The K.F. Stone Weekly

Dealing With Dysfunction

   It takes precious little experience, insight or intellect to recognize that the American political system is somewhere between dysfunctional and broken. Capitol hill is awash in cash and cowardice.  Steely partisanship stands athwart principle to such an extent that the nation's most pressing and systemic problems -- jobs, the economy, education and gross inequality to name but four -- are all being held hostage.  Tens of dozens of crucial positions in both the executive and judicial branches of government remain vacant because one party thinks it more important to deny the president of the opposing party a "victory" than to do what is right. Where once the filibuster was a rare and theatrically exhausting exercise in political brinksmanship, today, it is as commonplace as sushi in San Francisco.  Once upon a time, when a senator or representative cosponsored a piece of legislation they could be counted on to support and vote for that legislation.  Believe it or not, this is no longer a given.  Today, cosponsors frequently conspire to kill their own creations.  Why? For fear that said bill's passage might gain the president some political credit.

   Nowadays, just about the only solution one party offers -- after blaming every ill from aging to zero population growth on the other party -- is to vote the culprits and miscreants out of the White House and off of Capitol Hill.  As a result of such political puerility nothing gets done; Congress's popularity is lower than the Dead Sea; an entire nation suffers.

   Without question, the utter dysfunctionality of the American political system did not begin with the election of Barack Obama -- or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton for that matter.  It has been building for more than a generation.   In an important new work, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism veteran congressional scholars Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann point back to 1978, the year Republican Newt Gingrich was first elected to Congress. At the time of his election, Democrats had controlled the House of Representatives for 44 of the past 48 years -- and would continue to do so for the next 16.  Gingrich's strategy to overcome his party's historic minority status, as noted by Ornstein and Mann was, for the time, utterly unique: ". . . so intensify public hatred of Congress that voters would buy into the notion of the need for sweeping change and throw the majority bums out.  His method? To unite his Republicans in refusing to cooperate with Democrats in committee and on the floor, while publicly attacking them as a permanent majority presiding over and benefiting from a thoroughly corrupt institution."

    Gingrich's strategy eventually paid off; by 1994, he was Speaker of the House.  With the election of 2010, his method had become akin to divine law: Where once "compromise" and "bipartisanship" for the sake of the greater good were a politician's or legislator's stock-in-trade, today those concepts languish on the political "disabled list."  Taking their place in the starting lineup are such tactics as "opposing," "obstructing" "discrediting" and "nullifying." 

  To be certain, both Republicans and Democrats stridently accuse each another of being the real obstructionists and discrediting nullifiers. "It's because of those socialistic ultra-left, deficit-loving Democrats that we're in such abysmal fiscal shape," Republicans cry.  "Our economic crisis is the fault all of those plutocratic, intransigent right-wing, tax-avoiding Republicans," their Democratic counterparts respond.   And how does the American public respond?  By saying "A pox on both your houses." This attitude is born out by the lastest Politico/GWU/Battleground Poll; Congress's approval rating is a mere 13%.

   Should it be any surprise then that fewer and fewer people of quality are running for office? I mean, what truly sane man or woman would devote a year -- or two or four or more -- to raising vast sums of money in order to run for a position that will require them to spend the lion's share of their time raising even more money for the right to keep the other side from getting anything done and making them look bad in the process?

  Scholars Ornstein and Mann, neither of whom is particularly partisan, conclude that far more of the dysfunction can be laid at the feet of one party than the other:

   ". . . However awkward it may be for the traditional press and nonpartisan analysts to acknowledge, one of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier -- ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

   Over the past several years, Republicans have become so obsessed with not offending or going against the will of those on their far-right that they have been transformed from that flank's leader to its creature.  So much so that were he alive in 2012, Ronald Reagan would never be able to capture his party's nomination; he would undoubtedly be called a RINO -- a "Republican in Name Only."  It is unsettling to the max when one realises that today, the most moderate Republican in either house of Congress (likely Maine's outgoing Senator Olympia Snowe) is still to the right of that institution's most conservative Democrat (likely Pennsylvania Representative Jason Altmire). 

  Despite the extraordinary ideological chasm between the two parties, Americans themselves have never been all that extreme; we have a long and -- for the most part -- successful history of sticking to what one wag called "the sensible center."  So where are all the centrists in 2012?  Have they moved to the fringes; have they all morphed into left-winged socialists and right-wing flat-taxers?  According to Ornstein and Mann, the answer is no; those occupying the sensible center are have become so cynical and turned off to what now passes for politics as usual, that they simply stay the hell away from the polls on election day.  When a large majority of the American people favor higher taxes for the extremely wealthy and Republicans say "absolutely, categorically no"; when poll after poll shows that most Americans place job creation ahead of deficit reduction yet Republicans say "If you don't cut spending we'll destroy America's credit rating"; when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet then hear that the Republicans' plan for creating prosperity begins with catering to the wealthy and ends with cutting entitlements for the poor -- is it any wonder that so many opt out of participating?

   So how do we deal with the dysfunction we call a political system? In truth, I do not know.  I wish I had a simple, sure-fire answer to what ails us.  What I do know is that throughout our history as a nation, no problem was ever solved, no issue ever addressed, no wrong ever righted without the people standing firm.  It is our function to stand up against dysfunction.   

    The critic/essayist George Jean Nathan once wrote that "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote." 

    How true it is . . . how true it is.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Of Bullies and Banks

   The lion's share of this past week's press ink -- and public interest -- has been devoted to two essentially interconnected stories: President Obama's "coming out" in favor of gay marriage and Mitt Romney's bullying of a gay student nearly 50 years ago. Of the two, President Obama's announcement is without question vastly more significant. and, coming in an election year does carry the potential for both risk and reward. Writing in The Daily Beast, presidential historian Robert Dallek -- waxing a bit hyperbolically -- described it as "Obama's LBJ moment . . . at least mak[ing] him a candidate for Kennedy's Profiles in Courage."  Predictably, Obama's pronouncement has drawn breathless praise from his supporters, and holy damnation from his detractors. 

   At the same time a major investigative piece by the Washington Post's Jason Horowitz alleged that the teenaged Mitt Romney held down a gay classmate and cut his hair.  When confronted with the facts of this and at least one other so-called "schoolboy prank" -- and the corroboration of several of his prep school buddies -- Romney said that while he didn't remember the incident, he'd  ". . . seen the reports" and was "not going to argue with that."  Predictably, the conservative media see it as either a total fabrication on the part of the "left-wing" or a tempest in a teapot. Romney revilers see it as evidence that the former Massachusetts governor has always lacked empathy and compassion.

 Although both presidential campaigns are already using these two interconnected stories as goads for enhanced fundraising, it will likely have little impact on the presidential race.  Few voters will switch from Romney to Obama -- or Obama to Romney -- on the basis of gay marriage or bullying.

   What one might hope would decide the final vote is an issue -- and a story -- which received far less ink or interest this past week . . .

  On Thursday,  J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.'s, chief executive, Jamie Dimon  announced that his bank -- the nation's largest --  had lost $2 billion in trades over the past six weeks and could face an additional $1  billion (some fear $6 billion) in losses, due to excessively risky bets.  And yet, when first interviewed by MSNBC, Dimon, the so-called "smartest guy in the room," termed the bets "poorly executed" and "poorly monitored," a result of "many errors," "sloppiness," and "bad judgment." But not to worry, Dimon told Bloomberg News, “We will admit it, we will fix it and  move on.”  In other words, what Dimon is saying, "Trust us; we'll tweak a bit here, tweak a bit there and I promise it will never happen again.  It's really not such a big deal."

   Now I may not know Hell's first whisper about high finance, or the difference between a "hedge" and a "bet" or be able to define "credit default swap" and "collateralized debt obligation," but I can spot a hubristic B.S. artist a mile off.  

  In attempting to understand how such a fiasco could occur, four words come to mind: A LACK OF REGULATION. 

   To the lion's of Wall Street, as well as Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, virtually every Republican and many Democrats as well, the notion of regulating financial markets is as anathema as a cheeseburger to a chasid.  They argue that government regulations impinge on their ability to make a profit.  To me, this makes about as much sense as burglars complaining that home alarm systems hurt their ability to make a living.  

   Shortly after the 2008 financial meltdown, Congress began the work of investigating precisely what made the markets go haywire, who the responsible parties were, and what sort of legislation would be required to hopefully keep it from happening again. That process would eventually lead to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act. Despite being hailed as a heavy-weight piece of legislation that would bring ". . . the most significant changes to financial regulation  in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression," by  the time this 848-page measure was enacted on July 21, 2010, it lacked both muscle and spine.  Why?  Because dozens of CEOS, along with hundreds of lobbyists armed with millions of dollars went up to Capitol Hill with the singular aim of convincing the members of Congress that the more toothless the legislation, the better for all concerned.  

   Arguably, the two most important aspects of Dodd-Frank are its creation of a powerful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which -- at least in theory -- represents the interests of consumers against Wall Street; and the so-called "Volker Rule," which ideally restricts United States banks from making certain kinds of speculative investments that do not benefit their customers.  In essence, the Volker Rule is supposed to be a ban on proprietary trading (PTT) by commercial banks, whereby deposits are used to trade on the bank's own accounts.  Despite the fact that the final version of Dodd-Frank included many exceptions to this rule -- and that most of its provisions do not go into effect until July 21, 2012, Wall Street has been yowling long and hard that this "draconian measure" is taking away their ability to turn a profit.

   Draconian?  Anyone who thinks that Congress and the White House's attempts to remedy the causes of the Great Recession are "severe," "overly restrictive" or "draconian," obviously knows very little about America's political history.  In response to the Crash of '29 -- which was caused largely by institutions and individuals buying stock on tremendous margin -- Congress enacted several sweeping measures that focused on a single theme: protecting consumers by forcing Wall Street into the light. These measures included:

• The Securities Act of 1933, which required all publicly traded companies to register themselves and offer prospectuses to investors;
  
• The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which  forced publicly traded companies to make regular financial disclosures;
  
• The Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, which required all commodities and futures to be traded on organized exchanges.
  
• The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to protect bank depositors through an insurance fund paid for by the banks themselves;
• The Glass-Steagall Act which separated insurance companies, investment banks and commercial banks.
  

   In 1999, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, which spelled the end of Glass Steagall.  It was, without question, one of Congress' all-time worst pieces of legislation.  Wall Street argued that unless and until Glass Steagall was overturned -- thus toppling the "Chinese Wall" between commercial and investment banking -- their ability to engage in derivative trading (the lucrative practice of making bets on bets) and hedging (using some bets to offset the risks of other bets) was seriously hampered.  And they were correct; not too long after Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed by the House (362-57) and Senate (90-8) and signed by President Bill Clinton, the American public added the word "Enron" to their vocabulary.

   Although it's likely pie-in-the-sky, I firmly believe that we must reinstitute Glass-Steagall.  To take people like J.P. Morgan's Jamie Dimon at their word when they say that Wall Street can solve its own problems without any government regulation or oversight is foolhardy at best, disastrous at worst. To leave everything to free market forces is to put faith in the faithless. The nation's financial giants, with the acquiescence of Presidents from Reagan to Obama, have made sure that profits remain privatized, risk socialized.  Both Wall Street and Congress have convinced a wide swath of America that some banks are "too big to fail."

   But there may be a glimmer of hope on the horizon.  In its most recent annual report, the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank -- one of that institution's most conservative branches -- noted that "The too-big-to-fail institutions that amplified and prolonged the recent financial crisis remain a hindrance to full economic recovery and to the very ideal of American capitalism. It is imperative that we break up the big banks.

   Willem Buiter, one of all-time my favorite economists once wrote that "Self-regulation is to regulation as self-importance is to importance."

   It is time to stop paying so much attention to bullies -- whether at prep school or on Wall Street -- and pay more attention to banks . . .

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Amendment 8: Beware of Creeps Bearing Gifts

    Nearly 3,200 years ago (1184 B.C.E., to be precise) the Greeks found themselves about to enter the second decade of a fruitless war against the city of Troy.  Fans of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Brad Pitt will recall that the Greeks had laid siege to Troy after Paris had spirited away Helen, the wife of the Spartan king Menelaus. Try as they may, the Greeks simply couldn't deal Troy that final punishing blow.  Year after year, the war dragged on -- sort of like the U.S. in Afghanistan. Finally, Odysseus, the Greek's go-to guy, hit upon a brilliant strategem which he believed would permit his troops to enter the city and bring the war to a close: a huge, hollow wooden horse containing a select force Odysseus' best soldiers.  Wheeling the gigantic horse to the gates of Troy, the Greeks then pretended to sail away. Thinking that Odysseus and his troops had given up, the Trojans pulled the horse into the city as a victory trophy.  Wrong! That night, the soldiers emerged from their equine sanctuary and threw  open the gates of the city for the rest of their comrades.  The rest is history; the Greeks quickly overtook Troy, thus ending the war.  In the Aenid, Virgil sums up the story thus:   timeo Danaos et dona ferentis -- namely "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts."

   And ever since, the term "Trojan Horse" has been a metaphor for any trick or stratagem that causes a target to invite a foe into a securely protected bastion or space.Like the folks of ancient Troy, we, the citizens of Florida have a Trojan Horse parked outside the gates of our once "securely protected bastion" 

Amendment 8

  For those in the dark, this Trojan Horse, which will be on the ballot this November 6, is a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment.  Its backers and supporters swear on a stack of Bibles that its passage is essential for the preservation of religious freedom here in the Sunshine State.  In matter of truth, it is a Trojan Horse, designed to do precisely the opposite.  Far from being a measure to preserve religious freedom, Amendment 8 is intended to enshrine state government funding of religious schools and organizations.  Its secondary purpose is to further weaken public schools by diverting more and more money to charter school -- read "religious school" -- vouchers.

     On the surface, the amendment's wording seems to be fairly straightforward:

   Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, governmental benefits, funding, or other support, except as required by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

  If passed, Amendment 8 would amend Article III Section I of the Florida State Constitution to read:

There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace, or safety. No individual or entity may be discriminated against or barred from receiving funding on the basis of religious identity or belief. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

   As benign as the wording may seem at first blush, it is, in truth, as dangerous as the Trojan Horse at the gates of Troy.  

   How so?

   According to Americans United For Separation of Church and State, The goal of Amendment 8 is to allow taxpayer money to flow to religious schools and houses of worship. Passage of the Amendment would strip the religious freedom protections currently enshrined in the Florida Constitution, thus allowing for direct funding of religious organizations that provide faith-based social services and opening the door to taxpayer funded vouchers for religious schools.

   This is not to say that the State of Florida has not heretofore funded faith-based organizations.  It certainly has. Florida has partnered with religiously affiliated organizations -- Catholic Charities, Jewish Federation, Lutheran Social Services -- to perform social service programs.  This is in keeping with a 2004 state court decision, Bush v. Holmes, which acknowledged that the state may fund nonprofit organizations that are affiliated with a religious order or organization. But, the current Constitution places safeguards on the partnership to guard religious organizations from government intrusion and to protect taxpayers from paying for or being subjected to government-funded proselytization. The proposed amendment would tear down the safeguards.

   Proponents of Amendment 8 claim that as currently written, the no-aid provisions of the Florida Constitution (as incorporated in 1885 and reenacted in 1968) reflect a late 19th-century bias against Catholics. This is both inaccurate and incredibly simplistic.  And, as Grandma Ann would have said, "You're really full of canal water!"  The no-aid provision in the Florida Constitution (as well as that of 37 other states) was based on the so-called "Blaine Amendment," an 1875 proposal which would deny federal aid to religious schools.  Although the amendment failed on a federal level, it was adopted by three-quarters of the states.  And while it is true that there was some Catholic animus behind the measure's failure in 1875, it did not emanate from James G. Blaine, the measure's eponym: he was the son of a Catholic mother. 

   The most dangerous aspect of Amendment 8 is that in providing aid for faith-based schools -- largely in the form of vouchers -- it will further gut public education.  In 1999 Florida became the first state to establish a statewide voucher system.  In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the program violated the state constitution. Nonetheless, charter schools -- which receive public funding but are not subject to the same standards as public schools -- continue to be sold as the answer to a failing public system. As has been shown in state after state, and in school district after school district, the more money taken out of public schools in the form of private- and charter-school vouchers, the worse it is for students.  Numerous studies have shown that charter school students do not "out perform" public school students on standardized tests.

   The voucher system, which passage of Amendment 8 would no doubt enhance, is part-and-parcel of the "privatize-privative-privatize" philosophy of so  many contemporary politicians.  

   In brief, Amendment 8 has as much to do with religious freedom as Odysseus' Trojan Horse had to do with surrender.

   May the citizens of Florida learn the lesson that the citizens of Troy learned nearly 3,200 year ago: Beware of creeps -- which rhymes with Greeks -- who come bearing gifts.

    AMENDMENT 8 MUST BE DEFEATED!

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

 

Clueless

   Seems like hardly a news cycle goes by without Mitt Romney putting his foot in his mouth, thus proving to the 99% who weren't born into wealth and privilege, that he is one clueless dude.  You've got to hand it to the former Massachusetts governor; in his inimitable stiff-as-a-board way, he is the reincarnation of Thurston Howell III, the clueless millionaire of Gilligan's Island.  Gilligan fans will recall that millionaire Howell (Jim Backus) was so rich that he took tens of thousands of dollars and innumerable changes of clothing for what was supposed to have been "a three hour tour."

   Unlike the fictional Thurston Howell III however, Willard Mitt Romney is both real and running for President of the United States.  Every time Romney puts a bespoke John Lobb into his silver spoon fed mouth, a phalanx of political pundits utter prayers of thanksgiving.  Indeed, Juvenal, the father of all satirists, was undoubtedly correct when, nearly 2,000 years ago he wrote "In times like these, it is difficult not to write satire."

    It would seem that the late George Romney's greatest bequest to his son (besides a great head of hair) was a penchant for misstatement.  Seasoned political junkies may recall that the elder Romney's 1968 presidential aspirations were dealt a crushing blow when he told a Detroit television reporter "When I came back from Vietnam [in November 1965] I'd just had the greatest brainwashing anyone can get . . ." Within a week of making what was likely an off-the-cuff remark, George Romney became the fodder for television talk show hosts; his presidential aspirations began swirling around the political toilet bowl.

   Like his father, Mitt Romney can't go off-book without putting his foot in his mouth. But unlike George, who never spoke about his personal economic status, Mitt has a long record of bringing up his wealth -- of putting his foot in his mouth and coming off as a clueless dilettante. A couple of the former Massachusetts governor's more memorable gaffes include:

• Telling an AP reporter "I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners."
• Informing members of the Detroit Economic Club that his wife drives ". . . a couple of Cadillacs."
• Letting CNN's Soledad O'Brien know that "I'm not concerned about the very poor.  We have a safety net there."
• Saying that the speakers fees he earned during the previous year ($374,000) did not "amount to much."
• Telling hecklers at the Iowa State Fair that "Corporations are people, my friend . . . . Of course they are.  Everything corporations earn also goes to people."
  

     And now Romney's latest venture into the realm of fatuous feasting.  The other day, while speaking at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio, Romney had some simple advice to students who wanted to start their own business: simply borrow the money from their  parents.  During his speech Romney pointed to sandwich chain Jimmy John’s, in which owner Jimmy John Liautaud borrowed $20,000 from his father (in return for 48% of the business) to start the shop. "We've always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it. Take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business."

 

   More than one Republican strategist has averred that perhaps Mitt Romney is "a bit tone-deaf" and "should stick to his script."

  A "bit" tone-deaf? 

  How about "More mechanical than Robby the Robot?"  Or just plain "Certifiably clueless?"

   And what's worse, when Romney responds to those who critique his seeming vacuity, he comes off sounding even more out-of-touch.  Back in January, as an example, Romney came under withering criticism for his record at Bain Capital -- in which he and his fellow corporate raiders were responsible for tens of thousands of people losing their jobs.  So how did the former Massachusetts governor respond?  By calling such criticism un-American “class warfare” that is simply motivated by “envy.”  Romney added that our broken economy — one that is only working for the wealthy few right now — should not even be discussed in public, saying discussions of income inequality were only fit for “quiet rooms.”  

 

   Again, Romney hasn't a clue.  Americans have nothing against wealth.  We don't envy the rich. For most people, the rich are like the characters in a fairy tale: fascinating, remote and mostly unreal.  Heck, if there's one constant in American history, it's our fascination with the lives of the rich and famous; what they drive, where they live and how they spend.  But it's celebrities, not potential Presidents and First Ladies whose lives and wealth fascinate us.  When it comes to those who seek our votes, we want to know that they can relate to real lives and challenges, real dreams, fears and aspirations.  On that score -- and by his own words -- Mitt Romney hasn't a clue.

   Just the other day, House Speaker John Boehner was asked by CNN's Candy Crowley whether he thought Mitt Romney's wealth would present him a "hill to climb" in tough economic times.  "No," the speaker responded, "The American people don't want to vote for a loser.  They don't want to vote for someone that hasn't been successful.  I think Mitt Romney has an opportunity to show the American people that they too, can succeed."  While I certainly agree with Speaker Boehner that the American people "don't want to vote for someone that hasn't been successful," I wonder who in the world he's comparing Governor Romney to, and what his definition of success is. 

   By definition, anyone and everyone who runs for president is a success.  But success is not necessarily confined only to that which is taxable.  When Bill Clinton was elected President of the United States, he was, without question, one of the most successful men in the world.  And yet at the time, his net worth likely amounted to far less than a week's unearned income -- $384,615.00 -- for the Romneys.  Today, the President and Secretary Clinton are multi-millionaires.  By the same token, by the time he was elected President, Barack Obama was a millionaire; a man who had risen from the middle class by dint of his literary skill.  Because they are products of the middle class, both Clinton and Obama can easily relate to the lives and aspirations of most people.

   This is not to suggest that those who are either born to wealth --  (West Virginia Sen. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, or Colorado Representative Jared Polis) or those who have amassed a fortune on their own (Cal. Rep. Darryl Issa, Wisc. Senator Herb Kohl or former Rep. Alan Grayson) are incapable of relating to people who are not "to the manor born."  Most people succeed in politics precisely because they relate well to people; because voters sense that -- to paraphrase Bill Clinton -- they "feel our pain."  With Mitt Romney, however, one wonders whether he has a clue; whether he understands that while the majority of Americans don't begrudge him being wealthy, we do wish he'd show sensitivity to the fact that most people aren't.

   Years ago, comedian Steve Martin did a Saturday Night Live sketch that puts Mitt Romney's cluelessness into satiric perspective:

   You can be a millionaire and never pay taxes!  You can be a millionaire and never pay taxes! You say, 'Steve, how can I be a millionaire and never pay taxes?'  Well, I'll tell 'ya: first, get a million dollars . . ."

   Or as Mitt Romney might say, "You can always borrow it from your parents . . ."

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

The Sky is Not Falling -- The Horizon is Rising

  This past Thursday (April 19, 2012), House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press conference -- an event that rarely rates more than a line or two in either the New York or Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, or even the San Francisco Chronicle. At one point during the press session -- which focused mainly on taxes, the so-called "Buffett Rule," and the Secret Service scandal in Columbia -- The former House Speaker made reference to Senate Bill 2219, the DISCLOSE Act.  This act, introduced by Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in the senate and Representative Chris Van Hollen in the House would " . . . amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities."  In speaking of the Whitehouse/Van Hollen proposal (which has 40 cosponsors in the Senate and more than 100 in the House), the former Speaker said:

On another subject, but related, yesterday House Administration Democrats held a forum on the need to create a new politics free of special interest money. I call it a forum because we were not allowed to call it a hearing because the Republicans will not allow a hearing on DISCLOSE. They did not allow the camera system of the room to be used to transmit the proceedings from the forum to the rest of the world. We think that this is about transparency, DISCLOSE. Stand by your ads. If you are so proud of what you are doing with your effective political action, then let the world know who is paying for this ad; not by the end of the year, or the end of the month, but by the end of the ad, in real time. We have to do it as candidates. They should have to do it as contributors.

   We have a clear agenda in this regard. DISCLOSE, reform the system, reducing the role of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to let secret, unlimited huge amounts of money flow into campaigns. I think one of the presenters yesterday said it was – that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that indeed is not an exaggeration. Our founders had an idea. It was called democracy. [They] said the elections are determined by the people, the voice, and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. The Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our founders' vision, and we want to reverse it.

   As noted above, Pelosi's comments went unreported by the nation's major media outlets.  Nonetheless, her 280-word comment was picked up by chatterboxes at Fox, who then proceeded to dice, slice and skewer.  So far as they -- and virtually all of their colleagues in the conservative media -- were concerned, Pelosi's support of the DISCLOSE Act was and is nothing short of a declaration of war on both the First Amendment and the United States of America.  "How dare Nancy Pelosi stand there and blatantly admit that she and her fellow Democrats are going to amend Constitution in order to overturn a Supreme Court decision?" the likes of Sean Hannaty, Dana Perino and Bob Beckel asked in mock abhorrence -- as if they haven't at one time or another pushed for overturning of the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution.   (These amendments, in order, guaranteed "Due Process," gave Congress the legal right to collect income taxes and permitted the direct election of U.S. Senators.)

   Call it an act of collective, selective amnesia.  When the right seeks to repeal the entire 20th century, it is an act of sheer patriotism -- a strengthening of liberty's beneficent embrace.  When Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues call for the repeal Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission  it is a sure sign that the sky is falling and a reborn Soviet Union is on the brink of swallowing America whole.

   Truth to tell, the SCOTUS Citizens United decision -- which declared that corporations, like people are guaranteed the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" --  has made it likely that America will one day be swallowed whole . . . but not by Communists, by Corporatists.  As a result of Citizens United, the wealthiest Americans can dump hundreds of millions of anonymous dollars into committees that will then back those office holders or candidates who will do their bidding -- regardless of how reckless or retrogressive their wishes may be. (See my October 29, 2010 article "Worse Than Dred Scott," which was published a few days after the Supreme Court's decision.)

   As a result of Citizens United, the will of the people has been replaced by "Gold's Law" -- namely, "He (or she) that's got the gold will make the law." 

