, the May 4, 1970, shooting at Kent State University remains a tragic chapter in American history that exposed the deep divisions and tensions surrounding the Vietnam War. The lives lost on that fateful day serve as a somber reminder of the complexities of dissent, the consequences of government actions, and the ongoing struggle for the right to protest and express dissenting opinions in a democratic society.

The Greensboro Four and the Birth of Civil Rights Activism

January 18, 2024 (updated February 17, 2024) Published by

On February 1, 1960, the landscape of civil rights activism in the United States underwent a deep and meaningful transformation when four black college students from the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College in Greensboro, North Carolina, staged a sit-in at a segregated Woolworth lunch counter. Who today remembers that in 1960 the lunch counter at a local department store was segregated? It seems unbelievable to us today – but it was true. Can you imagine that just sitting at the counter at a department store in 1960 was an unbelievable act of courage and rebellion? This historic event, which eventually became known as the “Greensboro Sit-In”, marked a key moment in the struggle against racial segregation and discrimination, setting the stage for a new wave of activism that would resonate across the nation.

The four courageous students—Ezell Blair Jr., David Richmond, Franklin McCain, and Joseph McNeil—embarked on a mission that would challenge the deeply ingrained norms of racial segregation prevalent in the Southern United States during the 1960s. The Woolworth lunch counter, like many public facilities at the time, enforced a policy of segregation, denying service to African Americans solely based on their race. Frustrated by the systemic injustice they faced, the students decided to take a stand and demand the right to be served equally.

The decision to stage a sit-in was not taken lightly. The Greensboro Four were well aware of the potential consequences, including arrest and violence. However, fueled by the principles of equality and justice, they courageously occupied seats at the Woolworth lunch counter, defying the racial norms that sought to relegate them to second-class citizenship. The simplicity of their act—an act as basic as requesting service at a lunch counter—held immense symbolic power, challenging the very foundations of segregationist policies.

The sit-in quickly garnered attention and support, not only within the local community but also across the nation. The peaceful and dignified protest struck a chord with people who were increasingly disillusioned with the prevailing racial injustices. News of the sit-in spread like wildfire, inspiring similar protests in other cities and igniting the flame of the civil rights movement.

The Greensboro Four’s sit-in embodied the spirit of nonviolent resistance championed by leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. The disciplined adherence to nonviolence was a strategic choice that aimed to expose the moral bankruptcy of segregation while highlighting the dignity and strength of the African American community. The sit-in became a model for subsequent civil rights demonstrations, influencing the strategies employed by activists in their quest for equality.

In the face of adversity, the Greensboro Four persevered. Their steadfast commitment to justice and equality led to the eventual desegregation of the Woolworth lunch counter, marking a tangible victory in the broader struggle against racial discrimination. The sit-in’s success resonated far beyond Greensboro, inspiring a generation of activists to challenge institutionalized racism through peaceful means.

The Greensboro sit-in of 1960 stands as a pivotal moment in the history of the civil rights movement. It exemplifies the power of peaceful protest and civil disobedience in dismantling oppressive systems. The actions of Ezell Blair Jr., David Richmond, Franklin McCain, and Joseph McNeil served as a catalyst for change, encouraging others to join the fight for a more just and equitable society. Their bravery and resilience remind us that ordinary individuals, when united by a common cause, can ignite a spark that transforms the course of history.

HAPPY ENDING: Not many stories such as these have, if you will, a happy ending but amazingly, four months after their historic sit-in, the same “Greensboro Four” Ezell Blair Jr., David Richmond, Franklin McCain, and Joseph McNeil WERE ACTUALLY SERVED LUNCH! AT THAT VERY Woolworth lunch counter where they had staged their sit-in!

Nixon's resignation

1974: President Nixon’s resignation

December 19, 2023 (updated December 19, 2023) Published by

August 8, 1974, marked a momentous day in American history. That was the day that President Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States, resigned from office. It was an unbelievable day. It was the year that I graduated from high school. I was just a kid and I did not realize what a momentous day this was. This unprecedented event, fueled by the Watergate scandal, unfolded against the backdrop of a nation deeply divided and disillusioned by political misconduct. The resignation of Nixon had far-reaching implications, reshaping the political landscape and leaving an indelible mark on the collective consciousness of the American people.

The Watergate scandal, which ultimately led to Nixon’s resignation, began with a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters on June 17, 1972. As investigations progressed, it became evident that the Nixon administration had orchestrated a web of deceit and cover-ups to conceal its involvement in the break-in. The discovery of secret White House tapes, capturing incriminating conversations, served as a smoking gun, revealing the extent of Nixon’s complicity.

The nation had become accustomed to political scandals, but the Watergate affair was unbelievable in its scale and impact. The erosion of public trust in the highest levels of government was palpable, and the unfolding revelations shocked the American people. As the investigation intensified, impeachment absolutely loomed over Nixon’s presidency, prompting a deepening sense of crisis.

Amid mounting pressure and the imminent threat of impeachment, president Richard Nixon chose to address the nation on the evening of August 8, 1974. In a televised speech from the Oval Office, he announced his decision to resign, becoming the first (and only) president in American history to do so. The gravity of the moment was reflected in Nixon’s somber and reflective tone as he acknowledged the toll the scandal had taken on the nation and his ability to lead. In this famous helicopter parting picture, Nixon tried to put a happy face on what absolutely was a devastating moment for him (see below).

Nixon’s resignation speech was a poignant mix of remorse and defiance. He admitted to mistakes but insisted that he had never been a quitter. The emotional weight of the moment was evident as he bid farewell to the presidency, a position he had held for more than five years. The speech concluded with Nixon boarding a helicopter on the White House lawn, a symbolic departure from the seat of power he could no longer retain.

The aftermath of Nixon’s resignation ushered in an era of reflection and reform in American politics. Gerald Ford, Nixon’s vice president, assumed the presidency, declaring that “our long national nightmare is over.” Ford’s pardon of Nixon a month later, while aimed at promoting healing, proved controversial and fueled public skepticism. The scars of Watergate lingered, leaving an enduring legacy of skepticism toward political leadership and institutions.

The day of Nixon’s resignation marked a turning point in the American political landscape. It underscored the resilience of democratic institutions in the face of crisis, as the nation weathered a severe test of its democratic principles. The Watergate scandal prompted reforms aimed at increasing transparency and accountability in government, with the hope of preventing such abuses of power in the future.

In retrospect, August 8, 1974, remains etched in the collective memory of the American people as a day of reckoning and renewal. The resignation of Richard Nixon demonstrated the capacity of the nation to confront and rectify political wrongdoing, reinforcing the notion that no one, not even the president, is above the law. As America moved forward, the lessons of Watergate became integral to the nation’s commitment to preserving the integrity of its democratic institutions.

1971 ban on TV Cigarette Ads

December 17, 2023 (updated December 17, 2023) Published by

Introduction:

1971 marked a big moment in the history of public health and the media. This is the year when the United States’ government imposed a ban on television cigarette advertisements. This landmark decision was driven by a growing awareness of the terrible health effects of smoking and a recognition of the influential role that mass media plays in shaping public opinion and behavior. The ban on TV cigarette advertisements not only reflected a shift in societal attitudes toward tobacco consumption but also set a precedent for the regulation of harmful products in the media.

Background:

In the mid -1900s, smoking was deeply ingrained in American culture. Cigarette companies were major advertisers and their commercials were everywhere on TV. However, as scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and other important health issues became more robust, public awareness of the dangers of smoking increased. The Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health in 1964 served as a huge moment, officially acknowledging the health risks associated with tobacco use and prompting a reevaluation of societal norms. Gone were the days of Humphrey Bogart looking awfully cool with a cigarette in his hand.

The Ban:

In response to the mounting evidence against smoking, Congress passed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act in 1969. This legislation mandated health warnings on cigarette packages and advertisements, acknowledging the need for informed consumer choices. However, the most impactful provision was yet to come. In 1971, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implemented a complete ban on cigarette advertising on television and radio, effective from January 2, 1971.

Rationale:

The decision to ban TV cigarette advertisements was rooted in the understanding that mass media has a profound influence on public perception and behavior. By removing tobacco commercials from the airwaves, the government sought to diminish the glamorization of smoking and reduce its social acceptability. The ban aimed to protect the public, especially the youth, from the seductive allure of cigarette advertising and its potential to normalize a habit that posed severe health risks.

Impact:

The immediate impact of the ban was evident in the decline of smoking rates. Without the powerful tool of television advertising, tobacco companies found it challenging to maintain their previous levels of influence. Moreover, the ban shifted societal norms, casting smoking in a less favorable light. As a result, smoking rates began a gradual decline that continued over the following decades.

Legacy:

The ban on TV cigarette advertisements left a lasting legacy, demonstrating the government’s commitment to prioritizing public health over commercial interests. It set a precedent for regulating the advertising of products deemed harmful to public well-being. This approach has since been extended to other substances, such as alcohol and prescription medications (although you wouldn’t know it judging from the many ads we see on TV today for prescription-only medications), illustrating the enduring impact of the 1971 decision on media regulation.

Conclusion:

The 1971 ban on TV cigarette advertisements was a key moment that showcased the government’s recognition of its role in safeguarding public health. By severing the powerful connection between tobacco companies and the mass media, the ban marked a turning point in the fight against smoking-related illnesses. Beyond its immediate impact on smoking rates, the decision laid the groundwork for future regulations on advertising harmful products, emphasizing the importance of balancing commercial interests with the well-being of the public.

1971 Ford Pinto: Lessons learned

December 13, 2023 (updated April 13, 2024) Published by

Introduction:

The Ford Pinto, introduced in 1971, was a subcompact car that gained infamy due to a series of safety-related problems, most notably its susceptibility to fires in rear-end collisions. This essay explores the key issues surrounding the Ford Pinto, examining the ethical considerations and corporate decisions that contributed to one of the darkest chapters in automotive history.

Engineering Flaws and Safety Concerns:

One of the primary issues with the Ford Pinto was its flawed design, particularly in the placement of the fuel tank. Positioned in a vulnerable location just behind the rear axle, the fuel tank was highly susceptible to rupturing in the event of a rear-end collision. This design flaw significantly increased the risk of post-collision fires, putting both the driver and passengers at grave danger.

It is amazing when we think of this today. The Ford Pinto was a bad experience in our history of automobile making

Corporate Decision-Making:

One of the most controversial aspects of the Ford Pinto case was the internal cost-benefit analysis conducted by Ford. In documents later revealed during lawsuits, it became clear that Ford had knowledge of the potential dangers posed by the Pinto’s design. However, a cost-benefit analysis performed by the company concluded that the cost of fixing the safety issues outweighed the potential liabilities from injuries or fatalities resulting from accidents.

This decision to prioritize financial considerations over consumer safety raised serious ethical questions about corporate responsibility. Critics argue that Ford’s actions demonstrated a callous disregard for human life, as the company knowingly continued to produce and sell a car with known safety defects.

Legal and Regulatory Consequences:

The Ford Pinto controversy eventually landed in courtrooms, leading to lawsuits and legal repercussions for the automaker. In one infamous case, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, a jury awarded damages to a plaintiff who suffered severe burns in a Pinto-related accident. The legal battles exposed internal memos and documents, providing a damning narrative of Ford’s knowledge and decision-making process.

The fallout from the Ford Pinto case also prompted regulatory changes in the automotive industry. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established stricter safety standards and regulations, emphasizing the need for manufacturers to prioritize safety in their designs. The Pinto experience served as a cautionary tale, prompting both the public and regulatory bodies to scrutinize corporate practices more closely.

Legacy and Lessons Learned:

The Ford Pinto case remains a poignant example of the ethical challenges faced by corporations when balancing financial interests against consumer safety. It highlights the importance of transparency, accountability, and prioritizing the well-being of customers. The fallout from the Pinto incident contributed to a shift in public perception, with consumers becoming more conscious of the safety features and practices employed by automakers.

The Pinto experience also underscored the significance of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Companies are increasingly expected to act ethically and prioritize the safety and well-being of their customers. The Ford Pinto case serves as a stark reminder that the pursuit of profit should never come at the expense of human lives and safety.

Conclusion:

The Ford Pinto problems represent a dark chapter in the history of the automotive industry, marked by ethical lapses and corporate decisions that prioritized financial considerations over consumer safety. The legacy of the Pinto case extends beyond the courtroom, influencing changes in regulations and emphasizing the importance of ethical decision-making in corporate culture. As we reflect on this episode, it serves as a reminder of the responsibilities that corporations bear toward their customers and society at large.

Thalidomide: Our 1960s nightmare

December 10, 2023 (updated December 10, 2023) Published by

The beginning of the nightmare

A late 1950s advertisement touted a new drug called “Mornidine” (which was another name for Thalidomide). The advertisement said that “Mornidine is a drug with specific effectiveness for treating the nausea and vomiting which occurs in early pregnancy.” Can you imagine? It SPECIFICALLY said to use this drug “In Pregnancy.” It would turn out, as we will see below, that using this drug during pregnancy produced disastrous results!

The late 1950s and early 1960s were the beginning of the nightmare. Mornidine was, in actuality a drug called Thalidomde which had been developed in the mid 1950s by the West German pharmaceutical company Chemie Grünenthal GmbH. It was originally intended as a sedative or tranquilizer but was soon used for treating a wide range of other conditions, including colds, flu, nausea and – worst of all – morning sickness in pregnant women.

A prescription was never required.

Really? How could it be that a doctor’s prescription was never required for people to have access to Thalidomide? Well actually yes. It is unfortunately true. When initially released in Germany in late 1950s, a prescription was not required for people to have access to Thalidomide. Why? Well, it so happened that during early testing of Thalidomide, researchers found that “it was virtually impossible to give test animals a lethal dose of this drug”. What that meant is the they gave Thalidomide to laboratory test animals and that (pretty much) no matter how high a dose of Thalidomide they gave to laboratory test animals, it did not kill them. Therefore, based on this, the drug was felt to be harmless to give to humans. As a result, Thalidomide was licensed in Germany in July 1956 for over-the-counter sale (no doctor’s prescription was needed). Unbelievable but unfortunately true.

By 1958, Thalidomide was being produced and sold in various countries. In the United Kingdom it was produced and sold under various brand names, such as Distaval, Tensival, Valgraine and Asmaval. That means that in 1958 in Great Britain, you could walk up to your local pharmacy and pick up some Thalidomide without a prescription (under the various brand names mentioned above) to treat the nausea, or “Morning Sickness”, which is often encountered in early pregnancy. Advertisements of the time said things like “Distaval (another name for Thalidomide) can be given with complete safety to pregnant women (!) and nursing mothers without adverse effect to mother or child.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

In the USA: Dr. Kelsey saved us!

Here in the USA, we were largely saved this Thalidomide nightmare by a physician/pharmacist at the FDA by the name of Frances Oldham Kelsey, MD, PhD (or “Frankie” as her friends called her). Despite tremendous pressure from the pharmaceutical company that wanted the FDA to approve Thalidomide for use in the USA, Dr. Kelsey stubbornly turned down their many requests for the FDA to approve Thalidomide to be put pharmacy store shelves here in the USA. Dr. Kelsey felt that the companies had not provided enough clinical evidence to refute reports coming to the US from England (and other countries) of adults who developed nerve damage in their limbs after long-term use of Thalidomide. Unbelievably this was Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey’s only her second case on the job as one of the reviewers for NDAs (New Drug Application) for the FDA. Dr. Kelsey, who passed away on August 7, 2015 at the age of 101, was a rookie at the FDA when a pharmaceutical company applied to the FDA to approve Thalidomide for us in the USA and rookie or not, she largely saved the US (the country as a whole) from the terrible nightmare of what was Thalidomide in the early 1960s! This took tremendous courage on her part.

On September 8, 1960, Dr. Kelsey received an NDA (New Drug Application) from a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Cincinnati called the “Richardson-Merrell” Company” who wanted the FDA to approve for the USA their new sedative which they called “Kevadon”, (but in reality this was Thalidomide under a US tradename). What is even more significant of the courage and sacrifice that Dr. Oldham Kelsey did for all of us is that at the time, a New Drug Application (NDA), by rule, had to be processed within 60 days or the company had the automatic right to market the product in the US! Can you imagine? What if Dr. Kelsey did not defend us as stubbornly as she did? In addition, unbelievable but true, at the time in the late 50s and early 60s, whether or not it was yet approved by the FDA, drug companies were permitted to freely distribute products to doctors if the packaging was labeled “experimental.” These reasons are why, despite Dr. Kelsey’s unbelievably heroic efforts, here in the US we still had a number of children born with birth defects due to Thalidomide.

The pressure on Dr. Kelsey was tremendous

The pharmaceutical company, Richardson-Merrell, expected to officially launch their Thalidomide medication onto US store shelves within 6 months of when they applied to the FDA for approval. They thought that they would have this medication on store shelves by March 6, 1961! In fact, they had already started to freely distribute samples of this Thalidomide formulation here in the USA and they were telling doctors and patients that their new sedative which they called Kevadon, (but in reality, this was Thalidomide under a US tradename) was supposedly “extremely safe, even for children” and – said even worse – that it was supposedly “safe and effective against the morning sickness of pregnancy”! (which it most definitely was NOT safe!).

Kelsey and her team repeatedly rejected the application for FDA approval for Thalidomide by the Richardson-Merrell Company, thereby angering the company tremendously. Richardson-Merrell submitted to the FDA and to Dr. Kelsey so-called “additional data” to try to compel the FDA to approve Thalidomide for over-the-counter use in the USA, but again Dr. Kelsey and her team rejected Richardson-Merrell’s application noting that their application was, again “incomplete and inadequate”. As expected, the Richardson-Merrell Company became very angry with Dr. Kelsey’s repeated rejections of Thalidomide for US store shelves. In about 18 months, unbelievably, they made approximately 50 visits to Dr. Kelsey’s office trying to get her to approve Thalidomide for the US store shelves – to give to pregnant women for “morning sickness”! Can you imagine the disaster if Dr. Kelsey would have buckled under this pressure and would have approved Thalidomide for US store shelves?

During the time when Dr. Kelsey was rejecting the repeated applications by the Richardson-Merrell Company to approve Thalidomide for United State store shelves, the US started to receive reports from doctors in the UK, Australia, Europe, Japan and West Germany, noting an alarming rate of malformed babies from mothers who were taking Thalidomide when they were pregnant (remember, there was no Internet in those days so these reports had to wait for regular mail). These reports noted that women who were taking Thalidomide during pregnancy were either miscarrying their pregnancies or their babies were being born without arms, without legs, sometimes without eyes and with many other horrible deformities. Other countries therefore began pulling Thalidomide from their markets and, after learning of all of these serious side effects in other countries, on March 8, 1962 the Richardson-Merrell company withdrew from the FDA their application for the approval of their formulation of Thalidomide for the USA!. Dr. Kelsey’s refusal to approve thalidomide for sale in the US prevented the births of thousands of seriously malformed babies.

By the time that it was all said and done, by late 50s and early 60s more than 10,000 children in 46 countries were born with deformities as a consequence of their mothers taking thalidomide during their pregnancies. It was determined that the severity, and even the location of the birth defects, depended on how many days into the pregnancy the mom took Thalidomide:

20 days: If the mom took Thalidomide on or before the 20th day of pregnancy, it caused brain damage in the newborn.

21 days: If the mom took Thalidomide around the 21st day of pregnancy, it caused damage the eyes, the ears and face of the newborn. Some newborns were even born without eyes!

24 through 28 days: If the mom took Thalidomide from the 24th through the 28th day of pregnancy, Thalidomide caused damage to the arms and legs of the newborn. Some newborns were born without arms or legs!

In August 1962, President John F. Kennedy awarded Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey the President’s Medal for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service for her exceptional judgment in evaluating the drug Thalidomide and rejecting it for US store shelves. Dr. Kelsey was only the second woman ever to receive this award—the highest honor that can be bestowed upon a US civilian. As noted above, sadly Dr. Kelsey passed away on August 7, 2015 at the age of 101, We owe her so much. It is like what Winston Churchill said of the pilots who defended Britain from the Nazi onslaught during the Battle of Britain. “Never have so many, owed so much, to so few!”

Day the music died

When the music died in the 70s: Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, and Jimi Hendrix

December 10, 2023 (updated December 10, 2023) Published by

Introduction:

The late 1960s and early 1970s marked a huge era in our world of rock music, characterized by a cultural revolution, huge political upheavals, and unbelievable creative explosions. This transformative period witnessed the rise of three figures whose impact on the music scene was both profound and enduring – Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, and Jimi Hendrix. Their careers soared like meteoric comets, forever leaving a mark on the history of rock and roll. However, fate dealt a cruel hand, and within a span of just two years, the world lost these iconic musicians in a tragic sequence of events. Can you imagine? At the prime of their lives, all three were gone in less than two years. The late 50s and early 60s also had their “day when the music died” when on February 3, 1959, Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, “The Big Bopper” J. P. Richardson, and pilot Roger Peterson were killed in a plane crash near Clear Lake, Iowa.

The Rise to Stardom:

Janis Joplin, with her raw and emotive voice, shattered conventions and became the queen of blues-infused rock. Jim Morrison, the charismatic frontman of The Doors, wove poetic narratives into psychedelic soundscapes, while Jimi Hendrix’s unparalleled virtuosity with the guitar redefined the possibilities of the instrument. Each artist brought a unique flavor to the musical landscape, capturing the zeitgeist of the counterculture movement.

The Cosmic Collision:

The convergence of their deaths between 1970 and 1971 seemed like a cosmic collision, leaving fans and the music world in shock. Janis Joplin, the first to depart, succumbed to a heroin overdose on October 4, 1970, at the age of 27. Just a few weeks earlier, on September 18, 1970, Jimi Hendrix, the maestro of the electric guitar, died in London under mysterious circumstances. The final blow came on July 3, 1971, when Jim Morrison, the enigmatic poet and lead singer of The Doors, was found dead in his bathtub in Paris. The circumstances surrounding each death fueled speculation, conspiracy theories, and a collective sense of grief.

The 27 Club:

The tragic demise of Joplin, Hendrix, and Morrison contributed to the creation of the infamous “27 Club,” a morbid association of musicians who died at the age of 27. This peculiar and unfortunate connection deepened the mystique surrounding their deaths, as years later other influential artists like Kurt Cobain and Amy Winehouse also joined their ranks.

Legacy and Cultural Impact:

Despite their untimely departures, the legacy of Joplin, Morrison, and Hendrix endures through their groundbreaking music, influencing subsequent generations of musicians. Joplin’s soulful wails, Morrison’s poetic musings, and Hendrix’s revolutionary guitar techniques continue to inspire artists across genres. Their impact on the cultural and social landscape of the 1960s reverberates through time, reminding us of a bygone era of rebellion, experimentation, and artistic freedom.

The End of an Era:

The deaths of Joplin, Morrison, and Hendrix marked the symbolic end of the utopian ideals of the 1960s. The era of free love, peace, and psychedelic exploration gave way to a more cynical and disillusioned phase. The loss of these iconic figures left a void that would never be completely filled, underscoring the fragility of artistic brilliance in the face of personal struggles and societal pressures.

Conclusion:

Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, and Jimi Hendrix, though gone too soon, left an indomitable imprint on the history of rock music. Their deaths, occurring in close proximity, served as a poignant reminder of the fragility of artistic genius. As we reflect on their lives and the era they defined, we honor the enduring legacy of these three cosmic souls who, for a brief moment, illuminated the world with their extraordinary talents. The tragic triptych of Joplin, Morrison, and Hendrix stands as a testament to the enduring power of music and its ability to transcend time and space.

1973 Gasoline Crisis and the Odd/Even License Plate Rule

December 6, 2023 (updated December 6, 2023) Published by

Introduction. The gasoline crisis of 1973 marked an amazing moment in the history of the United States, triggering widespread panic and disruption due to an abrupt shortage of fuel. The crisis was primarily fueled by geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, leading to an embargo on oil exports by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). As a response to the shortage, the United States implemented various measures to conserve fuel, one of the most notable being the odd/even license plate rule.

What started the gas crises. The seeds of the gasoline crisis were sown in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War in October 1973. Arab nations, primarily members of OAPEC, declared an oil embargo against nations perceived as supporting Israel, including the United States. The embargo led to a drastic reduction in oil supplies, causing oil prices to skyrocket globally and prompting severe shortages in the United States.

Impact on the United States. The sudden surge in oil prices and the subsequent scarcity of fuel had a profound impact on American society. Long lines formed at gas stations as people rushed to fill their tanks before supplies ran out. Businesses were disrupted, and the overall economic landscape experienced a downturn. The crisis highlighted the vulnerability of the United States’ dependence on foreign oil and underscored the need for energy independence. We (the US) have been careful ever since then to make sure that we are not ever again as dependent on foreign oil as we were then. Please see “Lessons Learned” below.

Odd/Even License Plate Rule. In response to the gasoline shortage, various measures were implemented to conserve fuel, and one of the most controversial and memorable measure was the odd/even license plate rule. This rationing system, implemented in many states, regulated the days on which individuals could purchase gasoline based on whether their license plate ended in an odd or even number. On odd-numbered days, only vehicles with license plates ending in an odd number were allowed to buy fuel, and vice versa for even-numbered days. This was nuts. Those of us who remember living through this can attest to how crazy this was.

Public Reaction and Challenges. The odd/even license plate rule was met with a mixed response from the public. While some saw it as a necessary and fair way to distribute limited resources, others viewed it as an inconvenience and an infringement on personal freedom. The implementation of the rule also posed logistical challenges, with law enforcement and gas station attendants struggling to enforce the regulations and manage the long lines of vehicles.

Lessons Learned. The gasoline crisis of 1973 and the odd/even license plate rule highlighted the need for the United States to diversify its energy sources and reduce its dependence on foreign oil. In the aftermath of the crisis, there was increased focus on developing alternative energy solutions and promoting energy efficiency. The experience also underscored the importance of strategic planning and preparedness to mitigate the impact of unforeseen events on essential resources.

Conclusion. The gasoline crisis of 1973 and the odd/even license plate rule serve as important historical markers, illustrating the interconnectedness of global events and their impact on everyday life. The crisis prompted a reevaluation of energy policies in the United States and spurred efforts to enhance energy security. While the odd/even license plate rule may have been a temporary and contentious solution, it played a role in raising awareness about the fragility of the nation’s energy infrastructure and the need for long-term, sustainable solutions.

Kennedy’s Assassination: Reflections on a fateful day

December 5, 2023 (updated December 5, 2023) Published by

November 22, 1963, is a date etched in the annals of history and in our minds. A day that left an unbelievable mark on our collective consciousness as a nation and in my young mind as a child. On that fateful afternoon, the news of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination sent shockwaves across the United States, reverberating through the hearts and minds of all of us. I vividly remember the moment when I first heard the tragic news, a day that would change the course of history and my sense of security.

It was a crisp, autumn day, and I was in Mrs. Bender’s 4th grade class. She came into our classroom looking pale and gaunt. Her solemn voice shattered the ordinary flow of that school day and when she said that President Kennedy had just been shot in Dallas, Texas even my young mind at the time could tell that something very bad had just happened. Time seemed to stand still as the gravity of those words sunk in, a heavy pall settling over the nation.

In the early 1960s, Kennedy represented hope, charisma, and a vision for a brighter future. His youthful vigor and eloquent speeches had inspired a generation, promising a new frontier of progress and unity. The nation was captivated by the promise of change, and Kennedy’s assassination shattered those dreams in an instant.

As the news unfolded of his assassination, a profound sense of disbelief swept over me. How could this happen to the leader of the free world, a man who symbolized the aspirations of a nation? Someone who seemed like such a nice person? The air was charged with uncertainty, and the collective grief of a grieving nation was palpable. It was as if a beacon of hope had been extinguished, leaving behind a void that seemed insurmountable. The only thing that could come close to the disbelief that I felt that day was years later when I heard that someone, for no apparent reason, had shot and killed John Lennon.

The ensuing days were a blur of somber television broadcasts, tear-streaked faces, and a nation in mourning. The iconic image of Jacqueline Kennedy, clad in a blood-stained pink suit, standing stoically beside Lyndon B. Johnson as he took the oath of office aboard Air Force One, is seared into my memory. The abrupt transition of power underscored the fragility of democracy and the vulnerability of even the most powerful figures.

Kennedy’s assassination marked a turning point in American history, challenging the collective optimism that had defined the early 1960s. The nation grappled with a profound loss, not just of a president but of an era’s promise. The idealism that Kennedy had embodied was replaced by a sobering reality, punctuated by the violence of that tragic day.

In the aftermath, conspiracy theories emerged, adding a layer of complexity to the already devastating narrative. Questions lingered, and doubts persisted, casting a shadow over the official account of events. The Kennedy assassination became a symbol of the fragility of truth and the enduring human tendency to seek meaning in the face of incomprehensible tragedy.

Reflecting on that momentous day, I am reminded that history is often shaped by unforeseen events, altering the trajectory of nations and individuals alike. Kennedy’s assassination served as a stark reminder of the impermanence of power and the profound impact that a single act of violence can have on the course of history. As we remember that tragic day, we are compelled to honor the legacy of a leader who, in his untimely death, became a symbol of resilience, courage, and the enduring quest for a better tomorrow.

Notifications
Terms And Conditions Privacy Policy
#funny #golden #happy #learning #love #memories #music #nature #peace #positive #quote #records

Latest Members