The K.F. Stone Weekly

Paging Emmanuel Goldstein

  

  While reading, watching and listening to the interminable analyses surrounding this week's elections in Virginia, New Jersey, Maine, New York and California, I found myself remembering George Orwell's 1984. How so and why? Well, hearing Republican pundits proclaim that a Democratic victory in New York's 23rd Congressional District was actually a victory for the GOP, while Democrats were arguing that losing governorships in both New Jersey and Virginia had nothing whatsoever to do with the popularity of President Barack Obama or the future of the party, I couldn't help but remember all those "perpetual war" slogans from Owell's dystopian novel:

   WAR IS PEACE! 

   FREEDOM IS SLAVERY! 

   IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!"

  

For those who recall 1984, these slogans are part of a "newspeak" dictionary entitled The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, authored by one "Emmanuel Goldstein," who in fact does not exist.  When coming from the pen of the fictional Goldstein, such shibboleths as "War is Peace!"  and "Freedom is Slavery!" are to be understood as the height of distopian lunacy. When  "Defeat is Victory!" comes from the mouth or quill of the not-so-fictional Jonah Goldberg, William Rivers Pitt, Michael Steele or even David Plouffe it is understood to be "political spin" which, although not necessarily a synonym for "lunacy," is nonetheless fairly maddening.  

 

   So what conclusions can be drawn from this week's various elections?

  

   Let's begin with the New Jersey and Virginia governors' races, where Republicans took back the state house.  As much as Republicans claim that their victories represented "clear defeats" for President Obama, it is good to remember that his name did not appear on either state ballot. 

 

   New Jersey voters had a choice between Governor John Corzine -- an exceptionally unpopular incumbent who ran an unbelievably bone-headed campaign -- and challenger Christopher Christie, a former United States Attorney.   Predictably, Christie won 91% of Republican votes while Corzine won 86% of Democrats.  And among those who said they were "very worried about the shape of the economy" Christie pulled in 61% of the vote as opposed to Corzine's 34%. Although he outspent Christie by a better than two-to-one margin and had the benefit of three campaign appearances by President Obama, Corzine just had too much negativ baggage. Additionally, independent candidate Chris Dagget -- who at times polled in significant double digits -- received a little under 6% of the vote.  Intriguingly, 46% of his votes came from independents, 37% from Democrats, and a mere 17% from Republicans.  Results from various exit polls made it a toss-up as to whether Christie won or Corzine lost.

 

   In Virginia, Republican Robert F. McDonnell, a polished fiscal/social conservative easily defeated Democrat R. Creigh Deeds, who by comparison came off as an ill-informed, ill-at-ease amateur.  McDonnell won 92% of Republicans, Deeds 93% of Democrats. McDonnell also had history of his side: the state has been a "tough get" for any Democrat for several generations.  Obama's success there in 2008 was the exception, not the rule for Democrats historically. It is fascinating to note that whichever party wins the White House has gone on to lose the Virginia governor's office one year later every time since the Carter administration.

 

   Anyone concluding that these two Republican victories offer "overwhelming proof" that the GOP is back on track, is reading a script penned by Emmanuel Goldstein. For despite these two victories, the country's opinion of Republicans  remains "monumentally bleak."  Two weeks ago, a Washington Post/ABC News poll reported the following:

    

   Less than one in five voters (19%) expressed confidence in Republicans' ability to make the right decisions for America's future, while a whopping 79% lacked that confidence. 
  

   Among independent voters, who went heavily for Obama in 2008 and congressional Democrats in 2006, the numbers for Republicans on the confidence questions were even  worse. Just 17 percent of independents expressed confidence in Republicans' ability to make the right decision, while 83 percent said they did not have that confidence.

  

   On the generic ballot question, 51 percent of the sample said they would cast a vote for a Democratic candidate in their congressional district next fall while just 39 percent said they would opt for a GOP candidate.

   And, perhaps most troubling for GOP hopes is the fact that just 20 percent of the Post sample identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest that number has been in Post polling since 1983. (No, that is not a typo.)   

   Then there were the Congressional elections.  In California's 10th District, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi -- a down-the-line liberal, easily defeated conservative Republican David Harmer.  In winning, Garamendi now takes over the seat vacated by 5-term representative Ellen Tauscher -- a moderate, pro-business Democrat -- who resigned her seat in order to become Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

 

    Lastly, there is Democrat Bill Owens' election to Congress from New York's 23rd District.  This will likely turn out to be the most telling -- and significant -- race of all.  Up until spring 2009,  a Republican has represented the 23rd for the past 18 years.  That man, moderate John McHugh was named Secretary of the Army by President Obama last spring.  Moreover, the 23rd, which covers most of New York's "North Country" -- starting at Lake Champlain, running westward along the St. Lawrence Seaway and over the Adirondacks Forest Preserve to Lake Ontario -- has been represented by nothing but Republicans since the days of President Andrew Johnson.  In fact, in one part of the district, the last non-Republican to represent the citizens in Congress was a Whig!

 

   Originally, the race appeared to be between moderate Republican Deirdre "Dede" Scozzafava -- a ten-year veteran of the New York State Assembly -- and moderate Democrat Bill Owens -- a Plattsburgh attorney who until he decided to run in the special election, was a registered independent.  Rounding out the race was Lake Placid CPA Doug Hoffman, running as a third-party candidate on the Conservative Party ticket.  Scozzafava, who is pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage, opposes gun control and has strong ties to labor, received the endorsements of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, New York Congressman Peter King, the NRA, and the New York State United Teachers.  Liberal Democrat blogger Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos wrote an October 1, 2009 column in which he said he was "rooting for her." 

 

   Scozzafava -- who by all rights should have won the special election -- conflicted with her party's high priests and priestesses by not being as far-right as Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.  Conservative luminaries such as Limbaugh, Beck, Bachmann, Pawlenty and Palin, denounced her for being "a dangerous socialist," derided her for being "to the left of Nancy Pelosi," and threw their support behind Doug Hoffman.  The resulting bedlam caused Scozzafava to leave the race and, with around-the-clock prompting from such Democratic heavyweights as Senator Chuck Schumer, Representative Steve Israel, NY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Scozzafava actually endorsed Democrat Owens.  National conservatives poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into Hoffman's campaign, but he proved to be both inadequately prepared and dreadfully uninformed about local issues.  Running a lackluster campaign promising "lower taxes, less government and more freedom," Hoffman looked, acted and sounded lost.  In the end, Bill Owens -- who also received a lot of financial backing from around the country -- wound up defeating Doug Hoffman by more than 5,000 votes, 49.2%-45.2%.

 

   Unbelievably, the GOP's unreconstructed right-wing is labeling this a victory.  How so?  How in the world can Doug Hoffman's defeat be considered a victory?  And by whom?  It would appear that what these true believers are celebrating is the fact that they chased Dede Scozzafava -- that "far-left socialist" -- from the race.  What they are thereby implying is that there is only room for one platform in the GOP: that which is most conservative, most closed-minded and most in lockstep with the positions and values of the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover years.

 

   If this is the case, and if they truly consider having kept Dede Scozzafava -- an electable moderate -- out of the race to be a "victory," then they had better prepare themselves for a lot more "victories" in 2010 and 2012.

   

   "Paging Emmanuel Goldstein . . ."

 

    

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

  

  

 

 

Who's Up for Reading 1990 Pages?

    "The era of the 1,000-page bill is over," Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander quipped at a press conference yesterday discussing H.R. 3962, the new House health care proposal.  "We have the 2,000-page bill," he deadpanned  Actually, the legislative text of the "Affordable Health Care Act for America," a bill "To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes," is a staggering 1,990 pages -- far far more  than the English translation of Tolstoy's War and Peace.  And, after having skimmed my way through a couple of hundred pages of this bill by Messrs Dingell, Rangel, Waxman, Miller, Stark, Pallone, Andrews et al , I can tell you it's far, far less interesting than Tolstoy's masterwork -- which isn't exactly a page-turning to begin with.

    Republican Dave Camp told reporters he was going to read the bill while flying back to his Michigan home. Upon hearing Camp make this comment I thought, "Either he's the fastest reader in the House of Representatives or he's taking the slowest flight in the world."  As it turned out, Camp was stymied in his plans to stow the bloody thing on board; it turned out to be too big to fit in the overhead compartment.  And with good reason: H.R. 3962 stands nearly 9 inches tall and weighs 19 pounds.

   The fact that this bill is of both staggering length and stultifying lingo makes one wonder precisely how many people are actually going to read and digest it in its entirety.  And, to make matters more intense, H.R. 3962 is merely one of at least 5 different omnibus health care proposals currently floating around Capitol Hill.  Who but the Platonic Absolute of a legislative wonk would even attempt such a task?  It strikes me that anyone actually reading the bill in its entirety is in serious need of getting a life.

   Presuming that the aforementioned is true -- that few if any will ever master the "Affordable Health Care Act for America" -- one wonders how it turns out that so many are issuing dire warnings about specific aspects of a bill they have not read.  I really rather doubt that people like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, John Boehner or Tim Pawlenty have read HR 3962 -- or HR 3200 or Senator Max Baucus' "America's Healthy Future Act of 2009," or any of the others.  And yet, there they are -- along with dozens upon dozens of their Republican colleagues -- attempting to scare the daylights out of the American public by "disclosing" such perniciousness as:

• Last Friday, Sarah Palin's Facebook page contained the following: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so that his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment, of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." [Note: There is a provision which authorizes Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes.]
• Working from almost the same script, House Minority Leader John Boehner warned that this same provision "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."  [Note: Page 425 of the current House bill contains a provision requiring Medicare to pay for some end-of-life counseling sessions with a health care practitioner. Period] 
  
• Representative Michelle Bachmann has claimed in numerous speeches that "The real issue is, will illegal aliens have access to taxpayer-subsidized health care?  Well, the answer is yes, they will.  In the bill, 3200 has a section that says illegal aliens will not have access to health care, and that's why President Obama is able to say that.  But the practical effect is that illegal aliens will have access to health care because there is no provision for enforcement in the bill."  [Note: HR 3200 specifically says that "no federal money will be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage."]
• Additionally, Bachmann has said that the bill contains a provision that will "put sex clinics in our schools . . . and puts Planned Parenthood in charge of these sex clinics because the bill requires [it] under this provision." According to Bachmann, "School children will be able to go to a sex clinic during lunch, obtain an abortion, return to school and then go home . . . without anyone being the wiser as to their having had an abortion."  [Note: According to the legislative service Politifact, "We see no language in the three main versions of the bill that would allow school-based clinics, which have a long history of providing basic health services to underprivileged students, to provide abortions."]   
  

   And on and on.  

   In the days and weeks to come these scare tactics and outright untruths will no doubt be receiving a lot of exposure.  And the folks who scream the loudest will no doubt make it appear that they have poured over the various bills with a fine-tooth comb.  In raising fear levels across the country, they will be seeking nothing less than to convince folks that it is most appropriate for them to stand in opposition to things which are inherently in their best interest -- a really nifty trick when you think about it. One wishes that every time one of these folks uncovered another malevolent clause they were asked to cite section, clause, page and verse.  For if they were, it would then soon be revealed that they really don't know what in the world they are talking about; that they are merely doing the bidding of those who pay their bills.

   And now, if you will excuse me, I'm in the mood for an  easier, quicker read . . . perhaps War and Peace?

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Of Time and Bacterium

   A couple of days ago, the good folks at the Pew Research Center for People & the Press released a fascinating poll.  From September 30 through October 6,  Pew polled 1,500 U.S. adults, asking them "Do you see evidence of climate change?"  According to their findings, 57% of those surveyed answered "yes," 33% answered "no." 

    The poll's margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

   Amazingly, less than eighteen months ago, when asked the same question, 71% of  
those polled answered in the affirmative -- that yes, they did see "evidence of global warming" -- and 21%  "no."  And about a year before that -- January 2007 -- 77% of those polled answered in the affirmative, a mere 16% in the negative. 

   In other words, in less than three years, the percentage of American adults who believe that the earth is warming up has decreased by 26%, while those who, for whatever reason, are of the opinion that global warming or climate change is not occurring has doubled.

   This is a real jaw-dropper.  I mean, how in the world can it be that fewer and fewer people see evidence of global warming, when virtually everyone I know understands it to be a self-evident, haunting and dire reality?  In attempting to explain this trend, Andrew Kohut, the Pew Center's director opined, "The priority that people give to pollution and environmental concerns . . . is down because of the economy and because of the focus on other things."   

   To me this comment may explain why global warming and other environmental issues have been taking more and more of a back seat in people's priorities.  It in no wise sheds light on why people are increasingly seeing climate change as both a myth and -- in some cases -- a conspiracy.  Oh sure, part of it has to do with all those knuckle-draggers who loudly proclaim "We've got proof that climate change is a myth:

1. It's only October, and already there's been snow in both Denver and Boston;
2. The other day the low temperature in Ft. Lauderdale was in the 50s;
3. Anything that both Michael Moore and Al Gore believe is true cannot be true. 

   OK, so at least part of the upsurge in climate change denial can be laid at the feet of the guys and gals with the big microphones and brassy voices.  But this isn't even close to being a satisfying explanation. The more I reflect on what the Pew findings tell us, the more I am coming to think that the answer lies in our changing conception of, toleration for, and patience with . . . time. 

   "How's that?" I can hear you asking. "What in the world does 'time' have to do with anything?"

   Well, when one thinks about all the changes we've undergone in the past generation or so, no one thing has been altered quite so much as time itself.  Remember when a 14.4k dial-up modem was super fast?  Or how about a 60mb hard drive? Once we 'traded up' to a 56k modem, or a 100 mb hard drive we wondered how we ever could have survived back in the tortoise-slow stone age?  With each passing half-year the speed of down- and uploading got quicker and quicker; our computers became more and more powerful.  And we became less and less tolerant of time.

   There once was a time when getting or making a long-distance telephone call -- traversing time and space -- was quite a big deal; only for special occasions.  Now, of course, its as ho-hum commonplace as swallowing or blinking.  Then too, remember when figuring out who said "Time flies on restless pinions . . . constant never" could take the better part of a day at the library?  And then, when you found out it was some German guy named Schiller, you actually had to go and find him in the Encyclopedia Britannica, which was on another floor?  Today, of course, all one has to do is a simple Google search -- "restless+pinions+constant" and voila!  Within .42 seconds you have the answer.  By comparison to Google, the public library seems positively Neanderthal.

    And on and on.

   The point is, that as technology has given us increased resource speed, our level of patience -- indeed, our feel for the true length of a day, week, month or year -- has decreased.  If something cannot be accomplished quickly, we lose interest.  If we are flush with cash today, it rarely dawns on us to put some of it away against a distant tomorrow.  Likewise, if we go through a couple of days of extremely frigid weather, then global warming is a myth.  But of course in the latter case, two days -- or five weeks or an entire season -- of grossly sub-par temperatures does not mean that humankind's carbon footprint is benign; merely that we aren't perceiving the big or long term picture.  Even the Ice Age had its hot spells . . .

   Let us say that there is a microscopic bacterium residing in Lake Tahoe that doubles in size every hour.  Let us further posit that it takes 50,000 years for it to become visible to the naked eye -- say a circle of roughly two inches.  Within 24 hours that little 2-inch circle of algae or whatever it is will have increased to a size of just over 132 miles -- more than enough to fill the entire lake.  To the casual passerby, it will appear that overnight the lake became contaminated; in reality, it took 50,000 years -- and one day.

   In a sense, this is the perspective many have on global warming, war, peace, the economy, getting things done in 2009.  If the problem isn't solved immediately -- regardless of how long it took for the problem to fester -- we point fingers and accuse the problem solvers of incompetence or malevolence. 

   Patience and perspective have been replaced by politics and perversity.

   And polling . . .

   ©2009 Kurt F. Stone  

   

Ad Captandum Vulgus

      For the longest time now, a niggling, indefinable, "can't-exactly-put-my-finger-on-it" something has been tying my kishkes in knots. And believe me, as anyone who has ever been afflicted with Crohn's Disease will understand, knotted kishkes are the last thing in the world one needs or wants.

      This niggling discomfort began shortly after the 111th Congress convened back in January, and has gotten progressively worse with each passing month.  It has been a chronic condition with occasional acute spikes. Regrettably, until just a few days ago, I have had neither the time nor the talent to determine its precise cause.  Oh I knew that it had a lot to do with all those conservative chatterboxes I listen to while driving from lecture to lecture. But it was more than just that; the fact that guys like Limbaugh, Hannatty, Savage, Beck et al disagree with everything the president or congressional Democrats propose is nothing new.  This couldn't possibly be the source of my malady. So what was it?

    Well, late the other night, while making the long, exhaustive jaunt home after delivering six lectures in three days, I decided to confront this distress head-on in an attempt to discover its source.  By the time I reached my front door, I had fairly well figured it out.  What was bugging me; what was making me seethe like a copper kettle and giving me a nasty case of what old Doc Lipton called the "Flying  Whipsidingles," could be summed up in a single six-letter word:

    M-O-T-I-V-E.

   Yes, motive.  What I finally figured out was that both my agony and my anger were being caused by listening to so many members of the "media" elite attack the motives -- if not the character -- of those with whom they violently disagree.  It is one thing to opine that those who want to close down Guantanamo and hold trials on American soil are wrong; it is another to accuse them of consciously being allied with these terrorists.  It is one thing to strongly disagree with any or all of the various health care reform measures currently being discussed in Congress,; it is quite another to baldly state that "Democrats want nothing more than to strip away our freedoms and bring Socialism -- or "Communism," or "Nazism" to America."  Then too, it is one thing to hold fast to a belief that the single best way to cure the country's economic woes is to enact tax cuts for the wealthy, and quite another to damn those who disagree by proclaiming that "They hate America and want to bring the country to its knees."  This is not argumentation based on fact; it is a bald-faced assault on the motives, the sincerity -- indeed, the very humanity -- of one's opposition.  In rhetorical terms, what they are doing is called ad captandum vulgus -- "capturing the crowd" through unsound, specious arguments.  An ad captandum vulgus argument declares that "we all know that this is the truth," even when what we "all know" is anything but. 

       Years ago Monty Python brilliantly parodied an ad captandum statement: "I think all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired . . . I'm certainly not!  But I'm sick and tired of being told that I am . . ."  

        When the self-anointed archangels of the airwaves gut those with whom they disagree by impugning their motives, they are engaging in a most seductive form of casuistry.  It is beyond disconcerting to hear someone proclaim oh so matter-of-factly that President Obama's various proposals and appointments are motivated solely by a desire to "bankrupt," "enslave" and "ultimately destroy" the United States of America.  First of all, none of these idiotic charges are true.  Secondly, how in the world do these mavens know what motivates Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Timothy  Geithner, Michael Moore -- or Mary Tyler Moore -- for that matter?  It is both dangerous and diabolic to impute and impugn the motives of public figures.  For not only are those who do so giving the vulgus -- the "common clay," the "crowd" -- the sense that they are now uniquely empowered with "the truth"; they are also turning the vulgus into a potentially malignant mob. 

        Running hand-in-glove with argumentum ad captandum is argumentum ad hominem -- an argument in which one attacks a person's character rather than the content of their point of view.  Sometimes the ad hominem is done obliquely; the other day one of the talkmeisters dismissed any thought, opinion or bit of research ever done by liberal Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh simply by referring to him as "The insane, drug-addled Seymour Hersh."  Other times, argumentum ad hominem can hit you right between the eyes; in responding to  negative statements made by the Rev. Al Sharpton about his potentially becoming a limited owner of the St. Louis Rams, Rush Limbaugh, spoke not on point, but rather about how Sharpton had "come to fame and fortune in the infamous Tawana Brawley case." (In this widely publicized 1987 case, Tawana Brawley, a 15-year old African American girl, accused 6 white men of rape -- some of whom were police officers.  The Rev. Sharpton was among those who came to her defense.  A series of investigations brought her credibility into question; in all likelihood, no rape ever took place.) 

        Sometimes it is hard not to presume knowledge of what motivates another person.  Sometimes it is terribly difficult not to dismiss a person's opinion or argument with an attack on their character -- or lack thereof.  I do presume that that which motivates most of the guys and gals behind the mikes and cameras is profit, plain and simple.  Hell's bells, who among us wouldn't want to make $50 million dollars a year for working three hours a day, five days a week?  Then again, maybe they are motivated by something far less benign . . . but who am I to say? 

        If I could get the masters of ad captandum to pay heed for just a second, or two I would quote for them a little gem from Peter Pan's creator, James M. Barrie:

        "Never ascribe to an opponent motives meaner than your own." 

         You know something? My kishkes are beginning to feel better . . .

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

A New Definition of Chutzpah

  

According to every third-rate Borscht Belt comedian who ever took a pratfall, the definition of chutzpah goes like this:

  "Chutzpah is a youngster killing his parents and then throwing himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan . . ."  (drum roll please)

   After untold decades, there's now a new, far longer definition:

   "Chutzpah is "Dr." Rush Limbaugh and "Dr." Glenn Beck overriding the best available medical advice and informing their listening audience that the H1N1 vaccine -- the one being used to combat Swine Flu -- is dangerous, causes autism, and therefore must be avoided at all costs.  Moreover, according to Drs. Limbaugh and Beck, the whole "Pig Flu" (their term) scare is a nothing but a malevolent conspiracy whose sole purpose is to subject unsuspecting, innocent 'real Americans' to a deadly toxin."

    Now, I am as big a defender and proponent of the First Amendment right to free speech as anyone who ever paid dues to the ACLU. I firmly believe, in the words of the late Abbie Hoffman, that "Free Speech is the unfettered right of people to yell theater at a crowded fire."  However, what the aforementioned medical mal-practitioners don't seem to get is that freedom is not free; it requires both intelligent and responsible action.  Repeatedly announcing to their listening audience that they will never "subject" themselves to a "dangerous, unproven vaccine" against a "non-existent illness" is the height of idiotic irresponsibility.  Oh yes, they can say whatever they want; that's the essence of free speech. However, when what they have to say is heard by tens of millions of people who -- for better or for worse -- believe that what these guys say is as infallible as the law from Mt. Sinai -- then there's a huge problem.  Because as sure as Carter made Little Liver Pills, there are going to be folks who refuse to let themselves -- or worse, their children -- be vaccinated against Swine Flu because both Rush and Glenn said so.  And herein lies both the crux of the problem and the new definition of chutzpah.  For if just one person is needlessly afflicted with Swine Flu; if, heaven forbid, just one child or at-risk adult needlessly dies because they preferred heeding the "medical advice" of a radio/TV talk show host/entertainer over that of:

• Dr. Regina Benjamin, M.D., Surgeon General of the United States, 
• Dr. Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the National Institutes of Health  or
• Kathleen Sebelius, M.P.A., Secretary of Health and Human Services,  
  

  That will be one person too many.

  Just yesterday, October 8, Rush Limbaugh went on the following rant against Secretary Sebelius and Dr. Nancy Snyderman, chief medical editor for NBC News:

   "When did medicine get hijacked by politics? Have you heard of the people you vote for Dr. Snyderman?  The Democrat Party!  No, in her warped world view, I, El Rushbo, your devoted host, have hijacked medicine. By politicizing my announced refusal to follow the 'command' of the Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius . . . that you 'must take' the Pig Flu vaccine . . . you must take it.  SCREW YOU MISS SEBELIUS; I am not going to take it precisely because you're now telling me I must."

  Limbaugh then continued his rant, somehow tying the H1N1 vaccine and the government's strong recommendation -- NOT mandate -- for at-risk people to be inoculated, with that which he persists in calling "Obama Care."  Talk about the dangerous misuse of free speech; Talk about chutzpah! 

  If the Limbaughs of the world wish to forgo being inoculated against the Swine Flu, fine; that is their right.  However, when they argue with seeming certainty that both the ailment and its counter-agent are nothing more than fraudulent chips in a game of political tiddlywinks, they run the very real risk that people will believe them and follow their lead. 

  Tell me what's more important Dr. Limbaugh: human life or Arbitron ratings? If you   want to continue railing against ACORN, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid Barney Frank, the "Democrat" Party and President Obama, fine.  If you want to criticize the president for going to Copenhagen, great.  If you want to get on your knees and pray for the Obama Administration to fail, make our day. That's show business.

   But in the name of all that's holy, stop endangering the lives of your listeners.  That's not show business; that's chutzpah.

   You're nuttier than a fruitcake Rush; but so too were lots of folks on the Borscht Belt Circuit. . .

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

 

Note: As this piece was being written, word came that President Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. I'm sure most of our readers will agree that this is a stunning achievement.  Predictably, the boys and girls at Fox News have a different take: that the sole reason he won is precisely why Al Gore won . . . neither one is George W. Bush. How's that for logic? 

Shocked! Simply Shocked!

   Who in the world is Alan Grayson, and why oh why are Daniel Burton, Virginia Foxx, Michelle Bachmann, Louie Gohmert and Steve King saying such nasty things about him?  Come to think about it, who is the heck are Daniel Burton, Virginia Foxx, Michelle Bachmann, Louie Gohmert and Steve King?  Well, all of them -- with the exception of Alan Grayson -- are Republican members of the House of Representatives.  Each one of them has steadfastly voted against increasing the minimum wage (HR 2); against reauthorizing and expanding SCHIP, the "State Children's Health Insurance Program" (HR 976); against banning gay bias in the workplace (HR 3685) and against raising CAFE (fuel-efficiency) standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 (HR 6). 

   I'm sure you get the picture.  And for all you political junkies, Burton represents Indiana's 5 District; Foxx, North Carolina's 5th; Bachmann, Minnesota's 6th; Gohmert Texas' 1st; and King, Iowa's 5th.

   As for Alan Grayson, he's the new Democratic representative from Florida's 8th District -- Orlando.  He's kind of like Barney Frank: an incredibly intelligent bear of a man, who's  Jewish, fast on his feet, tells it like it is, has a great and caustic sense of humor, wears his liberal bone fides like a badge of honor, and did his undergraduate, graduate and legal studies at Harvard. Unlike Barney Frank he's straight and the 12th richest member of Congress with an estimated net worth in excess of $31 million. (Grayson, who was born and raised in the Bronx, had a rough childhood, and made it to Harvard on the basis of brains, not family connections.  While in school he lived very modestly and took odd jobs cleaning toilets and working as a night watchman.  After graduating law school he started a telecommunications firm, which he eventually sold; hence his great wealth).

   Wonderful.  Marvelous.  So what is this piece all about?  Well, a couple of days ago (Tuesday September 30 to be precise), Rep. Grayson got up on the floor of the House and spent five minutes sticking his tongue firmly in his cheek. In brief, his speech went like this:

It's my duty and pride tonight to announce exactly what the Republicans plan to do for health care in America.  It's this: Very simply, it's a very simple plan.  Here it is, the Republicans health care plan for America: Don't Get Sick.  That's right, Don't Get Sick.  If you have insurance, don't get sick.  If you don't have insurance, don't get sick. If you're sick, don't get sick. Just don't get sick.  That's what the Republicans have in mind for you America.  That's the Republicans health care plan. 

  But I think that the Republicans understand that that plan isn't always going to work; it's not a foolproof plan.  So the Republicans have a backup plan -- in case you do get sick.  If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do: DIE QUICKLY! That's right.  The Republicans want you to DIE QUICKLY if you get sick. 

   Now, the Democrats have a different plan.  The Democrats say that if you have health insurance, we're going to make it better.  If you don't have health insurance, we're going to provide it to you.  If you can't afford health insurance, then we'll help you to afford health insurance. 

   So America gets to decide:  Do you want the Democratic plan or do you want the Republican plan?  Remember the Republican plan:  Don't get sick.  And if you do get sick, die quickly! 

   And its at this point that Burton, Bachmann et al got to their feet and expressed their shock, anger and outrage at their liberal colleague.  Dan Burton was outraged by what he saw and heard to the point of apoplexy.  As far as he and his Republican colleagues were concerned, Grayson's speech was a "grave offense to the dignity of this body," and along with others, demanded that Grayson apologize.  Georgia Republican Tom Price -- himself a practicing orthopedic surgeon who, according to the National Journal votes with the Republicans 97% of the time -- went so far as to draft a formal resolution of condemnation and demanded that Grayson "apologize to our leader"  for what he termed "a breach of decorum."

  Here is Grayson's "apology":

   I wish to apologize to America . . . to the dead . . . to the 44,789 who die every year in this country because they have no health insurance.  I want to apologize to the families of the dead that we haven't voted sooner to end this Holocaust in America.

   OK, I'll grant you that his use of the term "Holocaust" is way over the top and should have been replaced with something like "unmitigated tragedy," "horrifying spectacle" or even "shanda" -- well, Grayson is Jewish.  But the use of so insensitive a term should not take away from his basic purpose -- of drawing attention to the Republican's game plan -- of simply standing in firm opposition to virtually anything and everything that Democrats propose -- whether it's on health care, the economy, foreign relations, education or the environment. 

   The "utter shock" with which Republicans responded to Alan Grayson's tirade reminded me of a scene from Casablanca: Major Heinrich Strasser (Conrad Veidt) "urges" Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains) to shut down Rick Blaine's (Bogie) cafe.

   Rick: How can you close me up?  On what grounds? 

   Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find out that there's gambling going on in here!   [a croupier hands Capt. Renault a pile of money.]

   Croupier: Your winnings sir . . . 

   Just as Louie knew that Rick knew that the whole thing was a setup, so too, I believe, do the House Republicans know that their Democratic colleagues know that their "shock" is about as phony as a three-dollar bill.  And just as Louie had long participated in that which so "shocked" him -- gambling -- so too have Republicans long participated in that which they now contend "shocks" them -- Grayson's comment to "die quickly."

   Need proof?  The following are direct quotes:

   Rep. Steve King on July 15, 2009: They're [Democrats] going to save money by rationing care, getting you in a long line . . . places like Canada, the United Kingdom and Europe . . . people die when they're in line.

   Rep. Ginny Waite Brown on July 21, 2009: Last week the Democrats released a health care bill which essentially said to America's seniors, "Drop Dead!"

   Rep. Virginia Foxx on July 10, 2009: Republicans have a better solution that won't put the government in charge of people's health care . . . and it's pro-life, because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.

   Rep. Michelle Bachmann on July 15, 2009: The President's adviser, Dr. Emanuel, says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled . . . so watch out if you're disabled.

   And they're shocked at Alan Grayson's words?  Give us all a break. 

   For untold years, Congress worked because its members worked with one another regardless of party affiliation.  They worked with each other, did each other favors and tried to persuade each other of the fundamental correctness of their position.  The very nature of the legislative process demands collegiality.  Without it, the process does not and cannot work. Ever since the Republican Revolution during the Clinton years, collegiality has been in short supply.  Progress has been an even rarer commodity.

   When I got my first job on Capitol Hill 40 years ago, I loved hanging around one particular senator -- a venerable Southern gentleman who had been a Rhodes Scholar in the 1930s.  He was without question the most intelligent member of Congress at the time.  One day I asked him how in the world he could act with such utter civility towards all of his colleagues -- some of whom were utter Neanderthals. 

   "It's not always easy," he said with a twinkle in his eye.  "If I think a man's an idiot or a fool, I simply refer to him as My distinguished and learned colleague." 

   "But what about when you're absolutely positive that the man's both a fool and an idiot?" I asked. "What do you do then?"

   "Ah," he said, "If I'm positive that the man's a horse's hind-end, I refer to him as My MOST learned and distinguished colleague!"

   From where I sit four decades later, he had the right idea.  Its one heck of a lot better than feigning shock, thus gumming up the gears of government.

  

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

The Confirmed Unteachability of Mankind

 

   In a speech delivered before the British House of Commons nearly 75 years ago, Winston Churchill gave voice to perhaps the most pessimistic expression ever heard in that august chamber: " . . . the confirmed unteachability of mankind."  At the time he gave his speech, fascism was on the march in Europe; Winnie was obviously appalled, frustrated and likely depressed by the all but total lack of action or response to either Hitler or Mussolini on the part of European democracies.  He continued his oration bemoaning a certain "Want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the

confusion of consul until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong."  In his peroration, Churchill lamented  ". . . these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history."  Churchill's gloomy cynicism can be easily forgiven; to a great extent, he knew of what he was speaking.

   In his speech before the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu quoted Churchill, similarly lamenting what he called "The unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them."  Netanyahu spent the lion's share of his speech excoriating those who, like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust ever happened; those who accuse world Jewry of having created a myth out of whole cloth in order to gain international sympathy and thereby justify the very existence of the Jewish State.  In his speech Netanyahu argued forcefully, eloquently and passionately that anyone who can believe such perverse nonsense is either self-deluded or else suffers from the most perverse form of willful blindness.   

   Most intelligent people can concur that there is room for disagreement over what Israel should, can or must not do in order to achieve peace with its neighbors.  Indeed, if we all were to agree on one particular approach it would mean one of two things: either that we were acting in a really inane "B" movie, or that the Messiah had already arrived.   Let's face it: for many, debate is a contact sport. Similarly, those who read history honestly with both eyes wide open know that on those rare occasions when the Jewish State has been offered a chance for peace -- as with Egypt and Jordan -- it has   both greeted and embraced it with all the ardor and passion of a long-lost lover. And although Israel is by no means perfect, it remains the only functioning democracy in that part of the world.  Of course, we all know that this fact, along with a couple of hundred others, don't amount to a hill of beans for those who are anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic, or anti-Democracy. To them, facts don't mean a thing.

   Many years ago I had a math professor named Tom Lehrer.  He was a wonderful teacher and an even better writer of topical, satirical songs.  One of his more memorable tunes -- "Daily News" had the lyric "Don't try to confuse me with the facts . . ." Although Dr. Lehrer's lyric wasn't referring to anyone or anything in particular, it could easily describe those who, like Ahmadinejad, the oil sheiks of Saudi Arabia or Willis Carto and the creeps of the Institute for Historical Review who, despite tons and tons of documentation, persist in telling anyone who will listen, that the Holocaust never occurred.  Talk about the "confirmed unteachability of mankind!"  Of course, they probablydo know that the Holocaust did occur; they just have another agenda . . .

    We have always had our own unteachable faction right here in the good old USA.  Generally speaking, those who deny the Holocaust -- or see Communists under every bed, or firmly believe that all Jews know and speak with one another at least once a week -- have been so far out of the mainstream as to be invisible to everyone save their acolytes or such groups as the Anti-Defamation League or the Southern Poverty Law Center whose job it is to keep track of them.  Mass media -- and the vast majority of sane people -- don't pay them any attention; there's just too many facts out there proving them wrong, wrong, wrong.  Of late however, a lot of Americans suffering from "confirmed unteachability" have been getting one heck of a lot of coverage in the media.  And here, I'm referring to those who, despite a welter of documents and facts, persist in the belief that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya; that he is a Socialist -- or a Communist, a Nazi, a Fascist, a gang-banger from the 'hood, an effete Harvard snob or an ardent Israel-hating anti-Semite.  From what is portrayed on the nightly news, it would seem as if the numbers of the unteachable have reached the point of no return.  Well, as a professor once told me, "If you put a single-cell amoeba under an electron microscope it's going to wind up looking like a Stegosaurus."  Shame on all the news editors for putting them on the tube in the first place.

   Just yesterday, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor -- the only Jewish Republican left on Capitol Hill -- told Politico, "If you look at the policy that this White House has followed, it certainly does not seem as if we are dealing with a true friend of Israel."  The White House declined to respond to Rep. Cantor's remarks, stating instead that "achieving a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians is how you can be a true friend to Israel."  What I find amazing is that Cantor's charge -- that the President is not a "true friend" of Israel -- came on the very day when he hosted a trilateral meeting between P.M. Netanyahu and President Abbas.  According to Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), chair of the House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Cantor's criticisms "appear to be timed deliberately to weaken the administration's ability to lay the foundations for peace negotiations."  Could it be that Mr. Cantor is among the "unteachable?"  Or, is it something else?

   I have interviewed Eric Cantor, and know him to be both intelligent and skillful.  I also know him to be a highly partisan, deeply conservative Republican; a man who believes the answer to every fiscal issue is lowering taxes and whose mistrust of the federal government is akin to a religious obligation.  Perhaps in questioning President Obama's bona fides vis-à-vis Israel, Cantor is really attempting to convince those for whom the Jewish State is an issue of primal importance that they would be better served belonging to -- and voting for -- the Republican Party.

  From where I sit, and from what I've learned, there are certain incontrovertible facts in this vexatious, headache-inducing world of ours:

1. Israel really, truly does want peace.
2. The Holocaust really, truly did happen.
3. Barack Obama is really, truly a native-born American.
4. The current administration -- although it may not always agree with everything Israel does or says -- is really, truly a steadfast friend.
5. Winston Churchill was -- regrettably -- for the most part correct; there are a lot of unteachable, unreachable people out there.     
   

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

"The Pianists: A Parable"

  This week, instead of the normal political op-ed piece, I've written a short story entitled "The Pianists: A Parable." In addition to being this week's piece, it is also going to be my sermon for Erev Rosh Hashanah.  In its own way, its plenty political.

  

                The Pianists: A Parable

(Note: The following was discovered on a papyrus scroll in a cave. Due to its extreme age, estimated at not less than 1,800 years old, there were many gaps (or lacunae) which made the text difficult to render . . .)

 

  Once upon a time long ago, a group of weary wanderers received a Divine Commandment from on high. It forever changed their lives. The resonating basso voice of the Nameless Muse said: “Thou has been chosen for greatness. Hear now this commandment that I command thee this day: Thou shalt become Piano Players and lovers of music. Throughout all thy generations, thou shalt diligently teach thy children to study and to practice, to play and to love, the music of the Piano. For Piano is thy life and the length of thy days. It shall add glory, meaning and contentment to thy lives. Piano shall fulfill thy souls. I am thy Muse.”

  To facilitate their lives, Co* [This pronoun means "he/she"] gave them a manuscript with explicit step-by-step instructions on how to build a proper piano. To further guide them along their path, the Muse also provided the Piano Players (or “Pianists”) with The Holy Score, which contained Sonatas, Fantasies, and Concertos, Partitas, Trios and Quartets. Needless to say, those hearing the Muse’s Divine Directive were moved beyond compare; slowly they began seeking the means to fulfill Co’s awesome decree. This they did throughout their generations, as they continued wandering the wilderness, ever searching for their place in the sun.

   After many years of meandering, the nascent Pianists did find a permanent home in a land they called “Pastoral.” Once settled, they began devoting their lives to Piano and its attendant joys. Over many generations, they became renowned for the skill and artistry, the dedication and single-mindedness with which they fulfilled their Prime Command. They endlessly studied the Holy Score, adding variations and brilliantly original compositions of their own. They were a happy people living happy, creative lives. But there were dark clouds on the horizon. . .

   Other peoples and cultures (whom they simply referred to as “Outsiders”) mocked them and scorned them. They seemed so different. In a sense, they were. For owing to the extreme discipline required in order to become players of Piano and lovers of music, the Pianists generally lived by apart from all others. They even developed their own language with which to speak amongst themselves; they called it “P’santayr.” Not having been witness to the original Command on High, Outsiders could not understand the commitment and devotion with which the Pianists lived their lives. They kept strange hours and seemed to do nothing but practice, practice, practice. They played pieces from the Holy Score religiously three times each day. One day in seven they rested, doing nothing but attending the Odeon – their place of musical devotion. They dressed alike and all ate high protein diets. They rarely participated in activities that the Outsiders considered “important” or “necessary.” How, the Outsider’s wondered, could any people devote so much of their lives to something as frivolous and nonproductive as Piano playing and music?

   Because of their uniqueness, they were often persecuted. In fact, many Outsider cultures tried to eliminate them. Many believed that the Piano Players were an powerful, monolithic force bent upon taking over the entire world. Strangely, others saw in the Piano Players an inherent weakness that made them susceptible to the will of the devil. Against all reason, the Outsiders became convinced that the Piano Players believed themselves to be better than everyone else, although this certainly was not the case. True, the Muse had long ago informed the Pianists that they were Co’s “Chosen People.” But that did not make them better – only chosen. But Chosen for what? Why to be Players of Piano and devotees of music – not an easy task when you think about it. No, they were not better, but they were different and unique. Unfortunately, many people could not (and still cannot) understand that people who are “different” or “unique” need not be feared.

   After generations of living extraordinary lives in Pastorale, the Pianists were conquered by Outsiders and forced to leave their homeland. Before long, they were dispersed to the four corners of the earth. As the generations came and went, the Piano Players contributed greatly to the countries and cultures in which they found themselves living. They continued to be persecuted and scorned for their uniqueness. To the Outsider way of thinking, they just didn’t fit in. Nonetheless, they did continue to provide both themselves and the entire world with sonatas, concertos and symphonies of dazzling brilliance and profundity. They created a body of musical literature that covered virtually every emotional aspect of life. No matter where they found themselves in the wide world, they continued to study, to play, and to luxuriate in the heavenly music they had been commanded to create. It gave their lives meaning and purpose, just as the Muse had predicted. And, despite the fact that they were grossly misunderstood and even harmed, music continued to be the central focus of their lives – the driving force that kept them together as a people.

   After 2,000 or more years, the Pianists lived in almost every country in the world. Never vast in number, they were nonetheless believed by the Outsiders to be an enormous monolithic congregation. In a sense, one can readily understand how the Outsiders might reach this unwarranted conclusion. Because of their unique culture and common purpose, they felt themselves to be a single family. Theirs was a singular global connection. Since all Piano Players adhered to roughly the same daily ritual of practice and study, they understood each other’s lifestyles, needs and expectations. And since they all spoke “P’santayr,” they could communicate with one another whenever the need arose.

   For countless generations, Pianists would only marry amongst themselves. This they felt to be their sacred obligation. Whenever or wherever a community of Pianists might suffer, their fellows could always be counted on to come to their aid. Additionally, when finally permitted to enter mainstream professions – law, medicine, banking and academics – the Pianists tended to become rather successful. This was due in great pat to the tremendous discipline and love of learning that had been instilled in them throughout all their generations. Simply stated, they approached each and every challenge as if it were party of the Holy Score. The Outsiders – perhaps through jealousy, envy, or sheer ignorance – had a tendency to look upon their success as positive proof that the Pianists were international conspirators – evil people bent upon taking over the entire world. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

   With the arrival of modern times, many strange things began to occur amongst the Piano Players. They found the pull of Outsider society to be increasingly strong and alluring. The time they devoted to playing Piano and studying music became less and less. While most considered themselves devoted Pianists in the cultural sense, many turned from age-old forms of study and practice. They no longer trained their children for a lifetime of playing and love of music. Why? Many said that they were deeply concerned lest their children feel “odd” or “strange” around their Outsider neighbors. No longer did they play Piano three times a day, as had their ancestors. Rarely did they attend the Odeon on the Seventh Day. No longer did they steep their children in the musical culture of their grandfathers and grandmothers.

   Rather, now they began sending them to twice-weekly lessons for three or four years in order to learn to play but a single piece of Piano music – and largely by rote at that. The parents rarely, if ever, took their children to the Odeon on the Seventh Day. In far too many homes, the children were unable to practice, for the parents did not even have a Piano. The message these children often received was: “Piano must be important to you for the n ext several years.”

   “Why?” their children would ask.

   “Because we say so,” the parents would answer.

   Often they would add: “But, if after you have completed your lessons, you do not want to continue, that will be your decision.” The children questioned why something that should be important to them was rarely seen or heard within their own homes. It was a very good question, a very good question indeed.

   It eventually became the custom that at the age of thirteen, each child would play his or her single piece of music at a glorious recital that would be attended by family and friends. Plans for the recital (and the banquet that would follow) began years before the child knew how to locate Middle C, or had ever heard of Bach, Beethoven or Brahms. The day of the recital was filled with tension and anxiety, lest the child not “perform” up to capacity. It became increasingly obvious that many of those who attended these recitals did not have the slightest idea of how to act or what to expect. They had become, in short, a musically illiterate folk.

   Many of those in attendance would recall their own recitals, and realize that it was really the last time they had ever played Piano, attended the Odeon, or devoted themselves to music. Some would remember their parents and grandparents, and how they devoted their lives to the pursuit of Piano and music. But these children – the ones who played the single recital piece – were different. Despite the fact that they might play their single piece with ability and skill, they were incapable of reading the musical score or recognizing its worth. Moreover, few, if any, had the true love of music, which the Muse had long ago commanded. True to form, few would ever play Piano after their recital. This new generation merely went through the motions without much feeling or understanding. What they did understand, was that after the recital, they would receive gifts of money. After the performance, the family would throw a magnificent banquet that would last until all hours of the night. Quite often these festivities cost far more than the family could truly afford.

   The elders grew fearful. “How silly it is to spent all that time and money just to teach our children a single piece of music,” they said. “And for what? For the sake of a single recital and a great feast? It is a tragedy. Our children no long truly know how to play Piano, speak ‘P’santayr,” or have that great love and devotion to music which has always been our heritage. Where will it all end?”

   But the elders came to realize that they were, at least in part, to blame. They were the ones who took to speaking “P’santayr” only when they did not wish their children to understand. Then too, they were the ones who let the very culture of Piano slowly slip through their fingers, preferring instead the ways of their non-Pianist neighbors.

   Fortunately, the elders, working in consonance with their children and grandchildren, came up with a solution that not only solved their growing problem, but actually caused a musical renaissance among the Pianists. In short, they . . .

(At this point, the manuscript suddenly ended, leaving posterity to ponder just what the solution was).

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Ani m'achayl lachem shana tova u'mtuka . . .

 

 

The Great American Earache, Jr.

   John Elliott Rankin (1882-1960) represented Mississippi's 1st Congressional District in the House of Representatives from 1921-1953. In his day, Rankin was without question the most narrow-minded, racist member of that body . . . and that's saying one whole heck of a lot.  Rankin was what one might call an "equal opportunity bigot."  He hated Jews and Blacks with an equal passion, and made no bones about  it.  His Congressional speeches were invariably laced with lies, half-truths and obnoxious racist epithets; so much so that one artful wag nicknamed him "The Great American Earache."  As a member of the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee Rankin came under fire for failing to investigate violence and murder perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan. "After all," Rankin said on the House floor, "The KKK is an old American institution." When Rankin was taken to task by columnist Walter Winchell, "The Great American Earache" dismissed Winchell (Winschel) as "The little Kike."  When Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. was elected to the House in 1944, Rankin repeatedly referred to him as "The nigger from New York." Powell was so incensed that he rose  to say "The time has arrived to impeach Rankin, or at least expel him from the party. " The House did neither.

   On June 4, 1941, New York Representative M. Michael Edelstein engaged Rankin in a colloquy.  In a debate over whether or not America should become engaged in the war in Europe, Edelstein argued for intervention.  Rankin then rose and charged that the pro-interventionist faction was being "orchestrated, financed and led by a little group of our international Jewish brethren."  Incensed, Edelstein immediately went on the attack and accused the "Gentleman from Mississippi" of "demagoguery and hate mongering."  His voice rising with emotion, Edelstein cried out, "Mr. Speaker, Hitler started out by speaking about 'Jewish brethren' and 'international bankers.' The last speaker speaking about international bankers coupled them with our 'Jewish brethren'. . .  I deplore the idea that any time anything happens . . . men in this House . . . attempt to use the Jews as their scapegoat."

  At this point, Edelstein began to sway, his face quickly losing color.  Nonetheless, he continued on to his peroration: "I say it is unfair, and I say it is un-American.  All men are created equal, regardless of race, creed or color; and whatever a man be, Jew of Gentile, he may think what he deems fit."  Edelstein staggered from the House floor, collapsed in the Capitol lobby, and within seconds died of a massive heart attack -- murdered, some say, by John Rankin, "The Great American Earache."

   In finishing the newest edition of The Congressional Minyan: The Jews of Capitol Hill, I of course did a "touch up" on Rep. Edelstein's entry.  During the several days I was "hanging out" with Edelstein, I watched as angry, sometimes gun-toting "birthers" and assorted irate, fearful Americans screamed at the top of their lungs, proclaiming that our president is an "alien," a "racist," a "socialist" and  that he and the Democrats are "dedicated to tearing this country down and imposing Islamic law."

   I found myself wondering if these could be John Rankin's great grandchildren.

   And then along came South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson.  He is, of course, the fellow who had the temerity and cosmic bad taste to cat-call "YOU LIE" to President Obama as our Chief Executive was addressing a joint session of Congress on the status of Health Care reform in America.  For his efforts -- and despite his extremely lukewarm, halfhearted apology -- I hereby bestow on him the honorary appellation:

    The Great American Earache, Jr.
Inhonesto Causa

   One might argue that Wilson's two-word tirade is in no way comparable to the hate-filled invective of his "appellation-sake," John Rankin.  Then again, Rankin's ravings weren't broadcast for the entire world to see and hear . . . over and over and over again; neither the technology nor the desire existed in 1941. Back then, the country was faced with many crucial problems and issues, all of which demanded  critical examination and response -- from Congress, the media, from the people themselves.  It simply was not in the cards to waste precious time either defending or condemning Rankin's hate-filled invective. That was a side-show America could ill afford at the time.  True, Rankin should have had his sorry tuches kicked all the way back to Tupelo. But the fact of the matter is that he remained in Congress for another decade, at which time he ran for the Senate, coming in 5th in a five-man race with a mere 13% of the vote.  He had been marginalized, and spent the last decade of his career being mostly ignored.  That was the 1940s, a time when a bigot like John Rankin was barely a sidebar, let alone a story.

    2009 is of course, a different story.  A fool like Joe Wilson is the story. Now we have tens of dozens of media outlets all competing for a slice of the audience -- an audience they consider as customers and consumers first, and only then, as citizens. They are more than happy to put the name, face and tirade of Wilson on TV and invite him on their talk shows . . . or spend the better part of a day writing about him for a weekly Blog article. 

   Shame on us all!

   How to reform health care; what to do about the economy, the environment and Afghanistan -- these are the issues that matter, not a Brobdingnagian bigot like Joe Wilson. Yes, what he did was terribly wrong.  He showed consummate disrespect for the President of the United States.  But then again, so did a majority of the Republicans sitting on their hands in the House last Wednesday night -- some sneering, others snoring, some even texting.  As a result, much of what President Obama said has already been forgotten -- or worse, misreported or mis-characterized.  President Obama says, "Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people; they do it for profits;" Hannity reports, "The president said 'Insurance executives are bad people.'" May we say here and now that Hannity lies?  Rush Limbaugh proclaims that the only thing Rep. Wilson did wrong was in offering an apology!  Isn't it obvious that Limbaugh will stir up any pot or kettle he finds for the sake of ratings?

   So much of what passes for dialogue and discourse these days is anything but. We have reached a point where for many, incivility is courage, prevarication is patriotic, and the First Amendment guarantee of free speech is absolute[ly] for those with whom you agree.

   Enjoy your new nickname for the while, oh "Great American Earache, Jr."  It is my sincere wish that you achieve irrelevance even quicker than your appellation-sake.

   And that we get back to the true challenges at hand. . .   

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

En passant: For those who found Rankin v. Edelstein of interest, please know that the new edition of The Congressional Minyan: The Jews of Capitol Hill -- which will be out shortly -- has nearly 200 such stories drawn from the Halls of Congress. It is published by Rowman & Littlefield.

Where There's a [George F.] Will . . .

      There is a legend that when Mohammad, the founder of Islam, was asked to give proofs of his teaching, he ordered a particular mountain (Mt. Safa) to come to him.  When the mountain did not comply, Mohammad supposedly raised his hands towards the heavens and proclaimed, "Allah is merciful.  Had the mountain obeyed my words, it would have fallen on us and we would have been destroyed. Therefore, I will go to the mountain and thank Allah for showing us mercy . . ." 

   Somewhere along the line, the tale came to the attention of Sir Francis Bacon who, in his book "Essays," simplified and popularized it as "If the mountain won't go to Mohammad, Mohammad will go to the mountain."  This expression is pretty well known to most literate folks even though its history may be a tad hazy.  Don't ask me why, but I have long thought it to be distantly related to the locution about "Hell freezing over."  To me, both expressions speak of things which although possible, are grossly improbable -- like the Cubs winning the World Series, or Sean Hannity saying something positive about Nancy Pelosi.     

   Well, after reading an op-ed piece by George F. Will in Tuesday's Washington Post, I find myself wondering if perhaps it has started hailing in Hades.  For in his piece "Time to Get out of Afghanistan" Will, as consistent and intelligent a conservative as we've got -- now that William F. Buckley has shuffled off this mortal coil -- argues that Washington "must rapidly reverse the trajectory of America's involvement in Afghanistan."  He argues that far from increasing the number of troops we have on the ground, we should pull them out. Now, suddenly, he grasps  what everyone from Alexander the Great and the Mongols to Sir Robert Peel and Mikhail Gorbachev eventually learned: that no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, you're never going to conquer, tame or remake Afghanistan  in your own image. Commenting on the recent, as yet inconclusive elections in Afghanistan, Will inquires about their worth: "Creation of an effective central government?  Afghanistan has never had one." 

   Will recommends that "Forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, air strikes and small, potent  Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that really matters."  (By the way Mr. Will, please note that Afghanistan is a totally land-locked country, making it rather doubtful that anything could be done "from offshore.")

   Could it be?  Is this really, truly George F. Will -- a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN -- cooing like a dove?  Isn't cooing supposed to be the job of the liberals?  Aren't conservatives like Will supposed to be the expert saber rattlers? Is it really beginning to precipitate in purgatory?  Or is something else going on here?

    For the moment, Will hasn't got too many conservative -- or neo-conservative -- allies joining in on the cooing.  Writing on the Commentary website, former George W. Bush administration official Peter Wehner calls Will a "defeatist," and claims his column "could have been written in Japanese about the USS Missouri."  Wehner also calls Will "a defeatist" who "sound[s] more like Michael Moore than Henry Kissinger."

   Ouch!

   William Kristol the neo-conservative editor of the Weekly Standard, accused Will of "urging retreat, and accepting defeat."  And Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the (neo-conservative) American Enterprise Institute, who is pushing for a huge surge of US troops into Afghanistan, called Will's column "reprehensible."

   Double Ouch!

   So who is cooing along with Will?  Why liberal Democrats like Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, whose recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal called on the president to a time line for troop withdrawal. And increasingly, a higher and higher percentage of the American public are turning against American involvement in Afghanistan. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 51% of respondents believe that the "war is not worth fighting."  Another poll has the percentage of those who see Afghanistan as a "war of choice rather than necessity" to be as high as 57%.  Could it be that George F. Will has gone over to the other side and become a card-carrying liberal?  That he will soon come out in favor of same-sex marriage and start pulling for the Obama health care plan?

   Has the Mohammad ventured to the mountain?

   In a word, NO.  The fact that Will's call for a US pullout comes at precisely the moment the Obama administration is leaning toward a further escalation of the war effort should raise eyebrows.  And, when Will mocks American efforts to eradicate  Afghanistan's opium trade as "Operation Sisyphus" bells should be going off.

   What in the world is going on here?  "Conservatives generally support a president they generally distrust because they think it important the country win the war in Afghanistan," William Kristol wrote the other day.  "As for today's liberals, they just don't want to see Americans win wars." And what of Mr. Will?  He has always been a staunch supporter of American military wars and ventures; he was a hawkish about Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Granada, Kosovo and Iraq. To my way of thinking his new-found dovishness has as much to do with practical politics as with morality or anything else. 

   George F. Will is a shrewd, calculating conservative.  What I think is going on in this mind goes something like this: the more obvious the link between President Obama and the quagmire of Afghanistan; the broader the rift this war causes in both the country and on Capitol Hill; the greater the likelihood of cutting into Democratic majorities in 2010 and perhaps taking back the White House in 2012. Then too, Will knows that historically, the American voting public has a terribly difficult time turning out a president when the country is at war.  Just ask Tom Dewey, George McGovern and John Kerry, as three examples.  Perhaps then what Will is banking on is that if and when we pull our ground forces out of Afghanistan, the American public will turn away from Obama and the Democrats and shift both their allegiance and their votes to . . . ?  To whom?  To the party of Rush Limbaugh, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Tom Coburn?  To those who brought us tax-cuts for the wealthy, "No Child Left Behind," and WMDs in Iraq? 

   I think not. When it comes to Afghanistan, there will undoubtedly be even greater cleavage and separation between the "yeas" and the "nays."  But unless and until George F. Will and conservatives like him can identify a positive path, they will continue to languish in the minority.

   Then again, now that you've "gone to the mountain" and come out as a dove, perhaps we can interest you supporting a nifty public health option or some serious programs aimed at curbing global warming.  Perhaps together we can make hell freeze over.

   After all, where there's a (George F.) Will . . .

  

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

 
   

Ted Kennedy: Of Wickedness and Good Deeds

  

     This past Wednesday I woke up from a semi-shallow sleep; it was about 2 hours before first light. Flipping on the TV, the sound down low, the first word my groggy brain made sense of was "Chappaquiddick." With that single word, I was immediately awake -- and knew precisely two things: that Senator Edward M. Kennedy had passed away, and that the TV was undoubtedly on the wrong  station -- Fox.  For what other TV news channel could be so abysmally classless and clueless as to use a 40-year old tragedy/scandal as its lead in a breaking story about the death of the man known as the Last Lion? 

   Fox, Fox, and only Fox.

   That's just the way it is with the chasidim of Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch.  They are oh so terribly sanctimonious and smug when it comes to those who are "not of our faith." But for those who "pray in our church," they can apparently be forgiven for anything from serving divorce papers on an anesthetized spouse (Newt Gingrich) and committing perjury before Congress (Oliver North) to cheating on one's wife (Mark Sanford).  In other words, "When one of our guys get caught doing bad things, we quote the verse Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.  But when it's one of your guys, s'vet dir gornisht helf'n -- viz., Ain't nothing gonna help 'ya . . . !"

   
   About 60 years ago poet John Berryman, in his "Sonnets for Chris" -- which was about an earlier act of adultery -- asked "Is wickedness soluble in art?"  What Berryman wanted to know is whether he could be forgiven -- or redeemed -- for his act of immorality by striving for the artistic heights?  It is, no doubt, a question worth serious contemplation.  It is also quite likely that if one were to address Berryman's question to the boys and girls at Fox they wouldn't have the slightest idea what in the world was being asked. So be it; that's their problem.  Let's leave B'nai Fox to their own devices and discuss this amongst ourselves. I for one am not sure that wickedness is "soluble in art." I mean, no matter how powerful or important Wagner's "Ring Cycle" may  be, it does not and cannot make up for the fact that the maestro was a roaring, wicked anti-Semite.  Or, that despite his many accomplishments on the gridiron -- which many would consider a form of 'art' -- there is no getting around the fact that O.J. Simpson is a very evil, wicked man.     

   So what does this have to do with Senator Kennedy?  What was his art that he should become a subject for discussion? In an article in yesterday's Guardian, Princeton professor and author Joyce Carol Oates -- whose 1992 novella Blackwater was inspired by the Chappaquiddick incident -- rephrased Berryman's question as: "Is wickedness soluble in good deeds?"  Now there's a fascinating question; one that directly impacts on the life, times and accomplishments of the only Kennedy brother who lived long enough to "comb gray hair."  Admitting upfront and making no bones about the fact that Edward Moore Kennedy was a weak, flawed -- and yes, occasionally wicked -- human being, we are thereby freed to examine his good deeds.  Yes, he cheated on a Harvard exam hoping to stay eligible for football.  Yes, in his early days in the senate he was looked upon as a lightweight who got by on charm, a famous name and a great staff.  And yes, he closed down many a bar in Palm Beach and Cape Cod, and was known to be inarticulate one moment, as eloquent as William Jennings Bryan the next.  This fellow who entered the Senate in 1962 at age 30 brought with him a storied name and virtually nothing else.  And now at his death some 47 years later, he leaves that chamber as quite likely the most effective senator of the past 100 years. 

    Ted Kennedy's first senate tutor was Phil Hart of Michigan, who told him "You can accomplish anything in Washington if you give others the credit."  He learned that lesson well.  During his nearly 8 terms in the United States Senate he drafted and shaped more landmark legislation than such liberal giants as Robert Wagner, Hubert Humphrey, Estes Kefauver and Herbert Henry Lehman.  Among the many, many measures that never would have been enacted without Senator Edward M. Kennedy are:

• The 1964 Civil Rights Act, for which he delivered his maiden Senate speech.
• The Voting Rights Act of 1965.
• Expanding the franchise to 18-year olds.
• The 1985 legislation that imposed sanctions on the apartheid government of South Africa.  (Despite a filibuster by Jesse Helms and a veto by President Reagan, Kennedy mustered 78 votes to override the veto.)
• Led the fight against the confirmation of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.
  
• The 1988 bill that provided $1.2 billion for AIDS testing, treatment and research.
• The 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act.
• The 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act.
  
• The Kennedy-Hatch Act of 1997, which provided health insurance for children.
  
• Heightened taxes on tobacco.
• The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill which made health insurance portable for workers.
• Co-sponsored with John McCain the "Patients' Bill of Rights."

   It is frightening to think that Ted Kennedy may turn out to be the last true  public liberal; the last public person who lives, acts and believes that people are inherently good and that government has a positive role to play in our lives.   Despite all his personal foibles and humiliations, his public losses and private tragedies, he has soldiered on.  He has done good.  He has done more than his share to help make this world a better place.  Nonetheless, there will always be those who -- like the boys and girls of Fox -- dismiss him with that single polysyllabic place name: "Chappaquiddick."  They are the ones who would say that wickedness  can never be soluble in good deeds; that "For you guys, once a sinner always a sinner."  To them I say, "Before you congratulate yourselves on your moral profundity, think long and hard. " There are some folks -- like Senator Edward Moore Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts -- who spend the lion's share of a lifetime in engaged in the act of overcoming. 

   Overcoming loss.
   Overcoming tragedy.
   Overcoming foibles, follies and frailties.

   One wonders how, with all the loss, all the tragedy and all the foibles, Ted Kennedy could soldier on for so many decades.  What was it that made him get up each day and do the best he could to make this a better world?  Although no one can ever know for certain, this, according to one of his friends, has always been his defining quality. 

   Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of the dynasty was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a saint.  He was a scoundrel in business, a cheat in marriage and a bigot in foreign affairs.  Nonetheless, he and his wife Rose did provide the world with  remarkable sons and daughters.  No Kennedy has ever lived a useless life.  No Kennedy has ever accepted more than a dollar-a-year for their government service.  No Kennedy has ever had to ask the definition of noblesse oblige.
  
   Because of all he went through in his family, Ted Kennedy became what the great political writer Jack Newfield called "America's grief counselor."  By way of example, Newfield noted that "when two planes were hijacked out of Boston's Logan Airport on 9/11 and 93 residents of Massachusetts went to their death, Senator Kennedy personally called more than 125 family members offering assistance and solace."  One conversation with a grieving father so moved the senator that he sent the man a copy of a letter that his father, Ambassador Kennedy, had written to a friend in 1958 upon hearing of the death of the friend's son.  That note, perhaps better than anything else, provides the key to what, when all is said and done, made Senator Ted Kennedy so utterly unique and irreplaceable -- not to mention the greatest United States Senator of the past century.

    "When one of your loved ones goes out of your life, you think of what he might have done for a few more years, and you wonder what you are going to do with the rest of yours. 

   Then one day, because there is a world to be lived in, you find yourself a part of it, trying to accomplish something -- something he did not have time to do.  And, perhaps, that is the reason for all.  I hope so."
   
   Yes, wickedness can be soluble in good deeds.

   Pacem in terres.
   Gratias tibi ago.
  
©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Some Thoughts on Turning (Gasp!) Sixty

  

   "It's been a long time comin'
    It's goin' to be a long time gone"

   So wrote David Crosby more than half a lifetime ago.  So sang Crosby, Stills and Nash last night at the Hard Rock here in Ft. Lauderdale.  They were great.  They    were note-perfect, their harmonies still as tight as a gymnast's abdomen. But my god!  Crosby just turned 68, Stills, the baby of the group is 64, and Graham Nash is 67.  Weren't they just playing at Woodstock?  Was a generation's "going' down to Yasgur's farm" really forty years ago?

"We are stardust, we are golden,
We are billion year old carbon,
And we've got to get ourselves back to the garden."

  When we took our seats at the Hard Rock last night I was 59; by the time we got home, I was . . . gasp! . . . 60.  After nearly two hours of communing with the sound track of youth -- of a time when "Don't trust anyone over the age of 30" was the Eleventh Commandment -- here I was, trying hard not to think about precisely how long ago "it" all was. I've got to admit that there were quite a few moments  during the concert when my eyes -- which have required bifocals for more than a decade now -- were bedimmed with tears; tears of joy and sadness, tears of recollection and reflection.      

"Think about how many times I have fallen,
Spirits are using me, larger voices callin'
What heaven brought you and me cannot be forgotten."  

   Forty years ago my friends the Toppings offered a choice: I could either go to "some rock concert" in Upstate New York or attend the Berkshire Festival at Tanglewood.  I chose the latter.  I remember thinking at the time, "Hell, I can catch Hendrix,  Baez or Creedence Clearwater any time I want. But Eric Leinsdorf and the Boston Symphony?  Beethoven's Ninth? Now there's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity!"

   And so, off to Lennox I went.  Over the past forty years I have on occasion asked myself if I made the right decision.  Invariably, I am torn.  As much as I  do relish the remembrance of Tanglewood -- its beauty and utter civility -- at the same time I think "Ah, what a piece of history you missed out on!"  And history it was, with Crosby Stills, Nash & Young providing the score. It was a time when we really truly believed that our generation could, should and would make the world a place of love, peace and harmony.

   "I think it's time we
Stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look. What's goin' down?"

 Forty years ago the world took an entire generation by the scruff of its collective neck, gave a jolting shake, and set us on a path we thought would lead to a revolution.  To us, the world was fraught with evil: Nixon, Agnew, and Reagan; the Draft, mindless consumerism, the murder of Bobby Kennedy. We really, truly believed we could end war, hunger and poverty; that together we could roll back the dark clouds and restore sun-drenched skies.  All we needed was courage -- and the right message.

"Speak out, you've got to speak out against the madness
You've got to speak your mind
If you dare . . .
But you know, the darkest hour
Is always just before the dawn."

   It is so eerie to realize just how long ago it all was; how back then, a person of sixty was . . . well so incredibly old and out of touch.  I think back to when my own father turned that magic age.  It was back in 1975, and by then, he had already seemed old for a long, long time.  I remember wondering if he ever had been really, truly young. Of course, he and his generation had had a totally different set of realities and experiences including the Great Depression and World War II.  We were the beneficiaries of their struggle; we were the ones who were fortunate enough to go to universities, bum around Europe, thumb our noses at the "Establishment" and see the world through (literally) rose-colored glasses. 

   Experiencing Crosby, Still and Nash last night, I discovered that much of what made youth so exciting, so memorable, so important, is still with me.  The idealistic grounding -- although made a bit uneven by experience -- is still there.  The inability to accept violence, bigotry, duplicity and intolerance still courses through the veins.  Oh sure, I am still accused of having a Pollyanna-ish streak in me; of seeing this harsh old world through those same old rose-colored glasses.  To any and all who hurl this accusation, I gladly plead guilty.  That's just the generation I was born into. In the long run its that idealistic cord which binds this sixty year old to the past, and makes him feel far, far younger than what today's calendar proclaims. 

    There is still so much to be done; so  many wrongs to right, so many, many songs yet to be sung.  And as long as we keep singing, we will never truly grow old.  Oh sure, the hair may thin, the back weaken and the need for licit pharmaceuticals increase; but so long as we have dreams and causes, we will ever maintain our youth.

"Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The ones they picks, the ones you'll know by.

Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you will cry,
So just look at them and sigh . . . and know they love you."
  

  

©2009 Kurt F.Stone

Is There Life After Birth?

 

   "A foolish consistency," Ralph Waldo Emerson famously penned, "is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."  For the nonce, let's take America's favorite philosopher at his word; he pretty much knew what he was talking or writing about. One wonders how Emerson would react to today's crop of " . . . little statesmen and philosophers and divines," those who have raised inconsistency to the level of religious credo and made foolishness -- and far worse -- a prime weapon in the arsenal of public discussion.  How would he have reacted to folks who hold that life begins at conception yet stand resolutely against gun control?  Who are just as staunchly anti-Food Stamp as they are staunchly pro-life?  Who demand that government stay the heck out of the boardroom but be granted full access to the bedroom? 

   My sense is that Emerson would marvel not so much at their foolishness or lack of consistency, but at the fact that anyone would even pay them heed. He would no doubt shake his head in disbelief at how so many supposedly moral, educated people can blithely put so many obstacles before the blind; can actually convince folks to oppose that which is inherently in their best interest.  Surveying and analyzing all that passes for public discourse in the current health care debate, he would likely conclude that for lots of Americans, "Life begins at conception and ends at birth." 

   The current bugle oil about "death panels" -- in which federally-paid functionaries decide who lives and who dies, who receives medical treatment and who is cast adrift -- is just that: crappola.  And what's worse, just about everyone tooting this tinny old horn knows its crappola -- well, perhaps not Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck or Dick Morris. By now it should be abundantly clear that this preposterous charge is being made at the behest of a medical insurance industry whose two favorite words are laissez and faire, and a ton of politicians and hired mouthpieces who make Polly Adler look like a vestal virgin.

   One group that has yet to weigh in on this whole "death panel" lunacy are the medical ethicists -- those whose job it is to weigh moral values and judgments and  then apply them in practical clinical settings.  Medical ethics is a fairly new field; its creation largely a response to two horrific cases of abuse:

• The ghoulish experiments of the Nazis that became a focus of the post-World War II "Doctors' Trial," and
• The "Tuskegee Syphilis Study," a project conducted between 1932 and 1974 by the U.S. Public Health Service on black men in rural Alabama.
  

   Unbeknownst to -- or totally ignored by -- those  megaphoning this notion of government underwritten "death panels" is the world of the I.R.B. -- the "Institutional Review Board."  These boards, made up of doctors, scientists and laypeople, are governed by Title 45 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 46. They are further defined by the National Research Act of 1974 and regulated by the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP).  Any institution that wants to do medical research must have one of these boards.  Everyone appointed to such a board must first successfully complete C.I.T.I. ("Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative") and receive proper certification.  And believe me, its not easy. 

   I know of what I write.

  I have been a member of the Cleveland Clinic Florida I.R.B. for the past 15 years, and have successfully completed the C.I.T.I. course several times.  Over these past 15 years I have been privy to hundreds and hundreds of discussions on cutting-edge research and compassionate-use medical procedures, always with an eye to protecting patients' rights, and making sure that everything is spelled out in words that lay people can easily grasp. There are so many layers and levels of protection as to make the "death panel" rant a virtual impossibility.  We take our work very seriously; protecting patients' rights is both our moral and our legal responsibility.  In a sense, we are the modern, hyper-extension of the Hippocratic Oath.  Now, I cannot claim to know that every single I.R.B. in the United States works with the same utter seriousness of purpose as ours at Cleveland Clinic Florida. I mean we do have some of the planet's most gifted physicians, and our staff director Donna Simonovitch is, quite simply, as good as they get -- the best in the business.

   Personal prejudice aside, we take patients' rights -- patients' lives -- very, very seriously in these United States.  In the world of the I.R.B. the beginning premise is that the better informed the patient is about treatment options, the more intelligently involved he or she and their families can be in their own care.  The "death panel" fear which the Limbaughs, Palins, Becks and Grassleys of the world are trumpeting is not only a gross distortion of the truth; it is an out-and-out lie meant to scare the bejesus out of the unlettered masses, all the while doing the bidding of their well-heeled masters.  That these well-heeled masters encourage them to spread such vicious lies is perhaps understandable.  After all, there are hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars at stake.  That many have bought into these lies -- i.e. that Barack Obama and the Democrats don't give a tinker's damn about the lives of the sick or elderly -- is not only maddening; it shows just how far out of touch with reality some people really are.
 
   Hey guys: Respecting life means having the ability and courage to discuss death.   Considering a living will or contemplating a D.N.R. ("Do Not Resuscitate") order can often provide enough peace of mind to make whatever time one has left even more content and peaceful.  It in no way disparages or denies the utter sanctity of human life.     
 
   Those spreading lies about government-financed "death panels" are the same folks who put Terri Schiavo's name in the ears and on the lips of countless millions. They are the ones who believe that the perquisites of the powerful  -- themselves -- must be protected at all costs. And if in order to do so they find they must resort to lies, deceptions, fear-mongering, racism or worse . . . well, that's all just part of being the power elite.  Right?

 

   WRONG! 

   Those of us who see this noxious claptrap for it really is must push back; must use the weapons we have in our arsenal to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number.
 
   And please, spread the word that no one -- I repeat, no one -- is going to die before their time.  
  

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

SHOYN GENUG!!

   By now, we have all the seen media clips of the so-called "grass-roots teabag protesters" hectoring, screaming, debasing, threatening and otherwise disrupting Democratic town hall forums across the country.  By now, we are all painfully, angrily aware that, far from being an organic, bottom-up rebellion made up of "average Americans voicing real concerns" about the future of health care in America, these boorish, uncivil protests are being stage-managed by highly professional lobbying firms with unlimited financial resources at their disposal.  And, as much as we may disparage the tactics, demeanor and dishonesty of what's going on, it is all perfectly legal; it is all covered by the First Amendment.

   But just because something is legal -- like converging on a town hall meeting and shouting down an elected official, calling him or her a liar, a scoundrel or a traitor -- doesn't make it right or tolerable.  To my way of thinking, there are -- or at least should be -- limits to what's acceptable; a place where we all draw a line in the sand. One of these limits, one of these lines is likening the President of the United States and members of the United States Congress to AdolF Hitler and the Nazis.

   To this I shout out SHOYN GENUG!! Enough already!

   Over the past weeks and months, we have seen more and more placards, and heard more and more commentators comparing President Obama to Hitler,  labeling his programs as fascistic, and warning of dire consequences unless he is stopped in his tracks.  

   On July 30, Orly Taitz, the dentist/real estate agent/attorney who is leading the so-called "Birther" movement took her case to the "Colbert Report."  Taitz started speaking in defense of Major Stephen Cook, who said his orders to deploy to Afghanistan were "invalid," because "President Obama wasn't born in America."  After listening to Taitz's defense of Major Cook, Colbert said,

   "It's good for the country for the soldiers to be questioning their Commander in Chief." 

   Whether or not Taitz understood that Colbert was being both sarcastic and ironic is debatable, because she responded, 

   "Well, I think that if in Nazi Germany, the soldiers and the officers would have questioned the orders that came from the commander in chief, maybe 65 million people wouldn't have died."

   To which Colbert, not believing what he had just heard responded,

   "Thank you.  So few people are willing to compare the Obama administration to Nazi Germany.  It's refreshing to hear that."

   One could only wish that what Steven Colbert was hearing was rare.  But it's not:
 
   At a recent protest held outside the Ft. Collins offices of Representative Betsey Markey (D-Colo), a woman protesting Democratic plans for health care reform was photographed holding up a sign of a Swastika, with the president's name below it, encircled and crossed out by a red line.  The clear implication, of course, is that President Obama is a Nazi, though in the protester's defense she did add a question mark.  Similarly, at a town hall meeting in Texas Representative Lloyd Dogget's district, one protester carried a sign emblazoned with the Nazi S.S. symbol, a second with a cartoon of the congressman sporting horns, and yet a third, a tombstone with Dogget's name on it.   The other day, out on Maryland's Eastern Shore, Representative Frank M. Kratovil, Jr. was met  with protesters -- one of whom  who had the tasteless brass to place an effigy of the congressman hanging from a noose just outside his office.  On August 6, Rush Limbaugh told his ditto-heads that "Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Hitler's playbook," and asked "What are the similarities between the Democratic Party  of today and the Nazi Party in Germany?"  His answer, in part:  

   "Well, the Nazis were against big business -- they hated big business.  And  of course we all know that they were opposed to Jewish capitalism.  They were insanely, irrationally against pollution . . . . They were against cruelty and vivisection of animals, but in the radical sense of devaluing human life, they banned smoking. . . . It is liberalism that's the closest you can get to Nazism and Socialism . . . . Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate."

   SHOYN GENUG!!

   One wonders whether it has dawned on the likes of Rush Limbaugh and such sponsoring organizations as FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, or  Conservatives for Patients' Rights that they are making it look as if the entirety of the Republican Party -- and not just a gullible gaggle -- is made up of nothing but "wing nuts," Luddites and other assorted "Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton." (For those not familiar with this latter allusion, see Marat Sade).  If this be the case, it's fine by me; occasionally one does reap what they sow.    
  
   To all those being goaded by radical right organizations into doing their bidding; to all those who persist in comparing Democrats to Fascists and liberals to Socialists; and, to all those who find the leap from "Barrack Obama" to  "Adolf Hitler" to be measured in microns  and not temporal dimensions I say precisely two things:

   Shame on you!  and

     "SHOYN GENUG!! 

    Enough already!!

 

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

  

Marys-With-Mikes

  

   I actually expected to have this article -- which was supposed to be entitled The Children's Hour -- finished and posted yesterday.  But then, as I started reading the opening paragraphs to Annie, she commented "Didn't you use that title just a couple of weeks ago?"  Astute woman, my wife.  For in checking over  recent op-ed pieces, I indeed did find that I had used The Children's Hour for a May 28 piece on the Sotomayor nomination.  And so, I dutifully deleted this week's article.

   But then I got to thinking, and said to myself, "What the heck . . . let's revisit Lillian Hellman."

   And so, here goes.

   You may recall that Hellman's 1934 play deals with Karen Wright and Martha Dobie, two women who together run a successful New England school for girls.  One of their students, Mary Tilford, an angry, mean, mischievous, diabolic teen runs away from the school.  In order to avoid being sent back, she tells her grandmother that Karen and Martha are lesbian lovers.  As a result of this lie -- and the community's willingness to believe it -- the women lose their school and reputations; Martha winds up committing suicide. 

   To my way of thinking, what has always made The Children's Hour so incredibly acerbating, so gut wrenching -- and so great -- is that it is oh so very real.  Since just about forever -- to coin a weird phrase --we have had "Mary Tilfords" living among us -- angry, mean, mischievous diabolical sorts who are more than happy to spread untruths for their own warped reasons.  Likewise, since just about the dawn of time, far too many have been happy to listen to -- and repeat -- "Mary Tilford's" untruths, whether they believe them or not.  And, like the fictional Mary Tilford, these folks seem at best to be unaware -- at worst unconcerned -- that lies, rumors and innuendos can have extraordinarily tragic results. 

   It would seem that of late there has been a virtual population explosion within the Tilford "clan."  For not a day goes by without some new lie, rumor, innuendo or mis-characterization hitting the airwaves or clogging one's inbox. Precisely what has Mary been up to?  She has been repeatedly telling anyone who will listen that:

• The president is an "African-born alien who by law must be removed from office."
• That the president and his wife are "angry black racists."
• That he is a "virulent anti-Semite bent on the destruction of Israel."
• That the Democratic health care proposal would enable the government to "tell us where we may live, what we may eat, and what medical procedures we may have."
• That the Democratic health care plan "is very specific that private insurance would be ended."
• That the Democratic health care plan contains "mandatory counseling sessions for the purpose of telling seniors 'how to do what's in society's best interest . . . and cut your life short."
  
• That the president "fooled the vice president into thinking he likes white people."
• That Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. has recently said "he agrees with Malcolm X that 'the white man is the devil.'"
  

   One will undoubtedly note that from the above, it would seem that the Mary Tilfords of this world tend to be conservative Republicans. And while I have not done a statistical analysis to either prove or disprove that proposition, I will tell you that its been hard finding equally obvious -- and egregious -- examples of untruths emanating from the more liberal side of the political aisle.  Rest assured I will get a slew of examples from my more conservative readers before the day is out. Be that as it may, the truth remains that "Mary" has far more access to mikes and cameras than the so-called "state run media."

   What is it that these "Marys-With-Mikes" expect or want to happen?  Merely that their ratings remain sky high and their salaries stratospheric?  That next time around all these horrible liberals get voted out of office and replaced with people who think like they think, see what they see, and love what they love?  How would they feel or respond if one or more of their listeners/viewers were actually to take matters into their own hands?  After all, just how long can a group be told that a person, a platform or a program is purely evil and bent on  destroying all they hold as dear without someone deciding that definitive action is required?  Remember, in The Children's Hour, it was likely not Mary Tilford's intention that Karen and Martha's school be destroyed or that Martha should commit suicide . . . but it did happen.  What did she think her rumor would lead to?  Likewise, what do all the "Marys-With-Mikes" think their untruths will lead to? Shouldn't they bear some responsibility for what they put out over the airwaves?

   Now, I am neither so naive nor innocent as to wonder why people can't play fair,  "just make nice" and stop spreading malicious lies about each other. Politics is after all a full-contact sport, and definitely not for those who are either weak-hearted or thin-skinned.  (Note to Sarah Palin: repeat this last sentence out loud at least 100 times.)   I fully realize that while the relationship between public and private interest should be symbiotic or mutualistic -- in which both parties benefit -- it is far too often parasitic -- in which one party benefits while the other is harmed.  What does fill me with fascination and frustration is how relatively easy it is to convince folks to oppose that which is ultimately in their own best self interest.

   I suspect that the overwhelming majority of you who read The K.F. Stone Weekly have not -- and will not -- buy in to the mendacious drivel our present day "Marys-With-Mikes" broadcast.  Good for you.  But what of all those who, like the community complicit in destroying Karen Wright and Martha Dobie, find nothing wrong in believing and repeating that which is either demonstrably untrue or patently absurd? What can be done about them?  (Note: This is not to say that Karen and Martha being engaged in a lesbian relationship was 'patently absurd.')     
  
   In some cases, and with some people, facts can overcome fiction.  That is why it is good to have such debunking resources as the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.ORG and Snopes. Of course for many others, fiction is just one whale of a lot more fun (and much easier to grasp) than fact; witness those who continue to pass along the "fact" that the Democratic health care plan includes "forced euthanasia" despite an easily accessible copy of the bill in question -- see The Truth About End of Life Care. (Please be warned: legislative language ain't literary!)

  I for one would love to see a revival of The Children's Hour. Its theme and message is as poignant today as it was 75 years ago -- or during the early 1950s when its revival was construed as an attack on the House Un-American Activities Committee. A revival today just might serve to remind people that those who  consciously play fast and loose with the truth -- for whatever reason -- are possibly setting in motion events that are well beyond their power and potentially tragic.  

©2009 Kurt F. Stone    

Help! Help! Paranoid People are Everywhere!!

     The other day, while listening to yet another conspiracy theorist blather on about Barack Obama's "true place of birth," I was motivated to do a bit of Googling, and learned the following:

• That "Elvis is Alive" brings up more than 76,000 sites.  Heck there is even an "Elvis is Alive Museum" in Laurel Mississippi.  The "Elvis is Alive" Museum Website
  
• That typing in "Franklin Delano Rosenfeld" reveals more than 97,500 sites that either discuss or "reveal the truth" about Roosevelt's ethnicity.  What is more, there is even a website that "proves" that the only two non-Jewish presidents were Kennedy and Nixon " . . . and they were disposed of!"  Roosevelt was Jewish! 
• That the term "Illuminati" -- one of the earliest of the "New World Order" conspiracies -- fetches nearly 80,000 sites. See The New World Order
  
• That when one types in Bilderberg+conspiracy+Obama, there suddenly pops up more than 1.8 million sites that give credence to yet another outrageous bit of piffle.  Barack Obama and the Bilderberg Conspiracy 
• According to Google, if you are one of those who believe that global warming is a hoax, there are 2,160,000 places you can look for verification that you are correct, not cracked.  For but one example, go to Global Warming Hoax

    And then there are the so-called "Birthers."  

    Inputting the words Obama+birth+certificate gives you a staggering 4,220,000 possible places to go.  As but one example, you must try Positive Proof That Obama is an Alien.

    Switching over to LexisNexis, and again inputting the words Obama+birth+certificate, I came up with precisely 172 places to go.  "Why so few?" you are likely asking.  Because LexisNexis deals primarily -- if not exclusively -- with reputable news sources, not with the "vasty depths" of the Internet.  These 172 sites are, for the most part, editorials decrying the canal water the birthers are demanding we imbibe.  As but one example of sanity and logic, go to Birth of a Nutty Nation

   So why all this "birther" blather?  How in the world can people sit in front of TV cameras or behind radio microphones and actually question whether or not President Obama was born in the United States?  Are their listeners or viewers  really that stupid, gullible and detached from reality? Are they doing this for the sake of ratings or entertainment?

   Or, is there something else going on here?      

   The purpose of this piece is neither to rebut, debunk nor deflate the charges and arguments of these broadcast buffoons.  To do so in any way, shape or form would be to lend credence to their caterwauling.  And, to give them even so much as a molecule of the precious stuff would indeed be a crime against reason.  No, our purpose is rather to spend a few moments hanging out at the corner of "Conspiracy and Paranoia."  (By the way, a Google search of Conspiracies in American History brings us a staggering 3,720,000 different places to go.  Why there's even an "Alternative News & History Network" website: Conspiracy Planet) 

   Almost 75 years ago, commentator H.L. Mencken wrote:

            "The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against common rights and desserts.  He ascribes all his failure to get on in this world, all of his congenital incapacity and damnfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street or some such other den of infamy." 

   In other words, when today's reality turns out to be a bit different from yesterday's -- as it inevitably must -- there are, just as inevitably, those whose fear fuels paranoia.  Where most might greet the "new today" with anything ranging from detached resignation to excited curiosity, others turn away in fear; for these, "yesterday" becomes beatified -- a paragon of moral perfection.  Moreover, the more that "today" and "tomorrow" change, the better, the more perfect "yesterday" becomes. 

   Better the devil you know . . ."

   And of course, when going off to do battle with "the devil you don't know," no weapon, no cache of arms is off limits.  Even if one must lie, double-deal or rewrite history it's all permissible, for as the old saying goes:

   Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum -- "If you wish for peace, arm for war.

   Since its inception, America has been the "Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave."  And, according to the paranoid -- those who are scared to death by change -- it has also been a paradise for plotters.  Anyone with a bit of time on their hands would do well to read Richard Hofstadter's incredibly trenchant essay The Paraoid Style in American Politics.  You will be amazed to see how there truly is nothing new under the sun:

• Looking backward from 1776: As the new nation is about to be born -- an entirely different "tomorrow" --  a theory sweeps through the colonies declaring that ten years earlier Benjamin Franklin traveled to Europe to begin assembling "a vast conspiracy of Masons" including "the surviving networks of John Milton, Richelieu and Leibnitz."  This conspiracy seeks to make Franklin, "the Master Mason," the leader of the world.
• In the mid 1840s: A time of economic panic and collapse, the "Nativist Party" comes into existence.  Its leaders proclaim that America's problems are due to all the Irish Catholics the Pope has "sent across the seas" in order to take over the country and make it Catholic.  As a result, churches are burned and people lynched.
• In the mid 1930s: With unemployment still high, the sweeping growth of the federal government under the Roosevelt Administration, "Brown Shirts" "Silver Shirts" and Father Coughlin -- the "Radio Preacher" declare that the president is leader of a Jewish cabal to bring America under the wing of the Soviets.
• In the late 1960s: As hair grows longer, music gets louder and sex gains freedom, a "plot" is uncovered to overthrow the United States.  It culminates in the trial of the "Chicago 7."  
• Today: Once again, the economy is on its backside, the Internet has turned reality on its head, and America has elected its first African-American president  The president and his minions are talking about making changes in the way we do business; about revamping America's medical delivery system, addressing global warming and seeking to replace rampant bellicosity with diplomacy.  As a result, the exponential growth of those planting and harvesting in the vineyards of paranoia. . .The "birthers," the Limbaugh acolytes and those who "know" all about the conspiracy to "take America away from all true Americans." 
  

   Yes, the lunatic fringe has lived in America for a long, long time.  And as frightening, frustrating and fear-provoking as they can be, do remember that we -- the reasonably sane, those who look to tomorrow with hope rather than dread -- we are the ones who write the history books. 

   We are the ones who ultimately turn paranoid conspiratorialists into mere footnotes.
 
    We'll see your millions of paranoid websites and raise you an Internet address suffused with sanity:

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue    

©2009 Kurt F Stone

 

  

National Health sCare

   The following has actually been said for the record on Capitol Hill:

• "Without question, there is a deliberate attempt to retard recovery. . . We have charged the administration with planning to impoverish the country in order to make its communistic experiments acceptable."
• "There is an organized effort to protect the first Communist president of the United States . . . against adverse criticism."
• "The nation may require a more blistering rebuke from the Supreme Court and the pressure of an aroused and enraged public opinion to restrain this Congress from continuing to be the tool of those who would destroy the Constitution.  But the time is not too distant when those who believe in constitutional government will speak with force and finality."
• "The people of my district elected me to represent all the people of this country, as is the case with all the other members of this body.  And in order to do this they intended me to be governed by reason, and not by propaganda, and to use my own best judgment; and before I will fail in that duty and violate the oath I took by voting for and helping to fasten upon my country which would destroy its economic system, a thing which I know to be unsound, I will, if necessary, let the people retire me at the end of this session."
  
• "To pay the medical bills and hospital bills of individuals . . . is socialism.  It moves this country in a direction which is not good for anyone . . . . It charts a course from which there is no turning back."
• "No one can doubt for a moment that this is simply another step toward the neutralization of private responsibility which will eventually end when the Government assumes complete control over the destinies of all our citizens from cradle to grave.  The principle established here, when carried to its logical conclusion cannot fail also to be damaging to two segments of our free enterprise system -- our physicians and our insurance industry."

   

"Blah, blah, blah," I can hear you responding.  "Big deal!  You can hear all this puerile claptrap on CSPAN every day.  And the stuff you hear on talk radio is even worse So what else is new?"

   What else is new?  Sorry to burst your bubble, but we're not even within 45 years of what's new.  For you see, the first three quotes are taken from the floor debate over the Social Security Act of 1935; the last two from the July 1965 debate on Medicare and Medicaid.* And you thought all this was said last week! 

    In comparison to the dire warnings, predictions and base scare tactics being used here and now in 2009, not much has changed.  Oh perhaps the term "communistic" has been replaced with "socialism" and today there are tales of all those poor abused Canadians who must travel to Washington, Michigan or upstate New York just to get a boil lanced; but aside from a few style points, the  nature and content of opposition are basically the same.

   What has undoubtedly changed is the willingness of the "loyal opposition" to be "loyal," let alone civil.  You see, despite all the negative verbiage and dire predictions, Republicans were one heck of a lot more supportive of the Social Security Act of 1935 and 1965 (the one that created Medicare/Medicaid). In 1935, 16 senate Republicans joined 60 Democrats in voting "aye," as opposed to a mere 5 voting "nay."  Over on the House side, 81 Republicans voted for Social Security as opposed to a mere 15 voting against.  Then too, in 1965, 13 of 43 Senate Republicans voted in favor of Medicare, and 70 of 138 House Republicans. The current health care proposal will be lucky to get even two Republican votes in the Senate or as many as five in the House. 

   Another difference is that as opposed to 1935 and 1965, much of today's opposition and "scaring the pants off the public at all costs" has more to do with keeping the well-heeled happy than basic political philosophy. Without question, there are powerful interests groups with extraordinarily deep pockets who are willing to do whatever it takes to keep their clients -- insurance companies and hospitals in the main -- happy, healthy and profitable. On the other hand, there are lots of politicians -- mostly Republican but Democrats as well -- who are seemingly more concerned about winning the next election than supporting that which a vast majority of the public wants -- some form of national health care. (Don't take my word for it; a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation  survey reveals that 72% of those polled "favor increasing the federal government's influence over the nation's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans," as compared to "27% who oppose such a move."  

   The campaign we choose to call "National Health sCare" has put the words "Socialized medicine" on the lips of people who haven't the slightest idea of what that term really means. Let's be clear: physicians are not going to be  employed by the federal government; health care decisions are not going to be made by nameless, faceless bureaucrats with 9th grade educations; health care is not going to be rationed. 

   The campaign has also convinced a solid minority that President Obama's proposal is more plot than platform; that it is merely "one more step" in "a concerted effort "to have "the federal government take over virtually everything."  Back in 1935 -- and to a lesser extent 1965 -- many of those who expressed grave doubts -- even fundamental opposition -- to extending the reach and influence of the federal government nonetheless voted to give the president what he wanted. Today?  Not a snowball's chance.

   I doubt there is one amongst us who does not have a story to tell about  how a health crisis turned our family, our finances, our future, topsy-turvey.  About how the ever-rising cost of health insurance and health care is giving us sleepless nights and knotted intestines. About a loved one who has become impoverished due to their need for extended care.  

   We cry out for assistance.  We understand that no program will be perfect, but that having no program is not an answer.  Despite it all, we maintain the firm conviction that in America, we are not on our own; we all in this together. 

   And no National Health sCare campaign will ever convince us otherwise.

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

* In order, the speakers and Congressional Record references are:

• Sen. Thomas Schall, R-MN (1878-1935) 6/13/35  p. 9,539 col. 2.
• Rep. Daniel Alden Reed, R-NY (1875-1959), 4/17/35  p. 5,891, col. 1.
• Rep. Frederick James Sisson, D-NY (1879-1949) 4/19/35 p. 6,049, col 2.
• Sen. Carl Curtis, R-NE (1905-2000), 8/8/65 vol. 111 part. 12 p. 15,870.
• Sen. Karl Mundt, R-SD (1900-1974), 8/9/65 vol. 111, part 12 p. 16,122.
•    Anyone interested in reading the debates can go to Congressional Debate on Social Security
  

Sarah Palin: Another One Bites the Dust

   Ninety-nine years ago this month a young sports writer named Franklin P. Adams published an eight-line poem in the New York Evening Mail whose refrain is still recognizable even if its author and content are not:

                       These are the saddest of possible words: 

                      "Tinker to Evers to Chance."

                       Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds,

                       Tinker and Evers and Chance.

                       Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon* bubble

                      Making a Giant hit into a double -

                      Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble:

                     "Tinker to Evers to Chance."

(* A long medieval banner or flag.) 

    "Tinker to Evers to Chance" is of course just one of many trios that fall trippingly off the tongue.  Consider too: 

• Wynken, Blynken & Nod.
• Shadrach, Mesach & Abednego.
• Crosby, Stills & Nash.
• Harvard, Princeton & Yale.

   With all the above trios, there is an obvious linkage:

• "Tinker, Evers & Chance" were three infielders with the Chicago Cubs.
• "Shadrach, Mesach & Abednego" were three who survived the fiery furnace.
• "Wynken, Blynken & Nod" were three fishermen sailing and fishing in the stars.
• "Crosby, Still & Nash" are three superb rock musicians.
• "Harvard, Princeton & Yale" are America's three oldest Ivy League colleges.   

There are now a couple of new trios to add to the litany:

• Gingrich, Vitter & Craig
• Ensign, Sanford & Palin  

    For those who have been out of town, the first trio is made up of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, current Louisiana Senator David Vitter, and former Idaho Senator Larry Craig.  The second triad consists of current Nevada Senator John Ensign, current South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and the "As of today and supposed to become former" Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.   

As with the above referenced trios, "Gingrich, Vitter & Craig" and "Ensign, Sanford & Palin" also possess obvious linkage.  To wit:

• Both trios are made up of self righteously confidant conservative politicians whose public posture turned out to be dangerously divergent from their private practice.
• In both cases (with the possible exception of former Senator Craig) the trios are made up of individuals who had until recently been referenced as potential 2012 Republican presidential contenders.  Today, they are in that collective category called "Rotza ruck!"

 In the main, conservative commentators, faced with the necessity having to write or say something -- anything -- about the moral/ethical lapses of a Gingrich, Vitter, Craig, Ensign or Sanford or the sheer 1984-ish absurdity of a Sarah Palin [Orwell: "War is Peace."  Palin: "Resignation is advancement."] have, without batting an eyelash proclaimed, "Well, the liberals are far, far worse!"  Within the past few weeks, they have seen most of their presidential hopes go up in smoke or, in the case of Governor Palin, simply bite the dust:

   Instead of announcing that Sarah Palin is resigning her office in midterm, Fox Noise ran a crawler proclaiming, "Palin will not seek a second term."  Rather than attempt to decipher or explain what she said at her press conference or in her interview with Andrea Mitchell, most conservative commentators have gone on the offensive -- attacking "lefties" for making Palin's life so impossible that resignation became a necessity.  One commentator, Milwaukee's Mark Belling went so far as to blame Palin's downfall on . . . are you ready for this? . . . the SDS!  No really!  While filling in for Limbaugh this past Tuesday, Belling ranted on and on about how those who ". . .admire and support Castro; Che Gueverra, whose t-shirts they still wear; Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua; Robert Mugabe in Africa -- African self determination; Idi Amin in Africa; Ho Chi Minh; Mao -- remember how they were running around in the '60s with the Little Red Book?"  Egad!  These are the folks who forced Pain to resign?

   When Nevada Senator John Ensign announces that his parents have given his ex-mistress and her husband nearly $100,000 based on "humanitarian concern for two friends," the conservative press applauds their generosity.  There is nary a peep about the fact that Ensign, a prominent member of the Christian men's organization "Promise Keepers," has publicly admitted that he has had a long-term relationship with another man's wife.  [It should be noted that one of "Promise Keepers" core beliefs is, "A Promise Keeper is committed to honoring Jesus Christ through worship, prayer and obedience to God's word in the power of the Holy Spirit."] 

   That when Governor Mark Sanford publicly admits that he lied to his wife, his cabinet and the people of South Carolina, and disappeared for five days so that he could travel to Buenos Aires and have a rendezvous with his Argentine "soul mate," all Rush Limbaugh can say is, "I guess we have learned something.  Republicans like sex too," and then lament that Sanford "could have been another Kennedy . . . without the Mafia connections."  So far as El Rushbo was concerned, if anyone were to be surprised by what Sanford was admitting to, it was likely the fault of the Democrats.  "How's that?" you ask.  Well, try and follow Limbaugh's logic: "Up until now (whether or not "Republicans like sex"] has been debatable.  Republicans are these church going, moralistic no-fun-in-life kind of people according to the libs.  Mark Sanford  developed . . . an email frienship, started innocently, the girl from Ipanema.  He went down to Argentina to see the girl from Ipanema." (sic -- emphasis added]. 

   [If I weren't concerned about being labeled a "G.D.G.E." -- a 'G.D. Geographic Elitist,' I would hasten to inform Rush that Ipanema is in Brazil and that Brazil is definitely not in Argentina. But I am concerned, so won't mention it.]

  With the recent demise of such front-line players as Ensign, Sanford & Palin -- and understanding that Gingrich, Vitter and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal bit the dust quite a while ago -- who's left on the GOP bench?  Mike Huckabee?  Mitt Romney?  Michael Steele?  How about a tickwt of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?

   When will the conservative entertainers ever figure out that just because we Americans are for the most part a good understanding and forgiving folk does not mean that we are all fools.  There is a big difference between being a truly repentant sinner -- otherwise known as a human being -- and a hypocritical blowhard. A vast majority of Americans understand that difference.  Too bad so few of them are on radio or television.

   Who will be the next one to bite the dust?

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

You Don't Have To Be A Star . . . But

  

     Finally, after more than six months, Minnesota has two United States Senators.

   Finally, after more than half a year, the United States Senate has its full compliment of members.

    Finally, Alan Stuart "Al" Franken* can add "United States Senator" to an already impressive resume.

    And yet, to listen or watch various conservative entertainers, pundits and assorted troglodytes, one might think that the "Greatest Deliberative Body in the World" is about to be invaded by a debauched, foul-mouthed, plague-ridden scandal-mongering deviant.  

   And no, they are not referring to Senators Larry Craig, John Ensign or David Vitter.  They are referring to Senator Franken who, unlike the aforementioned "gentlemen" has been married to the same woman for 32 years without a hint of scandal. To be certain there are all sorts of rumors about Senator Franken's past actions, addictions and activities, but most all of them were started by Franken himself -- that's just part of the job of a self-denigrating satirist.

  The one charge his detractors have endlessly tossed about on television, radio and the Internet is that Franken lacks gravitas -- that indefinable something which separates the professionals from the poseurs.

  "Al Franken," they monotonously posit, "is nothing more than a third-rate, potty-mouthed comedian from Saturday Night Live . . . and we all know what that means . . . And if it weren't for being an incredibly minor celebrity, who in the world would have ever heard of him?" 

   By this, they are of course inferring that:

1. Anyone associated with Saturday Night Live is nothing more than a clown or comedian.
2. Being a clown, comedian, or mere celebrity is no qualification for political office.
3. Al Franken is all three, and is therefore clearly out of his element.
4. Franken will be an embarrassment. 
   

   Hold on there for just a second.  Al Franken is a lot more than some "third-rate comedian":

• He is a graduate of Harvard College.
• He is a best-selling author with six books to his credit.
• He is an actor who has either starred or been featured in a dozen-and-a-half films.
• He is a gifted political satirist and pundit who until just before launching his senate campaign, had a much admired radio talk show on the Air America network. 
• He is a patriot who has, over the past decade, conducted overseas tours entertaining American troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as "handshake tours" to military hospitals all over the world.
• And yes, he is a celebrity . . .

     So let's ask the question: Does being a celebrity disqualify one from office?  According to the likes of Hannaty, Limbaugh, O'Reilly et al it certainly does . . . at least when it comes to Al Franken. 

   (In support of full disclosure, it must be noted that in many of his satiric books -- most notably Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations and Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, he gleefully skewers the aforementioned with a pen that could only have been dipped in Jonathan Swift's inkwell.)

   All those who continually classify Senator-elect Franken as "nothing more than a celebrity" suffer from a curious inconsistency.  "Who," we may well ask, "Who is the one elected official they revere more than any other; the one who more than any other successfully led the country along the path of peace, prosperity and honor?"

   Why the greatest of all celebrities who ever got elected to office -- Ronald Reagan, that's who!  Could it be then that what these guys are really, truly disparaging are celebrities who happen to be liberal Democrats?

    Hmmmmm. . . .
  

   Now, the mere fact that one has achieved a certain level of celebrity should by no means be a disqualifier for leadership.  Then too, achieving a certain level of celebrity by no means makes one qualified to be a representative, senator, governor or president . . . but it sure can help one get elected.  For in hard-ball campaigning, the first and highest hurdle to clear is getting your name out there; making yourself known.  Unless one is already famous -- or in some cases infamous -- this can cost an arm and a leg and a pancreas gland.  For  those whose names, faces and basic accomplishments are already known -- i.e. those who have already achieved a level of celebrity -- that hurdle is measured in millimeters, not miles. 

   Neither Ronald Reagan nor Al Franken, of course, are the first celebrities to succeed in getting themselves elected.  That honor likely goes to a late 19th century Shakespearean actor named Julius Kahn who the good people of San Francisco elected to Congress in 1898.  Kahn (1861-1924) would be reelected 11 times and serve three terms as Chair of the House Committee on Military Affairs.  

   Since then nearly two-dozen men and women have used their celebrity status in order to get elected to office.  Among them are:

• Helen Gahagan-Douglas: Broadway Actress and wife of actor Melvin Douglas, she served two terms in the House from California, and lost a senate election to Richard Nixon, who called her "The Pink Lady."  In turn, Rep. Gahagan-Douglas was the first to call the future president "Tricky Dicky."  She was a liberal Democrat.
  
• George Murphy: One of Shirley Temple's costars who served a single six-year term in the Senate from California. Murphy was a conservative Republican. Topical songwriter Tom Lehrer wrote a piece about him -- "Now we have a senator who can really sing and dance!"
• Sonny Bono: A conservative Republican Congressman from Palm Springs, California, he took quite a while to figure out that being a celebrity and being a member of Congress were two very different things.
• Fred Grandy: "Gopher" on The Love Boat, Grandy, a graduate of Harvard, served four terms in the House from Iowa.  He was a moderate Republican.
• Fred Thompson: Originally an attorney with the Watergate Committee, Thompson went on to a movie career -- frequently portraying the president -- and did several seasons as D.A. Arthur Branch on Law and Order. Thompson served two six-year terms in the senate from Tennessee, and tried to capture the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 . . .
• Bill Bradley: NBA star with the New York Knicks.  Bradley, who was also an Olympian, a graduate of Princeton and a Rhodes Scholar, was a liberal Democrat who served three terms in the senate from New Jersey.  Vied for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000 . . .
• Jesse "The Body" Ventura:  Professional wrestler and actor who became a one-term Governor of Minnesota.  Ironically, Ventura acted in the 1987 film Predator with future California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and future Kentucky Gubernatorial candidate Sonny Landham.
• Jim Bunning: Hall of Fame pitcher (224-184, 3.27 era, 2,855 strikeouts), now in his third term as senator from Kentucky; a conservative Republican.
  
• Wilmer "Vinegar Bend" Mizell: Spent nine seasons pitching for Cardinals, Pirates and Mets; served three terms in Congress from a North Carolina district; a conservative Republican.
• Jim Ryun: For many years, the World record-holder in the mile (3:51:1); served five terms in the House from Kansas' Second District; conservative Republican.
• Heath Schuler: A first-round pick of the Washington Redskins in 2001, Schuler was a so-so quarterback for five NFL seasons.  Now in his second term as Representative form North Carolina's 11th District.  Moderate-to-conservative Democrat.
• Steve Largent: Hall of Fame wide receiver for Seattle Seahawks; served 4 terms in the House from Oklahoma's First District; conservative Republican.
• J.C. Watts: Two-time Orange Bowl MVP (1980, 81) and Canadian Football League Quarterback; served four terms in the House from Oklahoma's Fourth District; a conservative Republican.
• George W. Bush: Son of President George H.W. Bush; grandson of Senator Prescott Bush; managing partner of Texas Rangers baseball team.  Conservative Republican.

   To the best of my knowledge, I don't recall Hannaty, Limbaugh, O'Reilly or the rest ever question the qualifications of folks like J.C. Watts, Steve Largent, Jim Ryun, Jim Bunning or any other conservative Republican celebrity.  I do know that they have disparaged the likes of Chicago-area Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. (whom they claim would never have been elected if his father wasn't famous); Rhode Island Representative Patrick Kennedy (his father is Senator Ted); and now, of course, Al Franken.  Perhaps their problem isn't so much with their celebrity or "stardom" but with their politics. 

   I predict that Al Franken will become a pretty good senator.  Having read all of his books I can tell you that not only is he both witty and bright; he is also very well versed on a lot of issues.  He also cares passionately about making this a better world, much in the mold of his political mentor, the late Senator Paul David Wellstone. I predict that as the years go by, Franken's career as a writer/comedian/satirist/radio talk show host will fade from memory . . . except when the boys and girls Fox remind us. . .

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

*  Al Franken's election to the U.S. Senate marks an interesting bit of American history. Minnesota is now the only state in American history to have elected 4 Jewish senators.  Moreover, Al Franken is the fourth Jewish person in a row to occupy this senate seat.  He takes over the seat that had previously been held for one term by Republican Norm Coleman; Coleman took over the seat held for two terms by the late Democrat Paul David Wellstone; Wellstone had defeated Republican Rudy Boschwitz, who himself had served two terms.  In other words, this marks the sixth term in a row that this seat has been held by a Jew.  Really quite remarkable when you consider how few Jewish people live in Minnesota. Hey wait a second . . . come to think of it, my maternal grandma, Grandma Ann, was born in St. Paul way back in 1896 . . .

  

The Thriller's Gone

  

   Back in late 1968, early 1969, I wrote a really bad futuristic  short story -- blessedly long since forgotten -- entitled Hello Goodbye.  Taking place in London in the year 2033, the story was in the form of a long newspaper article reporting on the funeral of Lord Paul McCartney, the last surviving member of the Beatles, who had passed away at age 91.  The scene was a cold, darkly-cloudy-drizzly late November morning at London's Bunhill  Fields Cemetery, the final resting place of such immortals as Daniel Defoe, Thomas Hardy, John Bunyan, William Blake and now, Lord McCartney. Peopling the   story were hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of extremely elderly men and women.  Most were decked out in ancient, ill-fitting Levis, moldy navy pea coats, bandannas and beads.  Nearly all were leaning on canes, tearfully daubing their eyes with large red railroad handkerchiefs. Under the canopy at the front of the crowd, a foursome of aged gray-haired musicians was playing a trio of Beatle classics: I Will from "The White Album," There's a Place, from "Please Please Me;" and Hello Goodbye from "Magical Mystery Tour."  Between these pieces, the minister, an elderly Church of England Deacon (who strangely looked an awful lot like an octogenarian Mick Jagger) attempted to deliver the eulogy.  Being nearly as disconsolate as the throngs he was addressing, his voice could barely be heard anywhere but under the canopy.  Other speakers included the 86-year old Peter Noone ("Herman's Hermits"), Marianne Faithful (age 87) and the "Who's" Roger Daltry (age 89).          

   As I recall, the three spoke of Lord Paul's lyric brilliance, his long-lasting partnership with the late John Lennon (who had passed away seven years earlier at age 85) and of the tremendous impact he had made on an entire generation in terms of fad, fashion and passion.  

   And of how an era had definitely come to an end. . .

  

   I had not thought about this long-forgotten "literary" travesty for nearly a quarter of a century . . . until yesterday when word came over the Internet that Michael Jackson, the "King of Pop," had died at the unbelievably young age of 50.  For with his all too real passing -- much like the fictional demise of "Lord" McCartney -- an era has definitely come to an end.  And just as Paul McCartney and the Beatles exercised tremendous influence over the tastes, ideas and passions of a generation, so too did Michael.  In fact, the two both overlapped and intertwined in several eerie ways.  First, up until the time of his death, Michael Jackson owned the rights to much of the Beatle musical catalog.  Second, he and Sir Paul [to give him his real title] did collaborate on at least two pieces --- Say, Say, Say and Ebony and Ivory.  And third, it is likely that Jacko, who in one of his last incarnations took to wearing colorfully embellished satin jackets festooned with gold braiding and brass buttons, took the idea from Sir Paul and the Fab Four -- just look at what the boys are wearing on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. McCartney was knighted by the Queen of England; Michael -- the "King of Pop" -- was enthroned by the public.

    Whether or not one was a fan of Jackson's music, there is no denying that he is was and always shall be an electrifying performer.  The moon-walking Jackson was probably the most imaginative and influential dancer since Fred Astaire first took the stage in the early 1920s. With the 1983 release of his zombie-themed album "Thriller," he all but single-handedly invented the music video and quickly made it an art form. In terms of his artistic longevity and the ability to reinvent both his style and onstage persona, Jackson was sui generis; a performer without peer.

    However, beyond Michael Jackson the performer -- the singer/lyricist/dancer/actor/"King of Pop"/"Gloved One" -- there is, of course, Michael Jackson, the human train wreck.  For more than a generation, both public and press alike have been mesmerized by the ever-changing, eccentric-to-the-point-of-absurdity, "Wacko Jacko."  Whether it be his ever-evolving facial features and pigmentation, his retrogression from adorable, immensely talented 8-year old to preposterous middle-aged quasi-hermaphrodite, or the many peaks and valleys of his personal, financial and sexual life, we haven't been able to take our eyes off him for a long, long time.  To my way of thinking, this says far more about ourselves and the times we inhabit than about Michael Jackson.  Having grown up in and around the world of celebrity -- indeed, the Jackson Family compound was just up the hill from my parents' home -- I know how difficult it is to remain sane when the spotlight is always on; how much more difficult -- and terrifying -- when that spotlight dims or is extinguished.

   Although the cult of personality and celebrity likely goes back to the time of the Greeks, it took the 20th century to make of it an immensely successful cottage industry.  The lionization  and adulation afforded the likes of a Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, Rudolph Valentino or Charles Chaplin [who absolutely fascinated Jackson] in the 'teens and 'twenties; a Clark Gable, Cary Grant or Russ Columbo in the 'thirties; or a Frank Sinatra in the 'forties, is but a brief candle flicker compared to the perpetual blaze  surrounding a James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson.  One huge difference is that in days of yore, what we "knew" about our idols was precisely what their publicists wanted us to know: that they were good, high-minded folks who loved their mothers, were passionate about puppies, and were almost too good to be true.  Over the past generation or generation-and-a-half, we have become addicted to "knowing" (or having exposed for our own enjoyment and entertainment) every blemish, foible, phobia or prosecutable offense of those in the public eye.  The media's glare is, of course, far far more intense today than yesterday.  And we, the public are far far more addicted and insatiable today than yesterday.  The sad fact is that today, we "know" far far more about folks in the public glare than we do about the people who live next door. 

   Although I have long recognized Michael Jackson's immense talent, I can't say that I was much of a fan after the breakup of the Jackson Five.  My tastes in rock or popular music have always been more attuned to Crosby, Still, Nash and Young, the Byrds or the Beatles; I am the sort who will pick "Tommy" over "Thriller" eight days a week. And yet, I daresay that like most, I have paid more than my fair share of attention to Michael Jackson's train wreck of a life. It has been buoyant.  It has been sad. It has been maddening.  It has also been a thriller.

   Like Paul McCartney and the Beatles, he has exercised tremendous influence over an entire generation of newer musical artists like Justin Timberlake and the "Backstreet Boys."  Like the real Sir Paul, his work has been "covered" by a diverse group of artists such as "Soundgarden's" Chris Cornell, "Fall Out Boy", and James Chance and the "Contortions." 

   But just as with the fictional "Lord Paul" from Hello Goodbye, the "Thriller's" gone.

  May he rest in peace.  

©2009 Kurt F. Stone