   Don't believe that the will of the people is being buried?  A bit of anecdotal evidence:

• According to an ABCNEWS/Washington Post Poll, 57% of the American public say abortion should be legal "in all or most cases," and 54% continue to support the court's 1973 Roe v Wade decision.  And yet, legislatures in nearly every state have enacted draconian anti-abortion measures up to ans including a recently passed Arizona law which states that life begins two weeks BEFORE CONCEPTION.
• The Gallup Poll reports that for the first time in its tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe ". . . same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid with the same rights as traditional marriages."  And yet, both Congress and a majority of state legislatures are pushing for a "Defense of Marriage Act," which would declare that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
• According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, a whopping 65% of those polled are in favor of an overhaul of the U.S. health care system.  Of that 65%, nearly one-in-four did not believe that so-called "Obama Care" went far enough. And yet, everywhere one looks or listens, there are demands for a repeal of the president's "socialist" program.
• A recent CBS/New York Times poll reveals that 56% say they oppose cutting the pay or benefits of (largely unionized) public employees to reduce state budget deficits, and 60% percent oppose eliminating some collective bargaining rights for public employee unions, while just one in three Americans supports that idea.  Despite this, several state legislatures have voted to curb union rights, claiming that in large measure, the nation's economic doldrums are caused by unions.
• A poll conducted by Hart Research Associates found that nearly 8 ouf ot every ten voters (79%) support passage of a Constitutional amendment to overturn the
  Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people. This figure includes 42% who would definitely support it. Just 21% are opposed. Large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) support passage of the amendment. 
  

   And yet, there are those who are warning that the sky is falling.

   Well, I'm here to tell you that the sky is not falling; rather, the horizon is rising.  We are beginning to see the largely ignored majority band together and make their/our voices and desires heard.  Just ask Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who is spending nearly every waking hour trying to keep from being recalled.  Just ask the folks of ALEC (see my July 30, 2011 article) who are underwriting so many of these issues; within the past two weeks, they have lost the financial backing of Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and MacDonalds.  Lastly, ask state legislators in Hawaii, Vermont, New Mexico and shortly Montana, as well as members of city councils across the country, who have all passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. 

   Finally, people are saying "Enough's enough! America is a nation built on the will of the people, not the wealth of the plutocrats."  For those interested in adding their voice to the "Overturn Citizens United" campaign, check out Free Speech For People.

  Let the Foxifiers warn that the sky is falling.  It will keep them too busy to realize that for the rest of us, the horizon is rising . . .

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

A Whale of Two Pities

   So you tell me: who's more dangerous, divisive and delusional -- CNN contributor Hilary Rosen or U.S. Representative Allen West?  Based on their past declarations and history -- plus a judicious Google search -- I'd have to say Allen West by about twelve thousand furlongs.  For while Rosen's comment about Ann Romney (" . . . she's never worked a day in her life . . .") has become the political flashpoint of the week,  Representative West's statement that " . . . there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party" sounds and feels like the rebirth of McCarthyism.  I don't know about you, but when it comes to being dangerous, divisive and delusional, Rep. West wins this one hands down.

  When asked to recant and apologize for her comment, Ms. Rosen issued a statement in which she said, "I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended. Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance." Ms. Rosen (who herself has raised two children) also published a piece in The Huffington Post, which said in part, ". . . Let's be clear on one thing. I have no judgments about women who work outside the home vs. women who work in the home raising a family. I admire women who can stay home and raise their kids full-time. I even envy them sometimes. It is a wonderful luxury to have the choice. But let's stipulate that it is NOT a choice that most women have in America today."

   For those who at this point are crying out "But that's no apology!" guess again.  Even former first lady Barbara Bush commended Rosen's mea culpa, telling people ". . . forget it. Life is good. Women who stay home are wonderful, women who go to work are wonderful. Whatever." At a time when all sides of the media love playing "Gotcha!" the response to Hillary Rosen's verbal gaffe is far from unique. That she has been taken to the woodshed by both the stalwarts of the Right and members of her own party is hardly surprising.  Obama campaign chair David Axelrod told CNN's John King that Rosen's comments were "unfortunate," but quickly reminded him that ". . . she works for you (CNN), not for us . . ."

   

   While everyone in America now knows that Hilary Rosen accused Ann Romney of "never having worked a day in her life," few realize that this was only the first part of her statement.  For beginning with the very next sentence, Rosen added, "She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and why do we worry about their future."  In checking out numerous websites -- right, center and left -- dealing with the Rosen/Romney scrap, it is amazing how many people have felt the need to mention that Hilary Rosen is a lesbian, but that "this has nothing to do with how I feel about what she said."  Well, if it has "nothing to do with . . . what she said," why bring it up in the first place?  

   Lost in the current imbroglio is the fact that there is still more than a germ of truth in what Hilary Rosen said; people like Ann Romney cannot truly understand just how difficult it is for two-wage earner families to make ends meet.  For most American families raising children is something one does after eight -- or ten, or twelve -- hours of work.  Staying home with a sick child can mean a loss of income; taking time off to give birth can mean a loss of employment.

   Then there's Alan West.

 

   Where Hilary Rosen quickly gave in to demands that she apologize to both Ann Romney and the women of America, Allen West has remained unbowed, unapologetic and defiant; he truly believes that of the 193 Democrats in the House, more than 40% are members of the Communist Party.  When asked to comment on West's assertion, Libero Della Piana, a vice-chair of the Communist Party said, "I think it's an absurd way to cast a shadow over his colleagues. It's kind of a sad ploy."

   While it's a pity that Hilary Rosen's remark threw a rhetorical monkey wrench into an otherwise serious, much-needed political debate, it is an even greater pity that Rep. West should attempt to recycle and revive one of the darkest, most gruesome episodes in American history.  To be certain, there are some mighty big differences between the America of Martin Dies, Joe McCarthy, J. Parnell Thomas, and the John Birch Society than that of Allen West, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and the Koch brothers.  Back then, people got their news from journalists like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Howard K. Smith and Eric Severeid; today we've got a thousand-and-one cable entertainers, few of whom qualify for the title "newsman." In the McCarthy era, nearly 35% of the American labor force belonged to a union; today the percentage is not quite 12%.  Back in the day, the "international conspiracy" was made up of Jews, unions, Zionists, even plutocratic bankers, all puppets dangling on strings manipulated by Stalinist agents in Moscow, Hollywood, the Lower East Side and certain segments of Capitol Hill.  Today, all that has changed; the Soviet Union no longer exists, and thus can no longer act as puppet master.

   Or does it? Just three weeks ago Mitt Romney told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that " . . . Russia is, without question, our biggest geopolitical foe. They fight every cause for the world's worst actors."

 

   Representative West, who has been suggested as an "ideal running mate" for  Romney, would appear to agree with the former Massachusetts governor; Russia is still the enemy, Communism still the greatest source of evil. 

   West is of course well-known for making outrageous comments:

• “If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat party."
• [Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is] "Vile, unprofessional and despicable . . . not a lady."
• “I am sick and tired of this class warfare, this Marxist demagogic rhetoric that is coming from the president of the United States. Barack Hussein Obama is nothing more than a low-level socialist agitator.”
• Speaking of Congressional Democrats: “Take your message of equality of achievement…You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”

   From where I sit, Allen West, like Joseph McCarthy, is divisive, delusional, and just plain dangerous.  Like McCarthy, he says things he knows are not true in order to garner public attention; in order to separate himself from the nameless pack.  Like McCarthy he has identified a segment of the American public that is beset with fear, loathing and resentment -- and announced that he can be counted on to be their champion.  And like McCarthy he is a master of political misdirection -- of creating conspiracies out of thin air.

   Hilary Rosen has apologized for her gaffe; her political compass will lead her back to a proper path. 

   Allen West, on the other hand, is a man without a compass . . . or a conscience. 
  

   It's a whale of a pity.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

If a Tree Falls in the Forest . . .

   I would imagine that at one time or another, most of us have pondered that eternal question "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?  Hard as it may be to believe, that question has, over the years, attracted the attention of some pretty serious thinkers -- philosophers, physicists and garden-variety ponderers. 

   Jim Baggot, a well-respected British professor and author of, among other works, The Quantum Story: A History in Forty Moments, opined that "The answer depends on how we choose to interpret the use of the word ‘sound’. If by sound we mean compressions and rarefactions in the air which result from the physical disturbances caused by the falling tree and which propagate through the air with audio frequencies, then we might not hesitate to answer in the affirmative." 

   I guess some folks just can't resist the temptation to "complexify" where others would see the need to simplify.  In all fairness to professor Baggot, he is truly a marvelous writer and teacher; one endowed with sufficient genius to take things which are inherently complex and esoteric -- like quantum physics and the nature of reality -- and make them eminently understandable.  It takes a lot of brains to simplify that which is complex . . .

   On the opposite end of the spectrum are the folks who take things which are inherently simple and somehow make them seem as complex or esoteric as quantum physics.  From time to time, President Obama, I am sorry to say, falls into this category.

   Case in point, his recent use of the term social Darwinism.

   The other day, the president was speaking about the House Republican budget plan -- the one Governor Romney termed "marvelous."  The plan would save millionaires a minimum of $150,000 a year in taxes while gutting Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, transportation, child nutrition, college aid and almost everything else average and lower-income Americans depend on.  Where former Labor Secretary Robert Reich attacked the plan -- created by Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan -- in rather simple terms, calling it ". . . the most radical reverse-Robin Hood proposal propounded by any political party in modern America," the president took the "complexifier's" path, stating, "Disguised as deficit reduction . . . it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country.  It is thinly veiled social Darwinism."

   While what President Obama said hits the nail on the head -- the Ryan plan does smack of "social Darwinism" -- it is a statement which sadly, very few people will understand.  Case in point, the arch-conservative who just the other day demanded that I explain to her, "How in the hell can Obama accuse Governor Romney of being a Socialist?"  I tried to explain that "social Darwinism" has nothing to do with Socialism, and next to nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution -- which in any event, a huge number of Americans -- herself included -- don't subscribe to.

   Indeed, as correct and trenchant as his assessment of the Ryan Plan may be, President Obama really should avoid using a term like "social Darwinism," which few people have ever heard of.  "Social Darwinism" is a 19th concept that originates with sociologist William Graham Sumner.  Sumner (1840-1910), who taught social and political science at Yale for nearly 40 years, argued that laissez-faire economics is justified by the theories of Charles Darwin.  In numerous essays, he argued for near-absolute individual liberty and staunchly opposed all forms of business regulation, labor unions and public welfare.  Accused by his critics of being hard-hearted, Sumner wrote, "The sociologist is often asked if he wants to kill off certain classes of troublesome and bewildered persons. No such interference follows from any sound sociological doctrine, but it is allowed to infer, as to a great many persons and classes, that it would have been better for society and would have involved no pain to them, if they had never been born."  

   Sumner -- like modern day Republicans -- treated the market the way Darwinians treat natural selection — as the sole natural and correct mechanism for distributing rewards.  He saw the free market as a moral arbiter, not merely a tool for creating wealth.  This attitude was in perfect step with America's Calvinist tradition, which from the time of the Pilgrims understood wealth to be a tangible sign of Divine approval, and poverty an obvious sign of Divine rejection. Those who  received their college educations in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, likely learned about this from reading the late Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought.

   Greg Mankiw, one of Mitt Romney's key economic advisors put the Republican allegiance to social Darwinism (even if not specifically called that) rather starkly when he wrote, "People should get what they deserve. A person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions. Society permits him that higher income not just to incentivize him, as it does according to utilitarian theory, but because that income is rightfully his."

   As much as conservative writers like David Brooks, Geoffrey Norman and the above-referenced Greg Mankiw might disparage Barack Obama for "smearing" them with the term "social Darwinism," the president was speaking the truth.  Unfortunately, truth -- like the tree which falls in the forest without benefit of a set of ears -- may make a sound, but if it comes wrapped in words or phrases that the majority does not understand, can  be neither appreciated nor apprehended.  

  If I could give the president and his campaign advisors a bit of advice, it would be this: please, ladies and gentlemen, do a better, less complex job of explaining.  The fewer the syllables, the less the academic terminology -- regardless of how correct it is -- the greater the chance you have that the voting public will conclude that indeed, you know what you're talking about. 

   It's just that simple. 

  As simple as a tree falling in the forest.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

  

The Oil of Politics

  Of all the meaty issues that are going to be served up on the presidential election platter -- health care, Iran, deficits, the future of Social Security, Medicare, immigration, the future of America to name but a few -- it is highly likely that the price of gas will be that platter's main course.  For unlike any other issue, this one affects our lives not in the abstract, but in capital letters; not once a month, but nearly every day.  And, where one might, through an act of will or self-preservation, hide just about any other issue under the mental rug, the price we pay for a gallon of gas is simply too central, too overwhelming, to be separated from our daily concerns.

   As central a focus as the price of gas-at-the-pump is going to be, it is an issue which candidates will address with fatuous finger-pointing, superficial slogans and brainless bromides where tachlis -- Yiddish for "seriousness of purpose" -- should reign supreme.  Moreover, most every challenger -- whether running for President, Senate or House of Representatives, will espouse the same simple-minded solution for this utterly complex challenge: "Vote for me! I will lower gas to $2.50 a gallon!" "Vote for me!  I will drill everywhere from Butte, Montana to the Beaufort Sea"  "Vote for Me! I will free America from its dependence on Arab oil!"

   Sorry fans, but it ain't gonna happen.  Candidates who suggest that utter complexity can be parsed through sheer simplicity are charlatans; voters who buy into that simplicity are to be pitied.

   And so, in keeping with the old adage "To be forewarned is to be forearmed," we present a little quiz about oil, energy independence and the price of gas . . .

   1. The world's largest producer of oil is:

       A. Saudi Arabia

       B. Iran

       C. United States

       D. Russia

       E. China

   The correct answer is D, Russia. The next four, in order of production output are Saudi Arabia, United States, Iran and China.

   2. The largest single foreign source of American oil comes from:

       A. Mexico

       B. Venezuela

       C. Saudi Arabia

       D. Nigeria      

       E. Canada

   The correct answer is E Canada.  In order of quantity imported, ranging from most to least, America gets its oil from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria.  

   3. True or False: During Barack Obama's first three years in office, America's rate of oil production and exploration fell dramatically.

        False: According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), during the last 3 years of the George W. Bush administration (2006-2008), America produced 1.78 billion barrels of oil.  During the first three years of the Obama administration (2009-2011), America produced 2 billion barrels of oil, a nearly 13% increase. 

   4. True or False: The best way to lower the price of gas at the pump is to drill for more oil here in America.

       False.  A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump. If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, we'd now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline.

   5. True or False: If America could reduce its oil imports to zero, we could insulate ourselves from the global market and set our own prices.

        False.  It is virtually impossible to be insulated from the global market -- even if we do not import a single barrel.  Gasoline prices will always be determined by world petroleum prices.  The only way to keep prices significantly lower than the world market would be to institute price controls, which President Richard Nixon did in March 1973.  (In 1973 Congress passed the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act which created a two-tier system of price controls on domestic oil. The price of “old” domestic oil was frozen, but “new” domestic oil was decontrolled.  These controls were phased out by the end of the Carter Administration.)

  There is no single reason why gas prices rise or fall.  Having said this, it must be admitted that the price of gas at the pump does have more to do with the petroleum futures' market than with either the production or consumption of gasoline.  And what frequently "fuels" the petroleum futures' market is a combination of worry, fear and uncertainty about the future.  When, as an example, there is a rise in bellicose rhetoric vis-à-vis Iran ("If elected, Iran better watch out!" or "If you persist in putting more economic sanctions on us, we'll retaliate by shutting down the Straits of Hormuz!") speculators drive up the price per barrel against the possibility of what might happen in the future.  Interestingly, even if Iran finds itself  able to sell only half the oil due as it did prior to sanctions, if the price per barrel will increase 30% or 40% -- which it could well do -- their income won't be all that much less.  In other words, it would be wise for politicians to lay off the bellicose blather.

   Is the market really that sensitive to rumor and possibility? Absolutely.  Just listen to any day's closing market report on CNN, MSNBC or the BBC, and you will hear analysts explaining what, in their opinion, led the Dow Jones led to advance or decline.  Uncertainty about the Greeks' ability to handle their debt, for example will send the market down.  If, however, the next day the EU and the IMF even hint at providing Athens with, say,  a $100 billion loan, the market will go up.  It's just that sensitive.

   So too with energy.

   America's and the world's energy future is a highly complex issue.  The Department of Energy's "International Energy Outlook" anticipates that world oil consumption will increase from 85.7 million barrels per day (mbpd) in 2008 to 112.2 mbpd in 2035.  And the largest increase in consumption is not going to be taking place in the United States, but rather in emerging economies in Africa and Asia.  This means that America's energy needs are going to increasingly come from unconventional sources like oil sands, extra-heavy oil, biofuels, coal-to-liquids, natural-gas-to-liquids and shale oil -- all of which we have (at least potentially) in abundance, and all of which come with serious ecological consequences.

   As noted above, complex problems require far more than simple slogans or birdbrained bromides. "Vote for me!" is obviously not a serious solution to a complex problem. Any candidate who suggests that simply doing "X" or "Y" will solve America's -- and the world's -- looming energy crisis is full of hot air. 

    And the last time I looked, hot air -- although existing in great abundance -- isn't a great source of energy.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

"The Journey, Not the Arrival Matters"

   I wish I had a dollar for every Tom, Dick and Mary who told me -- with utter certainty -- that "President Obama is no friend of Israel," or that "Obama has thrown Israel under the bus."  If I did have that dollar-per-head, I would have easily more than enough gelt to purchase a couple of hundred trees through the Jewish National Fund.  For indeed, there are easily that many people who have bought into the canard that not only is Barack Obama bad for the State of Israel, he's "obviously and transparently on the side of the Palestinians."  

   In the immortal words of Mr. Pitt: "Stuff and nonsense!"

  Whenever I challenge a person, asking "what is the basis for your belief that President Obama is anti-Israel?" about the only tangible response I get is "Well, he has yet to visit Israel."  Frequently, this comment will be coupled with statements like: "Mitt Romney said that as president, his first trip abroad would be to Israel," or "When he was a candidate, Rick Perry said that one of his first trips would be to Israel."

   After hearing this "If Obama truly cared about Israel he would get his fanny there ASAP," dig more times than I care to count, I decided to do some heavy duty research on presidential travel over the past half century.  From John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama, America has had ten presidents.  Of these, five -- Kennedy, Johnson, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama -- traveled first to Canada; three -- Ford, Reagan and George W. Bush -- made their first presidential trips Mexico.

   On June 16, 1974, Richard Nixon became the first president to visit Israel. This particular foreign trip, which had begun a week earlier, included prior stops in Austria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, and concluded with one-day visits to Jordan and Portugal.  During his 24-hours in Jerusalem, Nixon met with then-President Ephraim Katzir and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.  (During his 6+ years in the White House, Nixon took 11 trips abroad; his visit to Israel came during his 9th trip.)

   Presidents Ford, Reagan and George H.W. Bush never visited Israel. President Carter made two trips to Israel, in December 1977 and March 1979.  To date, Bill Clinton has the all-time record for visits by an American president; during his eight years in the White House, he went no less than four times.  During his eight years in the White House, Clinton made 53 separate trips abroad, during which time he made 133 different stops. His initial journey to Israel -- October 27-28, 1994 -- came during his sixth trip abroad, slightly less than 22 months after having taken the oath of office.

   By comparison, President George W. Bush, who was inaugurated in January 2001, did not make his first visit to the Jewish State for more than seven years -- not until January 9, 2008. During his eight years in the White House, W took forty-six trips abroad, encompassing 140 stops.  This initial journey to Israel came on the 109th stop of his 39th foreign trip.  In doing my research, I did not find a single instance of anyone questioning George W. Bush's Israeli bona fides because he had yet to go to Jerusalem. 

   And yet, there are all those who see President Obama's not having visited Israel -- and he's only been in office for 38 months -- as somehow being proof that he is against the Jewish State.  Up until today -- when the president is in Korea for the "Nuclear Security Summit," President Obama has made 21 trips abroad, incorporating 44 separate stops.  And while he has been repeatedly pilloried for "all his visits to Arab countries," it is fascinating to note that during his first 38 months in office, he has spent precisely one day in Egypt and one day in Saudi Arabia.  But to listen to his detractors, one might conclude that he has spent so much time kowtowing to King Abdullah and the House of Saud that he has his own personal suite of rooms at the Tuwayq Palace in Riyadh.

  So far as the "If elected, my first foreign trip will be to Israel" crowd goes, they are engaging in nothing more than campaign rhetoric meant to shore up as many Jewish votes as possible.  As rhetoric, the promise is understandable; as policy, it is neither intelligent nor wise.  

   Why?

   An analogy might help: imagine that it's the night before the Superbowl, and you are your team's star quarterback.  You go out to dinner and low and behold, who do you see but your opposite number and several members of his team -- dining with the fellow who's going to be refereeing tomorrow's game!  Naturally, you wonder about how in the world that ref can be impartial or neutral; he's so chummy with the other team.  To announce up front that one's first presidential visit will be to Jerusalem is tantamount to having drinks and dinner with one team the night before the big game.  Any overture emanating from that administration; any call for talks between Israelis and Palestinians would likely fail before they even commenced; the latter would see the deck being stacked against them -- or to continue in terms of our analogy, to suspect that the coin toss is going to be rigged in favor of the opposition.

   Any foreign policy team that would advise a candidate to announce that if elected, his first foreign trip will be to Israel -- rather than Canada, Mexico, England or Belgium as the last 10 presidents have done -- is not worthy of their paychecks. They have staked their candidate to a promise he'd be smart not to keep -- if he's truly concerned about seeking a two-state solution.

   The fact that President Obama has yet to touch down at Ben Gurion Airport will continue to provide all the "proof" many need to back up their belief that he is not a friend to Israel.  Countering this falsity is not easy, for many Americans have suspected Barack Obama of anti-American, anti-Democratic, anti-Israel tendencies from the day he first won the Democratic nomination -- without a scintilla of substantiation.  George W. Bush did not arrive in Jerusalem until he had nearly completed two terms, and yet -- as noted above -- nobody raised a peep, no one thought to inquire if he -- who entertained Saudi princes at his ranch and was photographed kissing them -- was a friend or foe of the Jewish State. 

   Yes, yes, I know, politics is not fair.  And to further prove it, one of these days, Barack Obama will arrive at Ben Gurion.  And at that time, the same people who are damning him for not having been there before, will accuse him of pandering to the American Jewish community -- even if he is not running for reelection.

    Although Barack Obama has yet to arrive in Jerusalem his journey in getting there is both sound and sincere. 

   And, as the late, great British political theorist/author/civil servant Leonard Woolf (Virginia's husband) once noted, "The journey, not the arrival matters . . ."     

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Trash Talk?

 

 

The other day, while going through boxes and boxes of pre-computer era files, I came across a cache of essays, sermons and stories written back in the 1970s and 80s.  One particular piece -- a Rosh Hashanah sermon I delivered nearly 25 years ago -- brought back a lot of memories.  Entitled "C.A.N.D.O.," the sermon dealt in general terms with what is called tikkun olam -- the Jewish imperative to "repair the world" -- and specifically, with a campaign to replace non-recyclable Styrofoam coffee cups with ceramic mugs.     

   In rereading the sermon, my mind wandered back to research and legwork that went into it.  About a month before the High Holidays that year, it came to my attention that our 1500-member congregation used upwards of 50,000 non-recyclable Styrofoam cups per year. 

  After finding this out, I did a little math, and was shocked to discover that if you stacked 50,000 cups one inside the other, the resulting tube would be slightly more than 2 1/2 miles long.  And we were but one organization in a small town!  I couldn't begin to imagine how many millions of non-biodegradable cups were being put into our local landfill -- colorfully called "Mt. Trashmore" -- to sit and fester for the next 10,000 years.  And what about the hundreds of thousands of other towns, cities, organizations, businesses and households across the country that were similarly using and then quickly burying Styrofoam cups in landfills from Bangor to Burbank?  My mind reeled at the thought. 

   And so, flashing on an idea, I started making calls and quickly fleshed out a campaign to be called C.A.N.D.O -- "Citizens Against Non-biodegradable Disposable Objects."  The idea behind it was three-fold:

1. To raise consciousness about how much mindless damage we were doing to the environment;
   
2. To empower people to do something simple -- yet hopefully effective -- about it;
3. To raise enough money to start a pilot project whereby C.A.N.D.O. would offer to replace a group's or business's Styrofoam cups with ceramic mugs free-of-charge.

    Within a few days, I had raised enough money to purchase about a thousand ceramic mugs, spoke to students at several elementary- and middle-schools and got our mayor to agree to replace all city hall Styrofoam cups with our mugs. He agreed that using washable mugs was not only environmentally responsible; in the long-run it would be more cost-effective than purchasing all those non-biodegradable cups.

   Out of these early efforts came a sermon -- then disaster.  A handful of the congregation's most visible elders pronounced themselves "aghast" that I, a young rabbi, would "speak about trash on the holiest day of the year." (In truth, I was not sermonizing on 'trash,' and Rosh Hashanah is not the holiest day of the year.  As noted above, I was really speaking on the imperative to repair and heal the world.) And so, I was muzzled. As an employee, I had two choices: to defy the elders and risk losing my job, or to obey.  I was young.  I was cowed.  C.A.N.D.O.  was packed away for another day . . .

   Fast forward a quarter century.  We have a far, far bigger problem -- one that barely existed in 1987: bottled water.  It is a far, far bigger problem for two reasons: first, the water is an unbelievable rip-off; second, the bottles are a lethal menace to both environment and economy. 

 

 

    First, a few facts:

 

• Last year, Americans spent more than $15 billion on some 50 billion bottles of water, which works out to 167 single-use bottles for every person in the country.
• One billion dollars worth of plastic water bottles goes into landfills and litter each year.
• 30 billion plastic water bottles are thrown away every year. Plastic can take up to a thousand years to disintegrate and make up a big deposit of plastic toxic waste in both the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean.
• Making bottles of water out of plastic takes more than 1.5 million barrels of oil, every year. That much oil could fuel 100,000 American cars for a year.
  
• 66 million water bottles will go into the garbage or litter today.
• Aquafina (Pepsi) and Dasani (Coke) sell 24% of all US bottled water. Yet, both are merely treated municipal tap water, resold to the public at a premium mark-up.
• San Francisco's tap water comes from Yosemite National Park and is so pure the EPA does not require it to be filtered. A bottled of Evian water at $1.35 could be refilled with San Francisco tap water once a day for over ten years before the cost would total $1.35.
• If tap water cost the same as the cheapest bottled, monthly water bills would come to $9,000.
• At nearly $4.00 a gallon, gasoline costs 3.1 cents an ounce; at an average of 10 cents an ounce, bottled water goes for nearly $13.00 a gallon.

   So what is to be done?  Is there a new C.A.N.D.O. project on the horizon? You had better believe it.  There are a number of rather simple cost-effective, environmentally responsible things we all can do:

• Sign the pledge to "Take Back the Tap."
• Buy a stainless steel or glass thermos and use it.
• If you don't like the taste -- or worry about the quality -- of your local tap water, purchase an inexpensive carbon filter; it will greatly improve the taste at a fraction of the cost.
• Encourage your school, place of employment, house of worship, gym -- wherever people gather -- install simple "hydration stations" -- drinking fountains with an extra spigot to make filling a reusable bottle quicker and easier.
• Purchase a water bottle with its own reusable filtration system -- about $10.00.
• Familiarize yourself with the facts.

   One  of the frustrating -- indeed dangerous -- aspects of modern life is how easily immediacy and acquiescence can trump both individual responsibility and collective conscience.  Frequently, it seems that all society demands of us is that we be consumers, rather than creators; that we entrust power to the titans, whether or not they have our best interests in mind. We have not been placed on this earth to be its egocentric, despoiling masters but rather its sensitive nurturing stewards.  Together -- as a community and as individuals -- there is much we C.A.N.D.O. to re-empower ourselves.  Starting with something as wholly basic as the water we drink is a good first step.

   And that, is not trash talk . . .

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

A Canvas of Words -- A Portrait of Actions

   Without question the 2012 presidential election will be a referendum on the progress and efficacy of President Obama’s policies, versus his challenger’s promises and rhetoric. As well it should be.  The election will, to a great extent, turn on how voters answer several critical questions, chief among them being:

• Which candidate – and party – seems to have the best handle on how to create jobs in the short-run while retooling the American economy for the future?
• Which candidate -- and party – appears to best understand and relate to the needs and aspirations of America’s vast middle class?
• Which candidate – and party – will be best able to keep America safe from external threats, support our allies and keep our enemies in check?

   The questions are posed in a conditional sense, for one simply never knows which campaign promises will become policy. In the world of bare-knuckled political partisanship, there are far too many variables at play; translating rhetoric into reality is a Herculean task.  For the challenger in a presidential race, there is a canvas of words; for the incumbent, there is a portrait of action. While campaigning is, generally speaking, akin to playing a game of "Texas Hold-Um," governing is far more intricate -- like a game of chess. As the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once sagely noted, “We campaign in poetry but govern in prose.”  Or to put it a bit more prosaically, “actions speak louder than words.” 

   President Obama’s well-received speech before the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference a week ago Sunday was a unique convergence of poetry and prose – of words describing actions.  In his soaring 33-minute address, he noted that “. . . over the next several days, you will hear many fine words from elected officials describing their commitment to the U.S.-Israel relationship. But,” he continued, “As you examine my commitment, you don’t just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds.”

    Indeed, actions do speak louder than words.  The close relationship between the Obama Administration and Israel is far more than a canvas of words; it is a portrait of action.  Since entering office in January 2009, President Obama has increased security funding for Israel three times; it is now at its highest level in history.  He has provided critical funds for the “Iron Dome” missile defense system which, he told Policy Conference attendees, “has intercepted rockets that might have hit homes and hospitals and schools . . .” The president further detailed how “When one-sided resolutions are brought up at the Human Rights Council, we oppose them. When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to save them.”

  The president reminded the gathering how in September 2011, he “. . . stood before the United Nations General Assembly and reaffirmed that any lasting peace must acknowledge the fundamental legitimacy of Israel and its security concerns.  No American President,” he noted “has made such a clear statement about our support for Israel at the United Nations at such a difficult time. People usually give those speeches before audiences like this one -- not before the General Assembly.” The president drew laughter when he noted, “And I must say, there was not a lot of applause.”

   And yet, despite a welter of actions that mark this president and his administration as  true and unhesitating friends of Israel – of “having Israel’s back” -- there are many who continue accusing him of having “Thrown Israel under the bus,” and wondering aloud “If he’s such a great friend of Israel, why hasn’t he been there yet?” (It should be noted that President George W. Bush, did not make his first visit to Israel until January 9. 2008 – near the end of his second term, and the 39th of his 46 presidential trips abroad.  Presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush never visited the Jewish State.  President Bill Clinton, who visited Israel on four separate occasions, paid his first official visit on October 26, 1994, 21 months after taking office.) 

   There are so many statements and claims made by the president’s opponents which fly in the face of reality. And while it may be true that “all’s fair in love and war,” America’s relationship with Israel, the president noted in his AIPAC address, “is simply too important to be distorted by partisan politics.”

   The one area where President Obama and his surrogates may well be faulted is in not detailing both clearly and precisely just how many positive actions they have undertaken on behalf of our friend and ally.  “If you want to know where my heart lies,” the president told AIPAC, “look no further than what I have done – to stand up for Israel.” 

The president’s opponents may have claim to a canvas of words, but he has a portrait – a portrait of tangible deeds.

 

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

To Believe or Not to Believe

  For any blogger with a penchant for politics, the past several days have produced a veritable embarrassment of riches.  Consider than within less than 168 hours (a week), we have been learned that:

• Mitt Romney's wife drives two Cadillacs;
• That while the former Massachusetts governor does not follow NASCAR closely, he is "great friends" with several team owners;
• That Romney declared himself to be against the "Blunt Amendment" -- which would permit employers to opt out of certain kinds of health coverage for moral reasons -- then backtracked, claiming that he misunderstood the question and "of course" supported the measure.
• That John F. Kennedy's landmark 1960 speech on the separation of church and state made Rick Santorum want to vomit;
• hat the former Pennsylvania senator thinks President Obama is a "snob" for urging people to continue their education beyond high school.  (Santorum, it should be noted stayed in college long enough to earn a B.A., M.B.A. and J.D.)
• That Maryland Governor Martin O'Mally signed a gay marriage bill into law;
• That at almost the same moment, his next-door neighbor, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell was ruining his chances of ever becoming a GOP vice presidential candidate by getting ready to sign legislation mandating that  women seeking an abortion must first undergo an ultrasound. (The demand for an ultrasound represented a bit of backtracking; as originally written, the legislation would have required all women to undergo a transvaginal -- not an external ultrasound.

 And if all the above were not enough, there was the entire "turn-back-the-clock-at-least-50-years" argument over women, sex and contraception in which talking head Rush Limbaugh called Georgetown law student Sandra (he called her "Susan") Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" because of her belief that women should have access to birth control. The stridently woman-bashing Limbaugh declared that Ms. Fluke couldn't afford contraceptives because "she's having so much sex." (Sorry Rush, women don't take a pill every time they're about to enter into a conjugal act!  On the other hand, if you're speaking of men and condoms . . . well that's another story!) Limbaugh then made the leap from garden-variety idiot to drooling cretin when he added: 

 

   "So miss Fluke and the rest of you Feminazis, here's the deal.  If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it.  We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."  

   (As of 6:30 p.m. Saturday March 3, five of Limbaugh's on-air sponsors -- Sleep Number, the Sleep Train, Quicken Loans, Legal Zoom and Citrix have all pulled ads from his program, and several others are considering following their lead.  Also, it remains to be seen whether or not Ms. Fluke will pursue a defamation claim against Rush Limbaugh; there is, as I understand it, the question of whether her status as a "limited purpose public figure" insulates him from a suit.)

  Fellow conservative talker Michelle Malkin added her two cents, proclaiming "Young Sandra Fluke of Georgetown Law is not a 'slut.' She’s a moocher and a tool of the Nanny State. She’s a poster girl for the rabid Planned Parenthood lobby and its eugenics-inspired foremothers."  When asked what he thought about Limbaugh's tirade, Speaker John Boehner used the rather tepid word "inappropriate," then in the same breath criticized Democrats for "using the issue to raise funds . . ." 

  Newt Gingrich avoided criticizing Rush Limbaugh but was quick to attack President Obama, saying he acted “opportunistically” when he called the Georgetown Law student to express his disappointment in Limbaugh’s comments. “I think the president will opportunistically do anything he can,” Gingrich said. “I think the most important use of language in the last week has been the president’s apology to religious fanatics, and I want to stay focused on what the president has said, and I think what he said was inexcusable and is exactly the wrong policy at a time of life and death, and playing political games is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.” (If you can figure out what that means, you're a better man than I, Charlie Brown!)

  For his part, Rick Santorum, when asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer what he thought about Limbaugh's remarks, said: 

 

  Well, he's taking -- you know, he's being absurd. But that's, you know, an entertainer can be absurd. And -- and he's taking the absurd, you know, the absurd -- absurd, you know, sort of, you know, point of view here as to how -- how far do you go? And, look, I'm -- he's -- he's in a very different business than I am.

   I'm -- I'm -- I'm concerned about the public policy of this president imposing his values on the people -- on -- on -- on -- on people of faith who morally object to -- to the government telling them they have to do something which they believe is a grave moral wrong. And government should not be in the business of telling -- you know, when you talk about the separation of church and state, you hear it all the time."

  "Well, the -- the real separation of church and state in -- that -- that our founders believed in was that the state cannot tell people of faith what to do and run over their rights.  And that's what this president is doing right now.  (Again, what in the world is he talking about?)

   As a lifelong dyed-in-the-wool political junkie, I've been following the careers, positions and pronouncements of Romney (both George and Mitt), Gingrich, Santorum, Boehner and literally hundreds of other governors, senators, representatives, and presidential aspirants for years and years.  (Indeed, the first presidential campaign I followed was Eisenhower versus Stevenson back in 1956 when I was all of 7 years old; I even have a hazy recollection of the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings).  Over the years, I have observed politicians on both sides of the aisle whose positions are based on the consistency of principle -- progressives like William Proxmire, Tom Harkin and Paul Simon, moderates and conservatives such as Barry Goldwater, Warren Rudman and former Oklahoma Representative Mickey Edwards. These individuals -- to name a mere handful -- could be counted on to vote their conscience; they were all firmly grounded in a set of principles, and staked out consistent positions with intelligence and collegiality. And whether one agreed or disagreed with the positions they took, there was at least the comforting knowledge that their beliefs ran far deeper than mere political expedience.

    I have also paid close attention to the creatures of expedience; to the vast majority of politicians who over the course of a career -- or a single campaign -- can attach themselves to many different positions.   These are the men and women who seemingly don't, won't and can't make a pronouncement without first checking with their in-house pollster.  These are the politicians -- like Romney and Gingrich to name but two -- who don't seem to believe anything they say but will say anything that they believe will get them elected.

   So the question becomes: which is worse?  The politician or candidate who doesn't believe much of anything and will say just whatever it takes to get elected -- like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich -- or folks like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, who truely believe in returning to a world in which money was backed by gold, mothers stayed home and schooled their children, gays remained locked in a closet and Ward Cleaver was everyone's ideal father?  

   Then there's the special case of the shock-jocks, pseudo-journalists and other mass-media opinion shapers -- like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannaty, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and the rest, whose belief structure can be summed up in one word: RATINGS.

   To believe or not to believe . . . which is worse? 

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Forty-Five Pictures Might Be Worth Ten Million Votes

 Something quite a bit different this week .  . .

 With so much time, attention and ink being devoted to the retrograde lunacy and schoolyard caterwauling that is the Republican field, I thought it would be appropriate to devote a column -- in a few words and forty-five pictures -- to a class act: President Barack Obama.  It comes as no surprise that in the midst of debates and screaming headlines concerning such contrived "dog whistle" issues as contraception, transvaginal ultrasounds and personhood, we wonder "are there any adults left in the room?"  Actually there are.  And one of them is President Obama.  There is such a vast chasm in this country between those who can't find a single positive thing to say about our president and those who find him to be the embodiment of the American  Dream.  I must admit to being in the latter camp.

   And so, without further ado, a "Thank You" to the man and the family who reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

   (Deep thanks to my friend and student Al Blake for bringing the following to my attention . . . )

 

Thanks Mr. President

For

. . . the "room lightening" smile:

 

 

 

 

For

The mind that always thinks:

 

 

For preventing a second Great Depression:

For the humor:

 

 

 

 

For bringing the number of women on the Supreme Court to 3:

 

For making the White House the "People's" house:

 

For 1.1 million jobs created in 2010 alone, more than the entire 8 years of George W. Bush:

 

For the love of people:

 

 

 

For the love of family:

 

 

 

 

For the First Lady:

 

 

 

For Health Care Reform:

 

 

For leaving the past behind:

 

 

For the world having respect for America again:

 

 

 

 

 

For quietly and calmly dealing with crisis after crisis, after crisis, after crisis, even if not being responsible for any of them:

 

For being so "cool":

For being fierce - when need be:

 

 

 

 

For having the intellect to be curious:

 

 

For the capacity to know that you are, as we are, imperfect:

 

For having the sense to not let it destroy you:

 

For the capacity to be compassionate:

 

 

For being an inspiration to so many:

 

 

For saving the auto industry and at least 1.4 million jobs:

For loving our troops:

 

 

For undertanding the horrible price of war:

 

For bringing 100,000 men and women back from Iraq:

 

For facing the most difficult and loneliest job in the world with grace, dignity, honesty and guts in spite of so many "Haters":

For being, in spite of all the hate, pettiness, racism, corruption and immaturity around, the most progressive and 'for the people' president in decades:
 
And simply for this:

 

For Being....................

"MR. PRESIDENT"!

 

 

Is Rick Santorum Running for POTUS or POTMA?

  By now, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty must be kicking himself in the backside and feeling like Terry Malloy. Terry who?  Malloy -- the character Marlon

Brando in On the Waterfront. If you use your imagination, you can hear Pawlenty muttering:  "You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it.  If only I'da stayed in the race, even I coulda been the Republican flavor of the month . . . instead of all those other guys . . . like Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich and now this guy Santorum . . . If only I'da known, I too coulda run for beatification insteda nomination . . ."

   Indeed, listening to the former Pennsylvania senator these past few weeks -- and going back over what he's said these past few years -- its difficult to tell if he's running for POTUS (President of the United States) or POTMA (Pope of the Middle Ages). Since he has emerged from the shadows, Santorum has been making one outrageous

statement after another -- on issues ranging from Global Warming and Evolution to Contraception, Gay Marriage and the Crusades.  Not only has he shown himself to be as rigidly far-right as any presidential candidate in memory; he has proven that his grasp of history is as tenuous as that of Sara Palin.   A sampling of some of Santorum's more ludicrous comments make the determination as to whether he is running for President or Pope truly a difficult endeavor:

 

• On Global Warming: “I believe the earth gets warmer and I also believe the earth gets cooler. And I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man, through the production of CO2 — which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas — is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all the other factors . . . [Global Warming is] just an excuse for more government control of your life, and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.” (Santorum on the Rush Limbaugh Show)

• On contraception: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.” (Santorum speaking in Minnesota 2/7/12)

• On homosexuality and gay marriage: “Let’s look at what’s going to be taught in our schools because now we have same sex couples being the same and their sexual activity being seen as equal and being affirmed by society as heterosexual couples and their activity. So what is going to be taught to our people in health class in our schools? What is going to be taught to our children about who in our stories, even to little children — what are married couples? What families look like in America? So, you are going to have in our curriculum spread throughout our curriculum worldview that is fundamentally different than what is taught in schools today? Is that not a consequence of gay marriage?”(Speaking in Iowa, Jan. 2012)

• On the teaching of Evolution: “What we should be teaching are the problems and holes and I think there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution. And what we need to do is to present those fairly from a scientific point of view. And we should lay out areas in which the evidence supports evolution and the areas in the evidence that does not.” (On NPR's "Morning Edition," Aug. 4, 2005)

• On Health Care and World War II and the Normandy Invasion (!):“Almost 60,000 average Americans had the courage to go out and charge those beaches on Normandy, to drop out of airplanes who knows where, and take on the battle for freedom. Average Americans, the very Americans that our government now, and this president, does not trust to make a decision on your health care plan. Those Americans risked everything so they could make that decision on their health care plan.” (June 6, 2011)

• On President Obama:“The president’s agenda is not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your job. It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology. But no less a theology.” (2/18/12)

• On the Relationship Between Social Security and Abortion: “The Social Security system, in my opinion, is a flawed design, period. But having said that, the design would work a lot better if we had stable demographic trends. We don’t have enough workers to support the retirees . . . A third of the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion."(Radio Inteview in New Hampshire, Mar. 29, 2011)

• If Barack Obama is Reelected, Christians May Well be Beheaded: "When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is a government that gives you rights. What’s left are no unalienable rights. What’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine.” (Speech in Plano, Texas, Feb. 9, 2012) and lastly,

• Satan is Attacking America: "If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age. There is no one else to go after other than the United States . . . . He didn’t have much success in the early days. Our foundation was very strong, in fact, is very strong. But over time, that great, acidic quality of time corrodes even the strongest foundations. And Satan has done so by attacking the great institutions of America…" (Speech at Ave Maria University in 2008)
  

   The above quotations don't even come close to giving a full accounting of the Santorum catechism.  Suffice it to say that his views are so arch, so far off the beaten track as to make him un-electable.  And for that, all forward-thinking people can breathe a collective sigh of relief. 

   America has no need of a Pope -- especially a medieval one.

   Yes indeed, Tim Pawlenty is kicking himself in the rear . . .

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

 

 

 

An Essay With Something For Everyone to Dislike

   We begin with a handful of quotes on the subject of conservatives and conservatism:

• Alexis de Toqueville: “I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social
  

      Alexis de Tocqueville
  advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all.” 
• Mark Twain: “Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals.“
• Woodrow Wilson: "A conservative is someone who makes no changes and consults his grandmother when in doubt."
• William F. Buckley, Jr.: “A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling ‘Stop!’.”
• William E. Gladstone: “Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.”
• Barry Goldwater: “Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.”
• P.J. O'Rourke: “The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then get elected and prove it.”

 Now that we've got the conservative diastolic on the rise, let's move on to a handful of quotes about liberals and liberalism:

• Thomas Sowell: "Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face."
• Robert Frost: "A liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel."
• E.J. Dionne, Jr.: "Liberals and conservatives disagree over what are the most important sins. For conservatives, the sins that matter are personal irresponsibility, the flight from family life, sexual permissiveness, the failure of individuals to work hard. For liberals, the gravest sins are intolerance, a lack of generosity toward the needy, narrow-mindedness toward social and racial minorities.
• Charles Krauthammer: To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. 
• Ann Coulter: “Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.”
• Yevgeny Yevtushenko: "Why is it that right-wing bastards always stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity, while liberals fall out among themselves?"
• Lenny Bruce: "The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."

  The above should raise the liberal systolic by a few points. 

  Now on to a statement that should get both sides riled:

  If, God forbid, America ever becomes a second-rate nation, it will undoubtedly be because the cupidinous morons on the right have been aided and abetted by the weak-kneed cowards on the left.  You read me correctly: the conservatives are morons; the liberals are cowards.  The former is scientifically verifiable; the latter, anecdotally conjectural. 

   Last month, Gordon Hodson, a widely respected Professor of Psychology at Brock University in Ontario (Canada) published a long-awaited study in the journal Psychological Science.  Entitled Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes, Professor Hodson's controversial study compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people. Hodson and his colleagues came to the conclusion that " . . .  lower general intelligence in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and [that] this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology." In other words, as summarized by the Daily Mail's Rob Waugh, "Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views . . . . Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others . . . . People with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe."

   This by no means is meant to suggest that all conservatives are stupid.  Goodness knows, it certainly takes clever people to convince a fearful segment of the American public of such patent inanities as:

• Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
• Those who claim that climate change is man-made are elitist members of an eco-fascist-communist-anarchist conspiracy.
• A tax break for the 1% is the only hope for the 99%.
• Any regulation that claims to prevent big banks and corporations from exploiting us, is in reality, an assault on working man and woman.
• The federal deficit results largely from the greed of the poor.
• The President of the United States is waging a war on religion.

   Writing about the new conservatives in the online journal Truthout, former longtime GOP congressional staffer Mike Longren noted, To be sure, the [Republican] party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots . . . .  But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman . . . Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy."

   Not to be outdone, former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum (who coined the phrase "Axis of Evil") wrote in a recent New York article:

 Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama, whatever his policy errors, is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) the only place in the world where it doesn’t matter who your parents were or where you came from.

   Creating and selling (if not fully believing) this right-wing reality takes a lot of craftiness, if not downright intelligence; it also takes a trainload of cash and a cadre of folks who have no problem taking advantage of millions upon millions of what Lofgren calls "low-information voters."  What the likes of the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friese and the other right-wing billionaires (among those possessing the trainloads of cash) have discovered is that there is no pool too shallow in which millions cannot and will not drown.

   But beyond the creating, the funding and the selling of this "alternate knowledge," there is the cowardice and downright complaisance of America's liberals and progressives.  As Thomas Frank notes in his latest book, Pity the Billionaire much of the blame rests with liberals and progressives, who suffer from what he calls "terminal niceness."  As the Guardian's George Monbiot describes it, the Democrats, ". . . fail  to produce a coherent analysis of what has gone wrong and why, or . . . make an uncluttered case for social justice [and] regulation." Instead, he argues, they "triangulate and accommodate, hesitate and prevaricate." 

   Indeed, the conceptual stupidities of conservatism are more than matched by the strategic stupidities of liberalism.  If ever the American political system is to right itself, the Right will have to stop feeding caustic misinformation to a haunted, fearful, low-information public, and the Left will have to overcome its reticence and shout     STOP!   

  Enough of this even-handedness!  Let us end with one last quote . . . from John Stewart Mill:

“Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

When Good News is No News

  On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the economy added 243,000 jobs in January, which dropped the unemployment rate to 8.3% -- the lowest jobless rate since January 2009, the month Barak Obama took the oath of office.  Although certainly slower and weaker than the president and millions of un- and underemployed Americans would wish, there is no question but that the American economy is improving.  Indeed, over the past year, the economy has added nearly 2 million non-government  jobs; over the past 23 months that figure is 3.7 million. jobs

This represents the best 12 months in at least 5 years.  Buoyed by the good news, the Dow rose by slightly more than 200 points, ending the week at 12,862.23 -- a 77.4% rise since Barack Obama took the oath of office slightly more than 3 years ago.

 

  According to a broad array of data, the economy has been gaining strength for almost six months, offering some reason for hope that the effects of the deep financial crisis are finally starting to fade. Still, the economy will need several more years of strong job growth to return to anything resembling full health. And although many forecasters are growing more hopeful about this year, several factors — including Europe’s financial troubles and the turmoil in Iran — could change the situation quickly.  As such, in speaking about the economy this past Friday, the president essentially laid out the theme that will be at the center of his re-election campaign, reminding voters how bad an economy he inherited and hailing recent progress while being careful to add that there is still a long way to go. "The economy is growing stronger; the recovery is speeding up," the president said.  But he then quickly conceded: "These numbers will go up and down in the coming months."  

   In other words, despite the much-needed good news, the president neither crowed nor took a rhetorical victory lap.  He knows that while the path we're on is a good and solid one, it nonetheless contains many ruts, jags and potholes. Sounds pretty realistic to me; hopeful and cautiously optimistic.  There is much to be both proud and hopeful about:

• After more than a decade of job losses, American manufacturing has been creating jobs since December 2009.
• The American auto industry is back. GM is again No. 1 in the world; auto manufacturers are expected to add more than 100,000 new jobs in the next 2 years.
• American oil production is at its highest level in more than 8 years.
  

   To listen to the none-too-loyal opposition, none of the above is true; things are getting worse. For them, there is no good news. Or, to put it another way, "good news is no news." Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the House Republican Conference, like many of his colleagues, essentially ignored the positive economic news. “Today is an indication of another failure of this president’s policies — 36 months in a row of 8 percent-plus unemployment,” he said. Speaker John Boehner said, "The American people are still asking,  'Where are the jobs?'"

According to Romney, Gingrich, Paul and Santorum, President Obama and his administration, far from leading the economy down the road to recovery, are lost at sea clinging to a deflated life raft.  According to them, the newest Labor Department figures are meaningless at best, suspect at worst. (Limbaugh and Hannaty both argued "The jobs report is corrupt."  Hannaty said the report ". . . has phony numbers all around it.")  Such a position places President Obama's potential challengers -- especially Gov. Romney -- in the position of ignoring statistical evidence and sounding the tocsin of angry, conspiratorial negativity . . . never a great strategy in a presidential campaign.  It also leaves voters wondering whether these guys are actually pulling for the economy to remain in the tank -- at least until they can take over.  If so, this is, to my way of thinking, ideological treason.

  Speaking at a campaign stop in Sparks, Nevada just a few hours before that state's caucus gatherings, Romney said, “This recovery has been slower than it should have been. People have been suffering for longer than they should have had to suffer. Will it get better? I think it’ll get better,” he added. “But this president has not helped the process. He’s hurt it.”  And despite making these comments in Nevada -- the state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation (slightly above 13%), Romney's only "cure for what ails us" is -- like virtually every other Republican in America -- lower taxes and less regulation.  From day one, Romney has been proclaiming that as a businessman -- one who has "an intimate knowledge of the private sector" -- he "knows what it takes" to get America out of its economic doldrums.

  There is ample evidence that having "an intimate knowledge of the private sector" is no guarantee of succeeding in government. Take the last American president to come from the ranks of business: Hoover Hoover.  Need one say more?  Or Florida's current Governor, Rick Scott. Despite having experienced enough success in the private sector to pay for a campaign out of his own pocket, he has been an utter disaster as governor; running a for-profit business is one heck of a lot different than running a state.  Even Scott's fellow Republicans are turning against him.  (It should be noted that despite spending $73 million of his own money, Scott only managed to defeat Democrat Alex Sink by a razor-thin margin of 48.87%-47.72%).  One can also site the failed governorships of Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and John Corzine (D-NJ), two highly successful, fabulously wealthy men, which were more notable for their failures than successes.  The short and sweet of it is that running a business and running a government are two very different enterprises.  

  It is in no way surprising that Mitt Romney, a man who made an unfathomable fortune in the private sector, should ask us to place our faith in the free market.  After all, from his perspective -- and that of most of his Republican colleagues -- this is whence all economic health and success emanates.  Their argument has long been that by lowering taxes for the wealthy, by cutting -- if not eliminating -- the tax on capital gains, it will permit business owners to expand their enterprises, thus increasing employment and thus strengthening the economy.  Over the past generation, this argument has gone by the name "supply-side" economics.  There is, I am sorry to say, no historic evidence for its ever having succeeded.  In order for "supply-side" to work, there must be a "demand-side" -- consumers -- who have the cash to buy what the wealthy are supplying.   

  One need not agree with "the free market is the salvation of us all" philosophy to understand how it could be quite appealing to many -- especially those who have been taught that "government is the problem, not the solution."  What is terribly difficult to comprehend however, is how people can take good news and spin it into being no news at all.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

 

Coupon Clippers of the World Unite!

   Last Wednesday in my "All Politics All the Time" course at Florida International University, we spent a few minutes discussing Mitt Romney's tax return, which he had released just the day before.  Not surprisingly, most of students were well versed on how much

            Romney's Home in Deer Valley, UT

Governor Romney earned per year (roughly $20 million), the percentage he paid in taxes (approximately 15%) and the various sources of his vast wealth.

 

   In the midst of our conversation -- for which I had originally allotted no more than ten minutes -- one student asked, "If Romney gets elected, will he be the richest president in American history?"

   "That's a fascinating question," I answered slowly, doing a quick "Google search" in my head. "Although I'm not sure," I answered after a few seconds of silence, "al regel achat (Hebrew for while standing on one foot) I would have to say the answer is 'no'  -- Mitt Romney would not be our wealthiest president.  I think that distinction goes to George Washington, who in addition to being one of the tallest men in the nation (nearly 6'2"), was likely its richest as well."  My answer drew a few skeptical head

            Romney's Home in La Jolla, CA

wags -- about both his height and wealth. I promised the class that I would do some serious research and hopefully have an answer for them by our next class session.

 

 Another student challenged the class with a comment/question: "What does it all mean in the long-run?  Just because the man's super-rich does that mean he can't understand people who aren't?  Are we going to hold his wealth against him?"

   The student was bringing up an intriguing point which, in a time of gross economic disparity, will likely be a major issue lurking just beneath the surface should Governor Romney get the Republican nomination.  

   As a society, our fascination with the "lifestyles of the rich and famous" is somewhere between widespread and universal.  A quick survey of which magazines and tabloids are hawked at virtually every supermarket checkout line in America amply proves the point.  How many people who don't even know the name of the family living across the street can give you line and verse about how much famous people earn . . . or the price of their mansions or the "toys" they play?  We know so much about people we don't truly know as to become inured to real life.  We read or hear so much about other people's wealth that we can actually say of an athlete making $2 million a season that "he's a real bargain."  $2 million a bargain?  That's $38,461.53 a week!

   Sounds pretty outrageous when you break it down by the week -- or the game, at bat or even hour.  Consider the following:

• Kobe Bryant makes $307,853.66 per game -- if he plays all 82 games in a season.
• A-Rod makes $50,000 per at bat -- if he comes to the plate 600 per season.
• Tom Brady earns $825,507.50 per game, 16 games a season.
• In 2011, Lady Gaga earned $1,730,770 a week.
  
• Mitt Romney earns $2,285.00 an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
  

   Don't get me wrong, I am not denigrating anyone making a king's ransom; God bless 'em all I say.  But at the same time, you have to wonder if all that money might not create a wall of separation between some seriously wealthy people and the rest of us who don't have a 7 or 8 figure income.  Yes indeed, there certainly are very wealthy people who never forgot where they came from; who still have a deep and thorough understanding of what it means to be living on the edge.  Take former Representative Alan Grayson who, despite possessing a net worth somewhere north of $30,000,000.00 is one of the wild and woolliest progressives in America.  (Check out the essay on Alan in my book, The Jews of Capitol Hill)  Then there are Senators Frank Lautenberg and Herb Kohl, two multi-multi millionaires who are at the forefront of those arguing for higher taxes for the wealthy and against cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

   And then there's Mitt Romney.  The son of former Michigan Governor -- and American Motors CEO -- George Romney, Mitt wasn't exactly born into the middle class.  His father earned, on average, more than $300,000 a year during his peak years.

           Romney's Home in Belmont, MA

As such, Mitt and his 4 siblings were raised first in the upscale Detroit Palmer Woods neighborhood and then the even more tony Bloomfield Hills, where he prepped at the Cranbrook School.  And although Mitt Romney is, without question, a good, decent and charitable man -- he tithes his church -- he acts and sounds like a man who hasn't the slightest idea what it is like to worry over whether one will have enough money to pay the mortgage, health insurance and utility bill, or is barely able to cover the monthly minimum on their credit cards -- despite working two jobs.     

 

   A person who is truly in touch with the challenges of daily life would not say -- even as a joke -- "I should tell my story . . . I'm also unemployed," despite earning 54,795.00 a day off of his investments.  Who in the real world can blithely afford to challenge someone to a $10,000.00 bet -- as he did with Texas Governor Rick Perry?  Then there's Romney's off-the-cuff comment, "I get speakers fees from time to time, but not very much." (In this case, the "not very much" amounted to more than $350,000!)

   When a candidate like Mitt Romney -- who in his lifetime has gone from being privileged to richer-than-Croesus -- or Newt Gingrich -- who has gone from lower-middle-class to multimillionaire -- argues for lower taxes for the rich and against, say, collective bargaining rights for union workers, it smacks of being completely out of

           Romney's Home in Wolfboro, NH

 

touch. When a man like President Barack Obama -- the child of a mixed-race broken home -- who earned more than $5 million writing books -- argues in favor of the rich (which now includes him) paying "their fair share," one gets the sense of a person still in touch with real people living real lives, facing real challenges. With economic disparity looming as the subtext for the 2012 presidential election, one can't help but believe that Mitt Romney is going to be at a decided disadvantage.

   Now, as to the question of our wealthiest president: turns out I was correct.  According to a fascinating story published on the acclaimed website 24/7 Wall Street.com George Washington was, far and away, our wealthiest Commander in Chief.  The editors of 24/7 Wall Street estimate that Washington was worth -- in 2010 dollars -- somewhere in the neighborhood of $525 million.  Additionally, he made far, far more than subsequent presidents; his salary was 2% of the total U.S. budget in 1789!  Other truly wealthy chief executives include Thomas Jefferson ($212 million), James Madison ($100 million), Andrew Jackson ($119 million), Theodore Roosevelt ($125 million), Herbert Hoover ($70 million), and Lyndon Johnson ($98 million).  (Those wondering about JFK should know that had he lived, he stood to inherit more than $1 billion from his father.  Such, however, was not to be his fate . . .)

   As a society of voyeurs, we are, without question, addicted to the "lifestyles of the rich and famous." One hopes that when it comes to being a society of citizens and voters, we seek out those who, despite having earned -- or not -- great wealth, still have their fingers on the pulse of real people living real lives, facing real challenges.  

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

A Keystone Comedy

This past week President Obama and the State Department rejected a permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. What a perversely ironic name: "Keystone." For me, a child of Hollywood, that name conjures up images of anarchic Kops who jump up and down, run to and fro, and throw pies with gay abandon; all perfectly predictable, all in the service of that low-brow class of comedy known as "slapstick." If the issues involved in the current Keystone -- the pipeline -- weren't so deadly serious -- energy, ecology and employment -- it too could qualify as slapstick: anarchic, predictable and low-brow.

Except this Keystone isn't a silent flick; it's got a sound-track and special effects and everything.

And it's more of a tragicomedy . . .

For anyone who's been paying close attention to this ongoing tragicomedy, the State Department's rejection should come as no surprise; it is all part of an election-year scenario composed by the Republicans Caucus. From the moment late last month when Boehner & Company attached a provision to the payroll tax extension bill requiring the president to decide on the pipeline permit within 60 days, their intention was as obvious as the plotline of a Keystone Comedy: to hit Barack Obama and the Democrats with an election year pie in the face. Even before Republicans attached the provision, the White House had stated that it would need a minimum of another year in order to evaluate the various potential impacts of the pipelines. (For those not yet aware of what "fracking" -- hydraulic fracturing -- is, check out an article from The Guardian.) What has not been generally reported is that Nebraska and North Dakota -- two states that would be along the proposed pipeline route -- expressed severe reservations about the impact it might have on farmlands and aquifer. As a result, TransCanada -- the firm set to build the pipeline -- went back to the drawing board in order to create a new route. Both the president and the State Department have made it clear that they are willing to revisit this issue in the future, once TransCanada maps out a new route proposal. But to listen to the opposition, the denial is both eternal and unalterable.

Guess again.

From day one, most Republicans -- and a number of Democrats -- proclaimed that approving the Keystone XL was absolutely essential; both for the jobs it would create, and for the energy independence it would guarantee. With the Obama Administration's denial, Republicans can now breathlessly accuse the president of being callously unconcerned about either. "He is," more than one Fox commentator has complained, "anti-oil and anti-Capitalism."

How predictable.

Anti-oil? Anti-Capitalist? Really? In his statement on the decision, the president said his administration is looking at another proposed pipeline in the Midwest. Just last month, his administration made available 21 million acres - an area about the size of South Carolina - of offshore drilling sites in the Gulf of Mexico -- not precisely the action of a man or an administration that is "anti-oil." The lease auction attracted more than $337 million in high bids from oil companies.

Moreover, when the State Department issued its original negative report on the proposed Keystone-XL, it was marred by enough controvery and scandal to warrant an investigation by Foggy Bottom's inspector general.( Yes, that's right; the administration was investigating itself!) Last year, a Freedom of Information Act request by environmental groups revealed that a former Hillary Clinton campaign aide was working as a lobbyist for TransCanada, and that Cardno Entrix, a massive contracting firm and TransCanada client, was hired to prepare much of the original environmental assessment.

And the Teeheezels of the right still would have us believe that the administration is anti-oil!

What a predictable script.

In the run-up to Obama's permit denial, the entertainers at Fox, emoting from scripts written by TransCanada, claimed that the proposed $7 billion, 1,700-mile pipeline would create 12-15,000 jobs. Now that it has been put on hold, that number has magically grown to anywhere between 20,000 and 50,000 construction and manufacturing jobs as well as more than 120,000 indirect jobs. So far as I can tell, this is the only jobs program the Republicans have put forth since taking over Congress -- except for cutting taxes and regulations.

Want to talk about jobs?

A recent 40-page study published by the Cornell Global Labor Institute entitled Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL concludes that the job estimates put forward by TransCanada are "unsubstantiated." The folks at Cornell GLI found that "50% or more of the steel pipe, the main material input used for Keystone XL, will be manufactured outside the U.S." Another study concluded that at best, Keystone would create between 2,500 and 6,000 temporary construction positions. It follows that if the number of direct jobs -- and their economic impact -- are far less than TransCanada has claimed, that the number of indirect positions will also be far less.

Another line in the script goes, "The oil carried by the Keystone XL will go a long way towards weaning America off of foreign oil -- something the president obviously could care less about!" Here again, there's a bit of a problem with reality . . . and reportage. It turns out that the United States, for the first time in 62 years, is a net exporter of petroleum products. According to data released in late November of 2011 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration -- and reported by that notorious Socialist rag The Wall Street Journal -- "The U.S. exported 753.4 million barrels of everything from gasoline to jet fuel in the first nine months of 2011, while it imported 689.4 million barrels." As recently as 2005, we imported nearly 900 million more barrels of petroleum than we exported. The last time we were a net exporter of oil, gas cost 26 cents a gallon, the price of a first-class stamp was 3 cents, and a typical house cost $13,500.

This bit of good news has gone largely unreported. The question is why. I suspect it is because the lion's share of oil that would flow through the Keystone XL would be exported overseas . . . which does a lot for corporate profits but precious little for energy independence.

It has been loudly suggested that President Obama canceled the Keystone XL pipeline as "an election-year gesture of good will to his most ardent supporters on the Left." While it is true that environmentally-conscious Americans are gleeful that at least for now the pipeline and the dangers of fracking have been put on the shelf, not all of the president's "most ardent supporters" are happy. For in putting the Keystone XL on hold, President Obama has earned a ton of enmity from organized labor -- a key group he will need if he is to be reelected. Labor believes that the president's action is short-sighted; that it kills unionized jobs. I don't think anyone's crystal ball is powerful enough to see whether or not jobs produced by the pipeline project would be unionized.

One thing I do know that in denying TransCanada their permit, President Obama has done precisely what the Republicans set him up to do; he has faithfully acted out the script they wrote for him. The president and his advisers are wise enough to know that in denying the Keystone permit, he was setting himself up to have a political pie thrown his way.

The question now is, how good are his reflexes . . . ?

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Where Has All the Propofol Gone?

Propofol -- one of the drugs that led to Michael Jackson's untimely death -- is a short-acting, intravenously administered hypnotic agent. Known in some circles as "Milk of Amnesia," its uses include the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia, sedation for mechanically-ventilated patients, and procedural sedation. Propofol -- and its generic equivalents -- has been widely and successfully administered in hospital operating rooms around the world for nearly 30 years. And, as of June 4, 2010, Teva Pharmaceuticals, the Israeli-based firm that was the major supplier of Propofol, no longer manufactures it. Today, it is almost impossible to find.

Where has all the Propofol gone?

And while we're at it, where has all the Doxil, Adderall, Mitomycin, Morphine Sulphate, Avalide, Ondansetron, Succinylcholine, Dextrose, B-12 and more than 200 other important meds gone? Shockingly, between 2006 and 2010, drug shortages increased by more than 200% according to a Government Accountability Office Report released late last month. Many of the drugs declared "MIA" are critical chemotherapeutics; intravenously infused medicaments and "cocktails" that can often mean the difference between remission and metastasis -- between life and death. Some of the shorted meds -- though far less exotic -- are just as critical to the health and well-being of patients in need: things as basic as injectable cobalamin (vitamin B-12) and Tylenol 1 (the 325 mg version). Although a lack of injectable B-12 might not seem as critical as a dearth of Propofol or Doxil (a chemotherapeutic drug used in the treatment of breast cancer), it can be for the patient in need; severe B-12 deficiency can lead to irreversible damage, especially to the brain and nervous system. I know; I'm supposed to receive a weekly injection . . .

When and if a supply of these drugs can be located, it is at a cost; there are reports of drugs which distributors sold just two years ago for $25.00 per dose, now going for as much as $1,200 per dose on the "Grey Market." And this phenomenon is not confined to certain states or regions; it's happening all over the United States. Large, well-heeled establishments like the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic and Vanderbilt University Medical Center at least have the possibility of purchasing critical medications -- at monstrously inflated prices -- because they have both the ability and the resources to order in great quantity. But one should keep in mind that there are just as many -- if not more -- patients whose lives depend on receiving chemotherapeutic drug protocols who live in small towns and are served by small hospitals that don't buy in quantity and thus cannot afford to pay hyper-inflated prices. Sometimes, when a drug that a patient tolerates well can't be readily located, the physician will prescribe an alternative -- which frequently the patient cannot tolerate. With some medical conditions, an interruption in treatment of a month, even a week, can be disastrous . . . even deadly.

The question is not only "Where has all the Propofol gone?" but "What has led to its scarcity?"

It all depends on who you ask, what ones starting point might be . . . even what axe they may be grinding. Make no mistake about it: the scarcity of pharmaceuticals is an issue and a problem for both Democrats and Republicans, ultra-conservatives and ultra-progressives. Anyone, regardless of his or her political philosophy, can contract cancer or Crohn's Disease, require surgery or suffer from a thousand-and-one life-threatening ailments. And yet, when it comes to analyzing the current situation, politics and point of view do count for something.

At base, market forces have a lot to do with the scarcity of drugs. The prices we pay for pharmaceuticals in the United States are far higher than those paid by the citizens of any other country in the world. In large measure this is why the pharmaceutical industry has for years been the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S. According to the annual Forbes 500 survey, the American pharmaceutical industry tops the list of all industries with a return of 17% on investment. And although the cost of manufacturing a new drug is relatively low, the cost of inventing and then patenting a new drug is relatively high. Drug manufacturers have always claimed that the high cost of pharmaceuticals is due to this latter issue. Then too, a hefty part of the price for bringing a new drug to market can be found in advertising costs; ever notice all those commercials urging us -- the patient -- to tell our physician that we want them to prescribe drug "x" or "y" for condition "a" or "b?" Silly me; I thought it worked the other way around; that the doctor did the suggesting and prescribing to me, and not I to her . . .

Many, many pharmaceutical giants have seen their patents lapse and other companies manufacture, then market, generic versions of their creations. Generally speaking, when a drug goes off patent and becomes generic, the price drops precipitously; the companies making them are in the business of gaining as much market share as possible. This is a no-brainer. But then, the generic manufacturers cry, the price remains both low and flat; profits are minimal -- too minimual, many say, to warrent continued manufacturing of generic "a" or "b." Some place blame on the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act (H.R. 1) which Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law on December 8, 2003. This act limits Medicare payment for physician-administered drugs to the average sales price plus a 6% administrative fee, which manufacturers claim has limited profit margins and thus their ability to maintain and upgrade their facilities. And despite the fact that H.R. 1 provides for an analysis of average sales prices twice a year, it still means that the profit to be made on these generics is going to rise at a pretty slow pace. Many companies have concluded that if drug "a" or "b" can't bring in more than 6% profit above cost, they simply will discontinue its manufacture.

Another factor is the drug distribution system itself. Physicians face pressure from health insurers to obtain the best prices for prescription drugs through multiple distributors. However, as noted above, distributors tend to provide the best prices and most stable supply to high-volume purchasers. Then too, according to information provided by IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, most of the nearly 170 prescription drugs in a shortage status as of October 2011 were offered by a single supplier or a small number (under 4) of firms.

Some claim the problem has been exacerbated by tighter Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement of drug manufacturing standards. (According to public records, over the past 2 years the FDA expedited more than 300 industry applications for new or updated manufacturing facilities. So much for the It's-the-fault-of-too-many-damned-regulatory-hoops-to-jump-through argument.) This past October, President Obama signed an executive order requiring the FDA to expedite regulatory review of drug manufacturers and investigate price gouging. At the same time, the White House announced that they would immediately begin requiring some drug manufacturers to report production interruptions to the FDA. The manufacturers that have to report to the FDA are those drug manufacturers that have no generic equivalent and are critical to maintaining life. There are currently two pieces of legislation making their way through Congress calling for advanced warning of impending drug shortages and more FDA action. But passage is both uncertain and a long way off. For now, drug distributors would appear to be in the driver's seat.

Today, a majority of the shorted meds are being manufactured overseas -- in China, South America, Eastern Europe and Israel. The FDA simply does not have the budget or the manpower to inspect these foreign manufacturing plants. As a result, there are a lot of pharmaceuticals on the market that do not meet American safety standards -- another cause of shortages.

That the country which prides itself on having "the best healthcare on the planet" should have these problems -- drugs shortages, an unscrupulous "grey market" charging sky-high prices for life-saving meds, and a fast-declining manufacturing base -- is unconscionable. That no other industrialized country suffers from a similar set of problems likely shows that we do not, in fact have "the best healthcare on the planet." To my way of thinking, many of these problems would be alleviated by going to a single-payer system; one that recognizes that although industries -- especially those that employ more lobbyists than any other on the planet -- have a constitutional right to make a reasonable profit, human beings have a God-given right to live.

If Michael Jackson's doctor could get his hands on Propofol why can't my doctor at the Cleveland Clinic?

And while we're at it, where in the hell is my B-12?

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Lies to Live By

The study of history can be both instructive and curious; instructive in how it illuminates the progress of man; curious in that often, the more one learns, the less one understands. Shining a light on the events -- not to mention the personalities and politics -- frequently tarnishes the patina of noble ingenuousness with which said historic ingredients have long been imbued. This is because history -- as instructive and curious as it is -- is also filled with myth, half-truths and outright lies. Or, as Mark Twain would have it, The history of our race, and each individual's experience, is sown thick with evidences that a truth is not hard to kill, and that a lie told well is immortal.

History, of course, has its quaint myths: Every Jewish child knows that the "miracle" of Hanukah is a cruse of oil that lasted for eight days. (In fact, the real miracle is that a group of farmers, shopkeepers, artisans and scholars went to war for an idea and
actually defeated a professional army.) It used to be that every American school child knew the story about the young George Washington who, after being confronted by his father about the chopping down of a cherry tree famously proclaimed, "I cannot tell a lie . . ." (This engaging little tale was actually invented by Parson Mason Locke Weems in his biography of the great man, written shortly after his death.)

History can also be numbingly repetitive; when Congress gave President Lyndon Johnson a blank check for war in Vietnam, it was based on a lie ("The Maddox and Turner Joy were fired on by North Vietnamese torpedo boats!") -- and Johnson knew it; when President George W. Bush beat a mendacious drum for war in Iraq it was based on a lie ("Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!"), and he knew it. In so lying, both men were -- perhaps unknowingly -- following in the footsteps of Cato the Elder who purposefully misrepresented the Carthaginian threat to Rome (Carthago delenda est -- "Carthage must be destroyed!"), thus precipitating the Third Punic War. Moreover, Rome's utter destruction of Carthage, gave rise to one of history's most dubious -- yet durable -- claims: that Rome, seeking to ensure that Carthage would never rise again, sowed the fields with salt so that nothing would ever grow there again. (n.b. This is highly dubious; salt was an expensive commodity in the ancient world. The amount needed to permanently destroy the fertility of the soil would have been so enormous that the supposed benefit would not have been worth the financial cost.)

Myths and lies have a long history in American politics. Now, before any of our more conservative readers say, "Oh, he's at it again . . . he's going to go after the Republicans and give the Democrats a free pass . . ." let me assure you that in politics all sides, all parties lie. Federalists, Whigs, Republicans, Democrats, Tea Partiers, Libertarians, Socialists, Flat-Earthers . . . It goes with the turf. Then again, this is a progressive blog, so if it appears than we're going after one party more than another well, that too goes with the turf . . .

Moving from the realm of Cato, Carthage and conspiracy to the present day, we present several lies currently being promulgated; lies we sincerely hope will not become a part of history:'

• The salvation of the American economy lies in lowering taxes on corporations and the rich, cutting middle-class entitlements, deregulation, extreme deficit reduction and a balanced budget. This mantra, sung by virtually every Republican in America is, to be diplomatic, a gross mistruth. The economic quagmire known as "The Great Recession" was far more the result of the deregulation of banks and tax cuts for the rich than entitlements for the middle-class. And while it is certainly true that deficits and debt do matter -- and must ultimately be addressed in a serious, purposive manner -- clamoring for draconian cuts in the midst of an economic downturn isn't mere fiscal imprudence; it betrays an utter disconnect. For too long, we've heard that placing ever greater wealth in the hands of corporations and the already wealthy will ultimately benefit everyone -- that "a rising tide raises all boats." This, of course, presumes that everyone has a boat . . .
• No one has ever died because they didn't have health care: This maddening mistruth came from the mouth of Republican "flavor-of-the-month" Rick Santorum, during a Q&A session with students at a small Christian college in Iowa this past December 5. A student asked the former Pennsylvania senator about health care and the Christian responsibility of caring for the poor. The student said "I don't think God appreciates the fact that we have 50 to 100,000 uninsured Americans dying due to a lack of health care every year," citing a 2009 study out of Harvard University. “Dying?” Santorum answered. "I reject that number completely . . . that people die in America because of lack of health insurance. People die in America because people die in America." Actually, according to the Harvard study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, if you take two Americans who are physically identical – same age, same gender, same race, same weight, same smoking history – and one of them has health insurance and one does not, then the one without health insurance is 40% more likely to die each year.
• States need to pass laws to ensure against voter fraud: Of late, an increasing number of states -- all of which have Republican governors and Republican-majority legislatures -- have been introducing and passing legislation cutting back on early voting, changing rules for presenting absentee ballots and requiring voters to present state-issued i.ds in order to vote. Their argument is that all of these moves are necessary in order to "protect the sanctity of the ballot from unscrupulous voters." And yet, according to a recent study by the Brennan Center for Justice has shown that instances of voter fraud in America are extraordinarily, unbelievably rare. Ohio, as an example, has documented four instances of voter fraud (out of more than 9 million ballots cast) in the last two presidential election cycles. Kansas, where the secretary of state pressed the legislature to pass a draconian i.d. law, admitted that his office could only document 221 cases of voter fraud since 1997. The real purpose behind all this is to make it far more difficult for certain groups -- students, ethnic minorities and the elderly -- to vote. Not surprisingly, all three of these groups have a greater tendency to vote Democratic than Republican. This is a naked attempt on the part of Republicans to create a "cure" for a problem that does not exist. One has a greater chance of being hit by lightening or winning the lottery than engaging in an act of voter fraud.

This is by no means meant to be an exhaustive list of "lies to live by." We could easily have included such canards as "President Obama wants to turn America into a European Social Welfare state," or "The mainstream media is run by liberals for liberals," or "Corporations are people," or "There is no such thing as man-made global warming," or "Ronald Reagan never raised taxes . . ."

The truth of the matter is that from Cato to Cantor, and from Maccabees to McConnell, lies abound.

Which makes history both instructive . . . and curious.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone