Author, Lecturer, Ethicist

Filtering by Category: Post Trump America

#949 Mark & David

Audio Block
Double-click here to upload or link to a .mp3. Learn more

Early this past Tuesday morning . . . at least an hour-and-a-half before the alarm clock was set to go off . . . my phone rang. As a rabbi who caters to a mostly senior community (look whose talking: I’ll be 74 in a couple of weeks and they still call me “young man”), I’m always rattled by early-morning phone calls; it usually means someone has passed on or been taken to the hospital. Squinting through one eye, I saw that the incoming call was was coming from my dear, longtime friend Mark (of “Mark and David” fame), who at this time of the year resides “Way Down East” in their summer home in Corea, Maine, (Their winter residence is in Ormond Beach, just about as far north as one can get on Florida’s east coast. My first thought was that something had happened to his mother Phyllis, whom I had first met more than 40 years ago while living at the fabled “Rose Hill” in Cincinnati, Ohio.

But no. Mark wasn’t calling me as either a rabbi or a person engaged in the medical arts. Rather, he was in need of the ear of a fellow political activist. Mark, whom I have written about at some length over the years, was calling to tell me - almost tearfully - that he and his husband David are increasingly worried, and nearing their wit’s end.  Why?  They both have their health, have no financial concerns and, along with their kitty Monica,” and their tons of friends, live life to the fullest.  What could be the cause of their feelings of impending doom? Simply this, in Mark’s words: “The level of intolerance and hatred going on in this country.  It’s gotten so spooky and frightening that we have even considered the possibility of moving to Portugal in the hope of escaping all the escalating lunacy.”     

Mark and David (more so Mark) aren’t the kind of people who live in life’s shadows; they are “out there” for one and all to see.  To a great extent, they are also bipolar opposites.  Mark is deeply and obviously Jewish.  His family history goes back to 19th century Montgomery, Alabama . . . not the easiest place to be a Jew.  David, on the other hand, is a Presbyterian from Indiana. Mark is a giddy combination of a loving, perpetual yenta and social activist; he simply cannot sit back and permit injustice to breath; he must put in his two cents – whether it’s writing an op-ed, organizing a rally, or making tangible contributions of time, talent and treasure. David, on the other hand, is far more laid back; he is a professional violinist who spent decades playing in the same world-class symphony orchestra.  David is both the glue and the tonic which fuels Mark’s freneticism.  Perhaps it’s their relative bi-polarity which has has provided the bedrock for an incredibly stable partnership/marriage now easily past 40 years.  And yet, having been together for more than 40 years, Mark is not like David and David is not like Mark; they are Mark-and-David . . . a single entity.

During our conversation the other  morning, Mark got into the specifics of what has been giving him so much inner angst.  I am certain that most of us can make the same list:

  • Donald J. Trump, Marjorie Taylor Green, Matt Gaetz, and the entire “Freedom Caucus”;

  • The utter cowardice of all the elected officials who, while despising him behind closed doors, remain silent in public;

  • The stupefying growth of anti-Semitism and acts of anti-Semitic terror;

  • The very danger of being an LBGTQ+ member of society;

  • Of how so many conservatives have replaced platforms with a plethora of hurtful issues bundled together as “anti-WOKE”;

  • The very future of Democracy and concomitant apprehension that it is being replaced by fascistic authoritarianism;

  • That the greatest number of weapons are in the hands of those who support D.J.T

  • .That outright lies, ludicrous conspiracy theories and utter inanity have all but replaced demonstrable reality in  the lives of many.

  • That for those who are “different,” there are fewer and fewer places to seek safety.

       

I caught a segment on NPR’s All Things Considered the other day in which the subject was how fewer and fewer people are listening to, watching, or reading the news than just a year ago.  Can you blame them? It’s getting harder and harder to distinguish real headlines from fake ones, and real news from sheer propaganda.  Those of us who are “perpetual news junkies” somehow get around this by telling ourselves that we - unlike “them” - only consume news from “reliable” sources.  But alas, for everyone who gets their news from PBS, National Public Radio, The New York Times, Washington Post and other sources of status, there are tons of folks who “know beyond a shadow of a doubt” that these journalistic behemoths are nothing more, nothing less, then mouthpieces for the “organized radical far left.’  (As a hopefully close and watchful student of American political history, I can tell you that the U.S.A. has never had much of an “organized radical far left.”  Even America’s so-called “Communist Conspiracy” as unearthed by the likes of Rep. Martin Dies, Jr., Senator Joseph McCarthy and J.B. Matthews, was far less lethal than - or harmful to - American democracy than the K.K.K. or the John Birch Society.  But then again, I - like you - am incapable of getting “true believers” to understand this.  It is far better to remain healthy than succumbing to a severely injured brain by banging one’s head against the wall.)

A man like my friend Mark is understandably at his wits’ end; his political and physical malaise (and here I use the term in its medical sense) is not to be pooh-poohed.  He is, by both genetic and ethnic background, a member of several endangered groups in early 21st century America:

1.    He is a Jew whose roots are not in New York, but rather in the Deep South;

2.    He is gay, married to a wonderful man, and not the slightest bit uncomfortable with who he is;

3.    He is a progressive political activist who can neither sit still nor keep his mouth shut . . . and thank G-d for that.

 A person like Mark can best be summed up by 2 quotes from 2 distinctly different, though deeply memorable people: Winston Churchill and Robert F. Kennedy, Sr.

First, let’s quote Winston Churchill:

Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

The second quote comes from R.F.K., who likely “borrowed” the following thought from George Bernard Shaw:

  "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not." 

   As a rabbi, I have been trained to listen more than to speak when someone comes with a problem or a question.  After listening to Mark for quite some time, I fear that I had not given him an answer as to what he should do . . . or fear.  About all I could do was to quote Churchill and Kennedy, and tell him to keep up the good fight. 

By nature - and both training and genetics - I am an optimist.  I told him that what the world needs are more Marks and Davids, and to keep on maximizing their character strengths while not giving in to the minimalizing weaknesses of others.  I reminded him that we are both children of “the Chosen People,” and as such,  are here to bring greater health and happiness, safety and sanity to as many as people as possible.  

Keep on being yourselves . . .

Copyright©2023 Kurt Franklin Stone

Is FPOTUS Taking a Page From General Sickles' Playbook?

Beginning Note: This week’s essay is both speculative and meant to be taken with a grain of salt. Since no one knows when or if the FPOTUS will be indicted by the DOJ . . . or the state of Georgia . . . or the State and/or City of New York . . . any discussion about what trial strategy his “legal team” (the makeup of which seems to change with every passing hour) is pure fiction. The appearance of General Daniel Sickles - a real historic character - is meant to be used as a dramatic prop . . .

In going through the literally hundreds of classified, top secret and sensitive compartmented information documents stashed away at the FPOTUS’ Mar-a-Lago residence, D.O.J lawyers and investigators came across other miscellaneous items which at first glance, seemed to be of questionable value: “love letters” from North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, as well as communiqués and birthday wishes from the likes of Vladimir Putin and Hungarian strongman Viktor Mihály Orbán. One of the items which at first seemed to be totally inconsequential was a long overdue novel borrowed from the Library of Congress written by the acclaimed Australian author Thomas Keneally (Schindler’s List, The Dickens Boy, The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith) entitled American Scoundrel: The Life of the Notorious Civil War General Daniel Sickles. The fact that there was any book - let alone a novel - in the vast Trump treasure trove was weird. After all, the man has never been known to be much of a reader . . . unless it’s one of his own ghost-written best-sellers.  Precisely who it was that brought the Sickles biography to FPOTUS’s attention will likely remain a mystery.  What FPOTUS ultimately found so compelling about Sickles, a former member of Congress, Union General and U.S. Ambassador to Spain (among many other things) will be surmised further down in this post.

Ever since FBI agents in casual clothes and without their guns spent nearly nine hours at Mar-a-Lago on August 8 searching through the club’s storage room, FPOTUS’ residential suite and offices, Donald Trump has been making an unglued spectacle of himself. According to a property receipt they left behind, the FBI team collected more than two dozen boxes of documents, including 11 sets of documents with classification markings. A more detailed accounting in a later court filing indicated that the FBI seized more than 100 documents marked classified, from the confidential to top secret level. Seventy-six were found in the storage room. Others were found in Trump’s office, including three documents found in desk drawers .

Trump and his team - comprised of the latest incarnation of his “inner circle” and legal advisors - have come up with more than a half-dozen excuses, accusations and weaker-than-water strategies for once again portraying him as the victim of a conspiracy masterminded by President Biden, A.G. Garland and the F.B.I. to destroy him. He and his followers have accused the F.B.I. of planting top-secret documents in the boxes they removed from the Mar-a-Lago store room; of illegally “storming” his residence(they had a legally authorized warrant) and proclaiming that the people they should be investigating are Hillary (“Lock her UP!”) Clinton and Hunter (“We’ve Got His Laptop!”) Biden.

Say what you will, but ‘45 has been getting some truly rummy legal and political advice; with the exception of his hardest of hardcore followers, his optics are worse than execrable. Increasingly, many Republican office holders and candidates who have worked oh so hard to gain his endorsement, have begun maintaining a growing silence when questioned about the whole Mar-a-Lago imbroglio. FPOTUS is obviously becoming progressively fearful of just what the future may bring; possible indictments for obstruction of justice, tax evasion, and even treason. As he sees many of his circle receiving subpoenas and thinking twice about destroying their lives and reputations on his behalf, he is becoming even more unhinged . . . and thus laughable.

One of his latest and most breathtaking demands is that he be retroactively declared the 2020 presidential election winner or be allowed to hold a "new election," for which he has been mercilessly mocked. Of course, the chances of this ever happening are absolutely none . . . or less than that. Just the other day, FPOTUS began including QAnon conspiracy theories on his “Truth Social” website. NewsGuard, a media watchdog that analyzes the credibility of news outlets, found 88 users promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory on FPOTUS’ Truth Social, each to more than 10,000 followers. Of those accounts, 32 were previously banned by Twitter . . . as was Donald Trump.

Make no mistake about it: with each passing news cycle, Donald Trump is feeling more and more cornered; his many, many years of acting, evading and avoiding laws concerning his various businesses, paying taxes, and telling the truth are about to crush him. And, since he is changing lawyers like most of us change socks, his “moral albinism” (a term I coined many years ago meaning, roughly, a belief structure completely devoid of moral pigmentation), he is just about at the end of his rope. What legal strategy is going to keep him out of Leavenworth, Danbury or Ft. Dix?

Which leads us back to sordid life of Major General Sickles. . .

In his 94 year, the high-born Daniel Edgar Sickles (1819-1914) read law with former U.S. Attorney General Benjamin Butler, and became a highly successful attorney-at-law; served as a member of the United States Congress from New York; a Major General in the Union Army who lost a leg and was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions at Gettysburg (the Battle of Cemetery Ridge); was the American Ambassador to Spain; and, became a favorite of two of the worst Presidents in American history: James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce. In addition to all this, he was a notorious womanizer who, in 1859, killed United States District Attorney Phillip Barton Key the son of Francis Scott Key, author of the “Star Spangled Banner.” The younger Key was having an affair with Sickles’ wife Teresa Bagiolii (1836-1867), whom Sickles had married when she was all of 15years old.  Sickles found out about the affair, and on Sunday, February 27, 1859, intercepted Key at the corner of Madison Place N.W. and Pennsylvania Avenue, across the street from the White House. There, Sickles shot the unarmed Key twice, one shot directed at Key's groin. Key died about an hour later in a nearby house.

And here is where the story of Daniel Sickles may wind up playing a role in the future of Donald J. Trump: Sickles was actually acquitted of first-degree murder by a jury of his peers (all male, all white). How? He was the first person in U.S. legal history to plead innocent due to “temporary diminished capacity.” During the trial, his defense team repeatedly hammered home the fact that Key was "a confirmed, habitual adulterer" and stated that a cuckholed (a husband whose wife is unfaithful to him) has a God-given right to vengeance. Chief Defense Counsel John Graham brought up the notion of temporary insanity in his opening statement, which lasted two days, by claiming that "Sickles' provocation was so enormous that he was, from a legal point of view, insane." The jury bought it, and shortly after his acquittal, Sickles miraculously “regained” his sanity and continued living a life of privilege for another 56 years, eventually dying of a cerebral hemorrhage on May 3, 1914 in New York City.

Perhaps the mystery of why a copy of writer Thomas Keneally’s American Scoundrel wound up being amongst all the top-secret documents seized at Mar-a-Lago is as simple as this: FPOTUS and his legal team, running out of all rational options, are putting together a “diminished capacity” or “innocent by reason of insanity” defense for their celebrated client. Goodness knows, there are miles and miles of video and hundreds of thousands of journal inches to prove that for the past 40-50 years, Donald Trump has been madder than a hatter; has felt that he is completely immune from paying any and all debts . . . whether they be financial, judicial, political or the result of utter mendacity. Were he alive today, Sigmund Freud would be in a state of utter stupefaction contemplating the likes of Donald Trump.

Watch out DJT: the padded walls are closing in on you. And your legal team (whom you may or may not pay) are no match for the one that General Sickles paid most handsomely compensated; his was headed by no less a legal giant than Abraham Lincoln’s future Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton. And believe me, your most current team - Alina Habba, Lindsey Halligan, and Christina Bobb - are already way over their heads.

I hope they insisted on an enormous retainer. If not, this could be the first trial in history in which both the accused and the attorneys entered joint insanity pleas . . .

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

 

Beware the Poisonous Newt

Most crossword puzzle freaks - defined as those who would never be caught dead using a pencil - know that the answer to the clue “eft” is “newt.” For those who don’t inhabit the world of Will Shortz (the puzzle editor of both the New York Times, and National Public Radio and likely the world’s leading enigmatologist - “Newt” is a salamander in the subfamily Pleurodelinae. There are easily more than 100 varieties of the creature, a couple of which are highly toxic. The most deadly contain a toxin known as TTX, the most lethal non-protein substance known to man. When ingested into the body, this toxin directly attacks the nervous system and causes muscle paralysis, which can easily lead to cardiac arrest.

But please know that this week’s post deals with a slimy creature belonging not to the Salamandridae family, but rather to the subspecies of Homo Sapiens we shall call letalis ultra-conservativa popularis (Latin for “lethal ultra-conservative Republican”).  And by now, I’m pretty sure we’ve all sussed out that the Newt we’re referring to is Newton (“Newt”) Leroy Gingrich, House Speaker during the  Clinton administration, primary author of the “Contract With (Against?) America, and current Fox News contributor.   And like his animal kingdom namesake, he can be plenty toxic. Gingrich, like the the “Man From M.A.G.A.” whom he adores, loves lights, camera, action and all the attention a narcissist can handle. As a 10-term member of the House of Representatives from Georgia’s Sixth District, he was never what you’d call a legislative powerhouse; he’s always been more interested proving that he’s the smartest guy in the room. Like the former president, he has a long track record of treating his first two wives like dirt and once blamed his marital indiscretions (he was actually having an affair with his soon-to-be third wife while leading the impeachment charge against then-President Clinton) actually blamed them on his love of country, saying: "There's no question [that] at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.")

Over many years, Gingrich has co-written a series of “alternate history” novels about the Civil War (Grant Comes East, and Never Call Retreat: Lee and Grant: The Final Victory) and World War II (Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December 8and Days of Infamy), as well as dystopian novels (with titles like TreasonDuplicity and Collusion). Among the things one learns about the former Speaker through reading his fiction are that:

  1. He isn’t a very good writer;

  2. He is history’s deus ex machina;

  3. He has an abiding love of - and extraordinary admiration for - white men who almost single-handedly change the course of history  . . . and not necessarily for the better.

Newt’s self-image is that of a prophet; one who not only can see the future . . . but has been endowed with the power to shape it in his own toxic image.  His latest prophecy was announced to the world this past Sunday on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bertimoro. In addition to railing against the current Democratic legislative agenda, he suggested that people who favor higher levels of government spending to build out the social-safety net are in thrall to a "secular religion" (as opposed to the supply-side economics that have governed the Republican Party ever since Art Laffer laid out the theory on a cocktail napkin in 1974) and compared its practitioners to the Jacobins and Bolsheviks.  Then came the bombshell, based on a Gingrich op-ed piece published in Newsweek, entitled "The Wolves Will Become Sheep," in which he accused the Jan. 6 Committee of being a “lynch mob,” but (as was the case in his TV segment on Fox) does not cite any specific laws that have been broken by investigators. The closest he came to making an actual indictment was saying that “The Jan. 6 Select Committee is in the process of potentially bankrupting scores of Americans who worked for or supported President Trump. They face financial ruin defending themselves against the committee’s attack.”  Say what?

Forgetting that during the Obama years, the Republican-led Congress spent more time and money investigating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s role in the attack in Benghazi, Libya (in which 4 Americans - including the American ambassador were murdered by terrorists) than it did on the 9/11 attack, Gingrich floated the idea that the January 6 Committee was nothing more than a “partisan lynch mob” (despite having 2 Republicans on that committee) To all but the politically deaf, dumb and blind, it was obvious that the real purpose of the innumerable Benghazi hearings was to drive down Secretary Clinton’s national polling numbers on the way to the 2016 presidential election.

With regards to the single, ongoing January 6 committee hearing, Gingrich blustered that once the G.O.P. took back the  majority after the 2022 mid-term elections, committee members would be tried and sent to prison.  And this prognostication came on the heels of possible future Speaker Kevin McCarthy suggesting that come January 2023, he would move to have members of the January 6 committee stripped of all their House committee assignments . . . if not expelled and put on trial.

This streak of authoritarianism as exemplified by former Speaker Gingrich, possible future Speaker McCarthy, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz (who is giving serious consideration to his state seceding from the Union) is breathtaking in its gall, its political chutzpah and utter political toxicity.  Among those in Gingrich’s corner, one finds such political oddities as Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (who, though loudly, proudly, defiantly unvaccinated, has been buying and selling stock in Pfizer and Moderna, which likely makes her guilty of insider trading) and Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz who, appearing on Steve Bannon’s podcast said “You know what, Newt’s right! We are going to take power. And when we do, it’s not going to be the days of Paul Ryan and Trey Gowdy where the Republicans go limp-wristed, where they lose their backbone, and they fail to send a single subpoena.”  On the same podcast, Bannon himself also floated the idea of impeaching Joe Biden. It’s probably just a matter of time before both ideas—Gingrich’s and Bannon’s—are the default positions for Republicans running for office.

Indeed, as Charles Dickens wrote in the opening paragraph of A Tale of Two Cities: 

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, …”

Beware the toxicity of a Newt Gingrich, the authoritarianism of  a Steve Bannon or the seditiousness of a Donald Trump; for where they go, poison enters the body politic.

And to them and those who support them I say: Be careful what you pray for . . . . 

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Liz Cheney: Lauding the Courage of a Politician I'd Never Vote For

                                   Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY)

Back in November, 2009, when this blog was still called “Beating the Bushes,” I posted a piece entitled In the Words of Joseph Nye Welch. In this op-ed, I castigated right-wing radio Luddite Rush Limbaugh for continuing to claim that then-President Barack Obama (who had been elected the previous November) was continuing to proclaim that our 44th POTUS was not only foreign-born (thus invalidating his presidency) but a Muslim plant to boot. In that essay, I called upon the ghost of the late Harvard- trained attorney Joseph Nye Welch (1890-1960) who, in 1954, became the epitome of a political hero when, during the nationally-televised “Army-McCarthy Hearings” unmasked the Wisconsin senator for the ogre he truly was:

Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness . . . . If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I would do so. I like to think that I am a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me . . . . , Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?  As history records, Welch’s heroism turned out to be what would become the first - and ultimately deepest - shovelings in what would shortly thereafter become Joseph McCarthy’s grave. 

Now mind  you, Welch was not an elected official; he had no seat to lose, nor would he carry a target upon his back.  He was just (just!) a mild-tempered man with a love of justice and the courage to put his convictions before the court of public opinion.  In her own way, Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney is a Welch clone; a courageous person willing to put her convictions foursquarely before the court of public opinion. What obviously separates Rep. Cheney from attorney Welch is that the former has much to lose . . . like  her political life. In voting for the conviction of former President Trump and then becoming one of the most visible and forthcoming members of the Select Committee on the January 6 Attack (of which she serves as Vice Chair) Liz Cheney has already been thrown out of her position as Chair of the House Republican Conference, has earned the undying enmity of the former president and nearly 100% of her caucus. Moreover, she stands a good chance of losing her seat in Congress.

Without question, Liz Cheney is Republican Royalty: her father, Dick Cheney, at various times served as Chair of the House Republican Conference (1987-89); Secretary of Defense (1989-1993) and 46th Vice President of the United States (2001-2009); her mother Lynne served for seven years as Chair of the National Council of the Humanities under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (1986-1993). Yet despite her political bloodlines, Republicans treat her as if she were the spawn of Bella Abzug and Barney Frank. With every pronouncement or revelation regarding the January 6 coup she makes, the lower her stock goes with her former political allies. The Wyoming Republican Party has disowned her; along with the former president, the party has endorsed Harriett Hageman to be Ms. Cheney’s opponent in the 2022 Republican primary. (It should be noted that in 2016, Ms. Hagemen tried to overturn Donald Trump’s victory in the Wyoming presidential primary, noting that Trump was both “racist and xenophobic.” Once he endorsed her for Ms. Cheney’s seat, she began referring to him as “the greatest president of my lifetime.”)

These days, the only people saying positive or congratulatory things about Liz Cheney are Democrats and a tiny handful of what the Jim Jordans, Madison Cawthorns and Rand Pauls of the world call “RINOS” - “Republicans in name only," like Illinois Republican Adam Kinzinger and Senators Mitt Romney, Richard Burr, Ben Sasse and Lisa Murkowski. I’ve even chatted with a few people who wonder if Democrats could convince her to move to the other side of the political aisle and join the party of FDR, JFK, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  Sorry, one Joe Manchin is enough . . .

Whoa there!

As much as I admire her courage and stiff spine, I will remind you that Liz Cheney is a dyed-in-the-wool ultra-conservative. Jake Bernstein, co-author of the book Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency, recently noted: “I think part of the reason for why Liz Cheney is doing what she’s doing is directly the result of her father in the sense that her father was the very embodiment of the Republican establishment for decades. . . . She’s still very conservative. She would never see eye to eye with Democrats on anything else but a belief in the institution of Congress and the democratic process. To believe that she is in any way a moderate politically says more about what Donald Trump has done to the Republican party than it does about her.”

Need proof of Cheney’s ultraconservatism? According to an article in the May 26, 2021 issue of Forbes, from 2017 to 2021, Cheney voted in line with Trump's position 92.9% of the time, supporting him more consistently in House votes than even his former chief of staff Mark Meadows. Believe it or not it wasn’t all that long ago that Cheney publicly feuded with Rand Paul over who was "Trumpier.”

Make no mistake about it: outside of the valiant stand she has taken vis-à-vis the impeachment of Donald Trump and informing the public about his involvement in the January 6 insurrection, few of those reading this piece could find any political commonality with Liz Cheney. And that’s OK. Political courage need not be packaged in a set of positions which find favor with voters on both sides of the aisle. One can, however, hope and dream that such courage is ultimately contagious.

Three cheers for Liz Cheney!

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Without Truth, Democracy Corrodes

                                      Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)

On any given day, I am the recipient of a minimum of 75 emails from various members of congress and state legislatures, political PACS supporting causes as varied as gun safety, climate control and overturning Citizens United . . . even the White House. Like many political activists, I am on lots and lots of different email lists; unlike many, I also have many different email addresses . . . some devoted to Democratic politics and politicians; one just for Republicans and conspiracy groups; one for congregants and rabbinic questions; one which is in Hebrew; one which is devoted to medical issues and clinical research trials; one strictly devoted to the world of film and my beloved “Hollywood Brats”; and even an address which is limited to family, close friends, and people who can legitimately call me by my first name.

So far as political emails go, I receive just as many from people and causes I support and/or mostly agree with, as those whom I execrate and/or simply cannot fathom. Among the latter are Representatives Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Louie Gohmert, and Paul Gosar, as well as Senators Ron Johnson, Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn. I also receive email notifications from liberal/progressive groups as People for the American Way, Right Wing Watch, The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Brady Center Against Gun Violence as well as such far right/racist/anti-Semitic groups as The Daily Stormer, The American Thinker and Liberty Nation News.

Now don’t get the idea that I read all the emails I receive on a daily basis. To do so would make earning a living next to impossible. Nonetheless, I do peruse enough of my mail to get a sense of what or who is demonstrably true, civil, upright, and honorable for some, and precisely the opposite - false, crooked, discourteous and utterly dishonorable - for others. Besides delving into different approaches, realities and points of view, I also keep my antennae up and searching around for that which strikes me as being factual, against that which is most likely the product of conspiratorial hogwash.

So what have I learned? Well, most importantly, I’ve learned that there is a high, fortified wall standing athwart the political landscape. One person’s fact is another’s fiction; one set of eyes sees a bright light where another set sees nothing but vast darkness; one side’s heroes are another’s arch-enemies. There is, of course, a huge difference between fact and fiction, truth and lies.  The former – fact and truth – stand firm, while the latter – fiction and falsehood – eventually wither under their own weight.  Nowhere is this better or more clearly displayed than in an ancient Hebrew lesson.  To whit: The Hebrew word for “true,” (emet) is made up of the letters alef-mem-taf,  (א-מ-ת).   One notes that all three letters are the same same size and are thus stand firm   . . .   whereas the word for “lie” or “falsehood” (sheker), which is also made up of the letters shin-kuf-resh ( שּ-ק-ר )   cannot stand . . . its middle letter is longer than its mates and thus will soon topple. 

Nowadays,  with so many different forms of communication, it’s nearly impossible to separate truth from falsehood. All too frequently, people decide what is true based not so much on a collection of provable facts, but rather on who is making the presentation. The same goes for falsehoods; people conclude that something is untrue, based not nearly so much on a set of declarations or explanations, but again, on who is making the declaration. The most brazen example of “true lies” goes back to an interview that MSNBC’s Chuck Todd had with long-time Trump counselor and advisor Kellyanne Conway a few days after her boss’s inauguration. At one point in the interview, Todd stated that then-Presidential Press Secretary Sean Spicer had told an obvious and provable lie during his very first press conference, saying with a straight face that the Trump inauguration was attended by more people than any President in American history. Todd then had a picture put up on the screen showing an aerial view of those attending the Obama inauguration versus that of Trump. It demonstrably proved that  the gathering for Barack Obama vastly outnumbered that for Donald Trump. 

“Why put him out there for the very first time, in front of that podium, to utter a provable falsehood?” Todd asked Conway.  Her response? “Don't be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. You're saying it's a falsehood, and they're giving — our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that. But the point really is . . .”  At this point, a visibly exasperated Todd cut in. “Wait a minute. Alternative facts? Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered . . . were just not true. Alternative facts are not facts; they're falsehoods.” And things have been going downhill ever since.

Trump supporters refuse to believe anything Chuck Todd or anyone working for or appearing on MSNBC (or CNN or National Public Radio) says . . . ergo, they all are incapable of telling the truth.  But this is by no means a one-way street: many people find it next to impossible to believe what they hear from people working for - or appearing on  - Fox News, Newsmax or “One America News Network” (OANN) And let’s not forget the overwhelming number of people who get their “news and views” on radio from the likes of Mark Levin, Joe Pags, Sean Hannity or Michael Savage to name but a few.  What the above have in common - in addition to their politics and love of conspiracy - is the lack of civility and respect they show for those who have opposing points of view. I fear that one reason why right-wing radio, television and the blogosphere succeeds far better than those media outlets in the middle or the left is that they are far more entertaining. While driving from lecture to lecture and university to university, I frequently listen to right-wing talk radio. Although most of what I hear is laughable, it is frequently sickening, I’ve got to admit the hosts are a tonic for low blood pressure.

At the moment, I have just finished reading Midnight in Washington: How We Almost Lost our Democracy and Still Could by California Representative Adam Schiff. It is an impeccably well-written book which details the impeachment(s) of Donald Trump from the perspective of a man who has played a pivotal role as both Chair of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and the manager of Trump’s first impeachment trial before the United States Senate.  I would rate Adam Schiff as one of the best and brightest - not  to mention brainy and humble - members of Congress of the past half century.  His importance to that body - and indeed, to Democracy itself - cannot be overstated.  I have often thought that he would make a world-class Attorney General . . . or Justice of the Supreme Court.

For all his efforts both past and present (he currently serves on the 1/6 committee), he has received tremendous praise and accolades - along with death threats and vile calumnies, being nicknamed “Shifty Schiff,” being labeled a "Communist,” “abject liar” and far worse. Despite all this, his knowledge, candor and courage have made him a hero to many. If there is one thing he has sought to uncover above all else during his 20 years in the House, and  before that as a highly successful federal prosecutor, it is THE TRUTH. As a constant target of what he refers to as the “Misinformation Machine,” Adam has never ceased shining a spotlight on political facts.

In a recent email outlining many of the attacks he has suffered at the hands of the aforementioned “machine,” he wrote: “I can take these attacks. But with every false story or misleading segment, our idea of shared truth is shredded. And nothing is more corrosive to a democracy than the idea that there is no truth.”

I for one could not agree more.

And so, read and listen to as much as you can stomach, learn what those who disagree with you are saying, and, in the words of Winston Churchill, “Never, never, never, never give up.”  Never give up believing that despite what the other side claims, there really, truly is such a thing as THE TRUTH.  Finding it is never easy, but don’t let that stop you.  

Courage, it seems to me, is the antidote to political corrosion. And what is courage? That which it takes to stand up and speak; that which it takes to sit down and listen.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Enough!

About a week ago, Catherine Rampell, one of the Washington Post’s best and brightest young op-ed writers, published an opinion piece entitled “The GOP rebrands itself as the party of tax cheats.” Her essay began:

Once upon a time, Republicans portrayed themselves as the party of small government and family values. Recently, though, GOP leaders have been cobbling together a new coalition, welcoming insurrectionists, white-nationalist tiki-torchers and people who think Bill Gates is trying to microchip them.

The latest recruit to the Big Tent? Tax cheats.

Ms. Rampell’s excellent article delved into the issue of the approximately $600 billion of legally owed, but un-paid taxes of the wealthiest 1% in this country.  Putting this ghastly figure into perspective, she noted: “For scale, that’s roughly equal to all federal income taxes paid by the lowest-earning 90 percent of taxpayers. . . . To be clear, rank-and-file wage-earners are not necessarily more honest or patriotic. It’s just much harder for them to shortchange Uncle Sam.

She then went on to explain how Congressional Democrats were attempting to pass legislation which would make it far more difficult for the über-wealthy to “sneak unpaid liabilities past the I.R.S.”

Of course, keeping taxes on both huge corporations and hyper-wealthy individuals as low as possible is really nothing new. Remember the macroeconomic theory of the Reagan years known as “Supply-Side Economics” or its genetic model, the so-called “Laffer Curve,” which showed that lowering tax rates for the wealthy and the corporations they own, ultimately led to increased consumer spending, which ultimately raised tax revenues for the middle class? Although never referred to by name in polite company anymore, “Supply-Side Economics” is just as much an article of faith in 21st century Republicanism as it was 40+ years ago.

As the Biden Administration and a near majority of Democrats on Capitol Hill are hammering out the largest domestic spending increase of the past 80 years, Republicans have firmly mired their boots in hardened concrete. Whether or not they favor federal funding on dams, roads, bridges and the like, they are fully against raising taxes by so much as a dime in order to pay for it. They are planning on scaring the daylights out of working class Americans between now and 2022 by warning them that regardless of what the Democrats promise, they fully favor raising their taxes in order to pay for all the “ needless goodies” like universal pre-K, childcare, climate change etc.

Are the Republicans really that near-sighted and hard-hearted? Many, I fear, are. But many more, I firmly believe, have a different motive responding to any and all Biden proposals with a near unanimous thumbs-down: keeping their wealthiest mega donors writing all those big fat checks which keep them in office. Without corporate and PAC dollars, they might just lose their seats, their power and self-worth.

While pondering the venality of America’s billionaire and multi-centimillionaire class, I found myself wanting to get them - the fantastically rich - to answer a single question: “What are you going to do with all the additional millions your Republican lapdogs lay aside for you? How many more mansions, yachts or private jets do you need? Is an additional billion or two or ten going to make you any happier, healthier or more content?”

While pondering this, I found myself remembering a brief piece the late Kurt Vonnegut wrote about his late friend, the writer Joseph Heller, whose most famous work was Catch-22. Published in the New Yorker back in May of 2005 the “poem” was, in a sense, Vonnegut’s eulogy to Heller. It was simply entitled:

Joe Heller

True story, Word of Honor:

Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer

now dead,

and I were at a party given by a billionaire

on Shelter Island.

I said, “Joe, how does it make you feel

to know that our host only yesterday

may have made more money

than your novel ‘Catch-22’

has earned in its entire history?”

And Joe said, “I’ve got something he can never have.”

And I said, “What on earth could that be, Joe?”

And Joe said, “The knowledge that I’ve got enough.”

Not bad! Rest in peace!”

I can justs imagine some of the negative, name-calling emails I’m going to be receiving from some of my readers; otherwise good and kind people who go bat crap crazy when anyone even suggests that there should be some sort of limitation on unfettered, untaxed wealth. They will no doubt accuse me of being a naïve, idealist, a radical relic of the sixties who wants nothing more than to take away lucre from the rich and shower it upon the poor. They will likely remind me that they “. . .earned their own fortunes by their own ingenuity and the sweat of their own brows,” and that “. . . those who want riches should bloody well go out and earn it for themselves!” Sorry if I’ve ruffled your truffle, but to my way of thinking, its time to unstack the deck; to make it possible for the have-nots to climb aboard the stairway to the middle-class. And if building that stairway means allocating funds to healthcare, childcare and education; to creating millions of jobs through greater expenditures on climate change, clean water and clean air . . . so be it.

I do not mean to lump all billionaires and their “poorer cousins” - the multi-centimillionaires - into a single cauldron of cupidity. I am well aware of all the those hyper-wealthy souls who, at the urging of Bill and Melinda French Gates and Warren Buffett joined in and took the “Giving Pledge” to donate no less than half their fortunes to charitable organizations and causes either during their lifetime or in their wills. Thus far, the group has donated tens upon tens of billions of dollars to various causes and philanthropies. Ironically, one small snag has emerged: though they’ve promised to shed at least half of their wealth for the common good, many of the billionaires are richer than ever . . . this, according to the Institute for Policy Studies noted in a recent article. This piece noted that, “. . .while some pledgers earnestly intend to fulfill their promises, many are unable to because their assets are simply growing too fast.”

What a world!

While I do not hold out a great deal of hope for the most visionary and generous aspects of President Biden’s spending plan to be enacted, I do, nonetheless, applaud him and his supporters on Capitol Hill - many of whom, like Speaker Pelosi (CA), Senators Mark Warner (VA), Dianne Feinstein (CA), and Richard Blumenthal (CT) and Reps. Don Beyer (VA), John Yarmuth (KY), Suzane DelBene (WA). Scott Peters (CA), Hugh Auchincloss (MA) and Lloyd Doggett (TX) - multi-millionaires all - for trying their utmost to pass meaningful legislation.

They, like the late Joseph Heller, are fully in agreement with a truly important two-syllable word:

ENOUGH!

 

Copyright2021, Kurt F. Stone 

In the Words of Hedy Lamarr ("That's HEDLEY!")

                   Harvey Korman as Hedley Lamarr in “Blazing Saddles”

                   Harvey Korman as Hedley Lamarr in “Blazing Saddles”

Without question, Mel Brooks’ “Blazing Saddles” is one of the greatest comedies ever produced. Who can suppress a belly-laugh during the campfire bean-eating scene? Or not chortle  at the very name “Lili Von Shtüpp,” the send-up of Marlene Dietrich  for which the late Madeleine Kahn was nominated for an Academy Award? Then there’s Governor Lepetomane’s power- behind-the-throne “Hedley Lamarr,” as played by the marvelous Harvey Korman, who is given some of the picture’s best lines, such as “My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives,” to which his dumber-than-dirt side-kick Taggart (played by Slim Pickens) responds “God darnit, Mr. Lamarr, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore.”

Again, without question, Blazing Saddle’s best lines belong to Hedley, the most dexterous of which of comes when he is telling Taggart about the gang of miscreants he wants rounded up in order to overthrow the town of Rock Ridge: “I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.”

I don’t know about you, but to me, this sounds a lot like former President Trump’s cattle call for the January 6 insurrection. But in this case, the verbal shopping list wasn’t meant for merely one set of ears (Taggart) but rather for a handful of co-conspirators, among whom were Chief of staff Mark Meadows, presidential aide Dan Scavino, professional grizzled hobo Steve Bannon and determined remora Kash Patel. (The remora by the way, which in the world of ichthyology, is known as the “suckerfish,” is known for getting a “free ride” on host fish.  As such, remora has also come to describe a person or a group of people who get a free ride and a free meal by way of the efforts of others.)  

As of today, Donald Trump’s gang of “. . . mugs, pugs, nitwits, halfwits et al are in severe legal jeopardy.  Although “Rock Ridge” (the nation’s Capitol) has not been torn down, they themselves have all been subpoenaed by the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Not surprisingly all 4 have declared that they will neither honor said subpoenas nor turn over any documents relevant to their participation in the January 6 insurrection.  And more on point, Trump, the FPOTUS (“Former President of the United States”) has also declared that he will not hand over any documents related to the insurrection, claiming that he is protected by Executive Privilege.” (n.b. There is a possibility that members of the former president’s staff who have yet to be issued subpoenas are speaking to the Select Committee behind closed doors, away from the spotlight, in order to save their hides and future careers.)

This is - or in any event should be - a non-starter; there is absolutely no mention of executive privilege in the Constitution. Richard Nixon, who knew one hell of a lot more about what was in that document than the immediate FPOTUS, learned his lesson the hard way . . . and resigned office before he could be arrested. (And while it is highly likely that arrangements had already been made for Nixon’s hand-picked successor, Gerald R. Ford, to pardon Nixon, there are precisely two chances that current President Biden has made the same sort of arrangement with his predecessor: absolutely none and one hell of a lot less than that.)

Battle lines between the White House, the Select Committee and those who remain steadfastly in support of Donald Trump have been both widening and hardening in recent days. For in addition to the various subpoenas handed down, President Biden announced this past Friday his steadfast demand that the FPOTUS hand over thousands upon thousands of pages dealing with January 6 to the Department of Justice. Trump swiftly responded with the “Executive Privilege” argument, calling Democrats “drunk on power” and insisting that “this assault on the Constitution and important legal precedent will not work.” Without question, the Constitutional issues involved here are soon to be headed into federal court.

Legal experts say they think Biden, as the sitting president, is far more likely to prevail in court than Trump. But they also say that the legal questions raised by this conflict are highly significant.

“This is one of the historic tests of executive power,” says Walter E. Dellinger III, the Solicitor General under President Bill Clinton and the
Douglas B. Maggs Professor Emeritus of Law at Duke University. Still, he says, “the decision of the current president not to assert executive privilege is going to weigh heavily” on those having to make the decision. Select Committee member - and longtime Constitutional law professor - Jamie Raskin, speaking about Trump’s lawyer’s assertion that Congress has no claim on any information put it succinctly: “This is a matter of the utmost seriousness, and we need to consider the full panoply of enforcement sanctions available to us. And that means criminal contempt citations, civil contempt citations and the use of Congress’s own inherent contempt powers.”

 The last of these -- “Congress’s own inherent contempt powers” - - is found not in the Constitution, but rather in the U.S. Code (Title 2, Section 192), but has not been used since 1934. According to the Code, Congress has the unilateral authority to fine or even jail recalcitrant witnesses. The offender(s), after being cited for contempt of Congress, is/are  tried on the floor of the chamber of Congress invoking the power. If a majority affirms the contempt charge, they may instruct the Sergeant at Arms to arrest the offender(s) and detain them in the Congressional jail [yes, there is one in the basement of the Capitol] or until they comply with the subpoena or until the end of the session. This is highly unlikely to be employed, mainly because it would all but certainly involve a lengthy court battle involving Trump and his “mugs, pugs and  thugs” which would no doubt run on the front pages of papers as well as the twenty-four-hours-a-day-seven-days-a-week propaganda industrial complex for years to  come . . . thus giving Republicans a political issue for the ages. 

To my way of thinking, even before the House Select Committee concludes hearings and issues its final report, it should begin working in tandem with Attorney General Garland and the Department of Justice.  Let the DOJ do its job.  With the legislative and executive branches working together, they then should be able to issue arrest warrants and ultimately put the sowers of sedition in prison. And it could, as an added benefit, force individual Republican office-holders and future candidates to go on record as to whether or not they support those who sought the dismemberment of our democracy.

Insurrection is not a matter that should be taken blithely; it carries serious sanctions which should be undertaken for the sake of our future as a nation.

How do you like them eggs Hedy . . .  (that’s HEDLEY!)

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

 

Not Every Ivy League Grad Sits Atop the Progressive Heap

                                                     Harvard College: 1650

                                                     Harvard College: 1650

Founded way back in 1638, Harvard College (today University) is America’s oldest and most prestigious seat of higher learning. Indeed, of America’s 46 presidents, 7 (John, and John Quincy Adams), Rutherford B. Hayes, cousins Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush (who also graduated from Yale), and Barack Obama) have earned degrees there. 10 future Secretaries of State (Elihu Washburn, Robert Bacon, Dean Acheson, William Evarts, Edward Everts, Christian Herter, Richard Olney, Thomas Pickering, Henry L. Stimson, and Mike Pompeo have been graduates of America’s best college. 119 senators (including Richard Blumenthal, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, Sam Ervin, Al Franken, Tim Kaine, Edward Kennedy, Carl Levin, Martha McSally, Elizabeth Warren, Paul Sarbanes, and Chuck Schumer have earned degrees there in fields as diverse as political science, law, and education, as well as nearly 370 members of the House of Representatives. Then too, the lead floor managers of both of Donald Trump’s impeachment trials were graduates of Harvard Law: California’s Rep. Adam Schiff and Maryland’s Rep. Jamie Raskin.

Not all Harvard Graduates entered into public service. Among the most famous of her graduates (as well as those who never completed degrees) one finds Helen Keller; poets T.S. Elliot and E.E.. Cummings; conductor/composer Leonard Bernstein and cellist Yo Yo Ma; writer/poet Gertrude Stein; actors Jack Lemmon, Stockard Channing, Tommy Lee Jones, Ashley Judd, and Natalie Portman; “Unibomber” Ted Kaczynski; writers William S. Burroughs (“The Naked Lunch”), John Updike and Norman Mailer, as well as writer/M.D. Michael Crichton; Transcendentalist author Ralph Waldo Emerson, theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer; architect, systems theorist and futurist Buckminster Fuller . . . and Bill Gates.  (And let’s not forget that there are lots of “Elis” -(Yalies) Princeton Tigers, and graduates of other Ivy League schools serving in the current 117th Congress who cover the political spectrum from such far-right senators as Missouri’s Josh Hawley, Texas’ Ted Cruz and Nebraskan Ben Sasse to Ohio’s ultra-progressive Democrat Sherrod Brown).

Then there’s Donald Trump’s “Mini-Me” - former House member and current Florida governor Ron DeSantis.  DeSantis is anything but an uneducated redneck; he earned a B.A. (magna cum laude) from Yale in 2001 and a J.D. (cum laude) from Harvard Law in 2005.  (It should be noted that while attending Yale, DeSantis was captain of the school’s varsity baseball team, where he played the outfield, and as a senior led the team in batting with a .336 average.

There’s hardly a political nerd, geek, or junkie who doesn’t know that the 43-year old DeSantis wants nothing more than to be the Republican standard-bearer in 2024. In order to fulfill this dream, several things would have to happen:

  • He would first have to be reelected governor in 2022;

  • Donald Trump must stay out of the race because he is either hospitalized, on trial, or out on bail;

  • The voting public has not yet figured out just how anti-(small-D) democrat De Santis really is, and 

  • That DeSantis figures out a way to keep 45’s core constituency - and their cash - in his back pocket.

Although DeSantis is a bit less Narcissistic than his hero and a tad more polished to boot, he nonetheless possesses the same rigorously authoritarian streak as the Lord of Mar-a-Lago. Where Donald Trump is an avatar of unbridled contrarianism . . . a monster of the ages (a Queen’s born Larry “Lonesome Rhodes”), the Florida governor is more self-controlled. DeSantis appears to be less puerile than Trump, but equally demanding when it comes to putting personal loyalty above all else. And where Donald Trump has spent years in the public eye bragging about his elite education and utter brilliance (!), Governor DeSantis tends to let his policies, appointments and pronouncements get the same point across . . . that he is smarter than anyone in government . . . without all the swagger.

You wanna bet?

                           Gov. Ron DeSantis and Dr. Joseph Ladapo

                           Gov. Ron DeSantis and Dr. Joseph Ladapo

Last week, Governor DeSantis appointed a new Florida Surgeon General, Joseph Ladapo, M.D., PhD, a graduate of Harvard Med. Truth to tell, before DeSantis’ announcement, the vast majority of people in Florida weren’t aware that Florida had a Surgeon General - or that Governor DeSantis even cared; before  his appointment, Dr. Ladapo’s predecessor, Dr., Scott Rivkees hadn’t had a face-to-face meeting with Governor DeSantis since the end of 2020. In many respects, Governor DeSantis and Dr. Ladapo are two peas in a pod: both are graduates of Harvard; both are diehard conservatives; both put politics way ahead of science when it comes to COVID-19.

At his initial press conference on September 21, Dr. Ladapo (who was simultaneously appointed to a high-salaried professorship at the University of Florida School of Medicine) introduced himself to members of the press and then boldly told reporters "Florida will reject fear.” The  new Surgeon General has a record of writing op-ed after op-ed after op-ed after op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, questioning the very reality of COVID-19, the value of vaccines and the efficacy of masks.  There was also, of course, a New York Daily News op-ed touting hydroxychloroquine. Just as importantly, Ladapo has boasted about his support for the so-called "Great Barrington Declaration," a highly controversial joint statement, released in October 2020, that endorsed protections for the elderly and those with compromised immune systems, while simultaneously arguing that the authorities should pursue "herd immunity" by allowing the deadly virus to spread untrammeled through the rest of the population.

Like  former president Trump, Governor DeSantis has been a disaster when it comes to the pandemic. He has done everything in his power to put “freedom” and “a person’s right to choose” ahead of vaccinations (although both he himself and his wife have already been inoculated). DeSantis has made it all but impossible for counties, municipalities and local school boards to set their own rules or mandates . . . without being arrested, severely fined or suffer loss of personal income. This, from a man who firmly believes that government should be as close to the people as possible. Like Donald Trump, he has had his legal wrists slapped by more than one conservative court.  Is it any wonder that he appointed Ladapo to be his Surgeon General?

As mentioned above, Dr. Ladapo, who before his appointment here in Florida was a professor at the UCLA Geffen School of Medicine is a leading member of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” and signer of the widely criticized Great Barrington Declaration, the coven for physicians who are COVID deniers. Dr. Ladapo does not have a background in public health and has never been in charge of so much as a med school department.  At UCLA, he was an associate professor and health policy researcher “. . . whose primary research interests include[d] assessing the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic technologies and regarding the population burden of cardiovascular disease,” according to his UCLA bio (which was recently taken down). He has an MD and PhD in Health Policy from Harvard and is board-certified in Internal Medicine. In other words, Dr. Lapado is to Governor DeSantis what Dr. Scott Atlas (professor of radiology at Stanford and member in good standing of the highly conservative Hoover Institution) was to Donald Trump: completely without relevant experience in the fields of epidemiology, infectious diseases or public health.

In my view, the only reason Dr.Lapado got the job was because DeSantis needed window dressing for his anti-science views on managing the state’s COVID response. Dr. Ladapo proved his loyalty to DeSantis on his very first full day in office by issuing an “emergency” rule giving parents sole discretion over whether their children wear masks at school. The rule also says that if a student has been exposed to COVID-19, parents can choose to keep their children in school “without restrictions or disparate treatment, so long as the student remains asymptomatic.”

This is totally unbecoming and wrong-headed for anyone who was both educated and trained at America’s oldest and most prestigious university. As mentioned above, Dr. Ladapo has even written about (and relentlessly endorsed) the use of hydroxychloroquine  (and now Ivermectin, which is meant for horses) in the fight against DOVID-19. In discussing this with my fellow medical ethics board members (the overwhelming majority of whom either teach, were educated at, or practice within a few blocks of Harvard Med), they agree that both DeSantis and Dr. Ladapo have placed politics way ahead of science. DeSantis should learn from the 2020 election; one of the key reasons why Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden is that the former, outside of being in office during the miraculous development of anti-COVID vaccines, didn’t have the slightest idea of how to lead the nation to recovery. His main concerns were with the economy; he placed presidential power, personal aggrandizement and  politics way ahead of science.  DeSantis and his new Surgeon General are doing virtually the same thing here in Florida.  To quote the Harvard-trained philosopher Georges Santayana (who was also a member of the faculty): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

I for one would greatly prefer pay attention to the pronouncements of Dr. Anthony Fauci than Governor Ron DeSantis or Dr. Joseph Ladapo. But then again, Fauci only graduated from Cornell . . . which didn’t enter the Ivy League until 1865, 3 years before my beloved  University of California.  

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone