#960: Meet the Johnsons: It's Not a Sitcom

                 Most of the Cast of “Meet the Johnsons”

One of the great advantages (and disadvantages) of living in a world enswathed in Internet technology is how even the most relatively anonymous person can, within a matter of hours, become as well-known as Benjamin Franklin or F. Scott Fitzgerald.  For those possessing but a scintilla of cyber competence, we have Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Openverse and You.com to act as our personal Library of Congress.  To paraphrase the old Westinghouse all-news-all-the-time tagline, “You give us 22 minutes, we’ll give you the world.”

Case in point: less than 72 hours ago, outside of his Benton, Louisiana neighborhood, the people in his church or the constituents in his 4th District House seat had ever heard of the newly-elected House Speaker Mike Johnson. Upon first televised glance - and comparing him visually to the oft-uncoated “Gym” Jordan, he seemed like a pretty normal fellow: well-tailored, well-coifed, bespectacled, and about as benign as Clark Kent. The first published photos of his wife and 4 children, (minus his “adopted” African American son who, for reasons not yet known, was “expunged” from his official biography years ago), made them look like a “ready for prime time” super-photogenic family.

But alas, to paraphrase the Hebrew Bible (1 Samuel 16:7), Looks can be deceiving. To be both fair and honest, I have never met nor interviewed Speaker Johnson. Heck a huge percentage of elected officials on Capitol Hill (except, perhaps, his colleagues on House Judiciary or Armed Services) had to either check out his Congressional Website or find him on Wikipedia. It turns out that his relative anonymity among the 219 members of the House Republican caucus turned out to be beneficial; flying beneath the clouds (unlike Reps. Matt Gaetz, Gym Jordan, George Santos, Steve Scalise,  or Marjorie Taylor Green, to name but a few) meant that he had few - if any - hardcore enemies. Considering the amount of acrimony and waspishness that has been on display throughout the three-week Speaker imbroglio, Johnson’s relative equanimity must have seemed to like a gift from on high.

To use the words “a gift from on high” when referring to Speaker (and Mrs.) Johnson is no mere literary device; rather, it is purely intentional. For without question, no inhabitant of the Speaker’s Office has ever been as thoroughly besotted with the word of G-d than its newest occupant. Johnson has long described himself as “first and foremost a Christian.” An evangelical of the Southern Baptist stripe, Johnson has said: "My faith informs everything I do.” We should all prepare ourselves for a lot of “G-d speak” from the Speaker in the days, weeks and months to come. In his very first address to the House, Speaker Johnson got off to a start filled to overflowing with the rhetoric of religious fundamentalism: “I don’t believe there are any coincidences in a manner like this. I believe that scripture, the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority. He raised up each of you, all of us, and I believe that God has ordained and allowed each one of us to be brought here for this specific moment in this time. This is my belief. I believe that each one of us has a huge responsibility today to use the gifts that God has given us to serve.”

If Mike Johnson was the very best person the Republican caucus could agree on to become Speaker of the House, it scares the living bejesus out of me. As a practicing traditional Jew (who also has a pretty well-developed sense of humor), I cannot feel comfortable putting the Speaker’s gavel - the very gavel wielded by the likes of Joseph “Czar” Cannon, Sam Rayburn, Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, and Nancy Pelosi - into the hands of an election-denying, Christian Nationalist like Mike Johnson of Louisiana. Coming from a tribe that has long gone out of its way to stay out of the business of converting others to its religious weltanschauung (worldview), I find myself beset with insomnia over the thought of a Speaker - the person 2nd in line to the Presidency - who religious creed is based on saving my soul . . . or else.

Let’s take a look at what our new Speaker supports and where he expects to lead us.

• In a 2017 House Judiciary Committee meeting, Johnson argued that Roe v. Wade made it necessary to cut social programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid because abortion reduced the labor force and thus damaged the economy.

  Johnson has co-sponsored bills attempting to ban abortion nationwide, such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children From Late-Term Abortions Act, and the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2021. All three bills would impose criminal penalties, including potential prison terms of up to five years, upon doctors who perform abortions.

• In 2015, Johnson blamed abortions and the "breakup [of] the nuclear family" for school shootings, saying, "when you tell a generation of people that life has no value, no meaning, that it's expendable, then you do wind up with school shooters."

• In 2018, he was involved in GOP efforts to overhaul the Endangered Species Act, introducing legislation to do so. 

• In 2020, Johnson signed an amicus brief alongside more than 100 House Republicans supporting a Texas lawsuit that aimed to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Johnson also voted to object to the election results in both Arizona and Pennsylvania on Jan. 6, 2021. 

• Johnson has been a long-term, outspoken opponent of LGBT rights. He has called homosexuality "sinful" and "destructive" and argued that support for LGBT equality would lead to support for pedophilia and bestiality, and that sex for any other purpose than procreation between a lawfully married man and woman should be considered a crime.

• Johnson previously worked as senior attorney and spokesperson for Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF, a Southern Poverty Law Center–designated hate group that pushes its far-right agenda through the courts.

• On May 19, 2021, Johnson and all other seven Republican House leaders in the 117th Congress voted against establishing a national commission to investigate the January 6, 2021, storming of the United States Capitol.

• During a town hall in 2017, Johnson said that he believed that Earth's climate was changing, but questioned the scientific consensus that climate change is caused by humans.

  Under Johnson, the Republican Study Committee in 2019 called Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal the "Greedy New Steal", called "wind and solar" "the most inefficient energy sources we have", and claimed that living near wind turbines could cause "depression and cognitive dysfunction".

• Johnson came to some prominence in the late 1990s when he and his wife appeared on television to promote new laws in Louisiana allowing covenant marriages, under which divorce is much more difficult to obtain than in no-fault divorce. In 2005, Johnson appeared on ABC's Good Morning America to promote covenant marriages, saying, "I'm a big proponent of marriage and fidelity and all the things that go with it".

• In 2016, Johnson delivered a sermon that called the teaching of evolution one of the causes of mass shootings: "People say, 'How can a young person go into their schoolhouse and open fire on their classmates?' Because we've taught a whole generation—a couple generations now—of Americans, that there's no right or wrong, that it's about survival of the fittest, and you evolve from the primordial slime. Why is that life of any sacred value? Because there's nobody sacred to whom it's owed.

• In a one-on-one interview with Sean Hannity this past Thursday, just the mass murder in Lewiston, Maine,  Speaker  Johnson made an old Republican line new again, claiming that it’s not guns that kill people—it’s their hearts. “This is not the time to be talking about legislation.”  

If this were not enough, there is Mrs. Speaker Johnson, Kelly. a mental health counselor who, along with her husband, has a popular podcast called ”Truth be Told” With Mike and Kelly Johnson. You won’t find it on the top podcast charts — they haven’t managed to hit the top 100 in the “Religion & Spirituality” section of Apple Podcasts, where it’s designated due to its emphasis on their evangelical Christian beliefs. The project is a blend of political and religious analysis, occasionally featuring guests, that illuminates Johnson’s faith-driven views on governance — and is sure to inform how he approaches his new role.

After a career as a teacher, Kelly Johnson to working as a pastoral counselor at “Onward Christian Counseling Services” where she serves as founder and president. The practice provides religious-based individual, marriage and family counseling to people across Louisiana.  Onward Christian Counseling Services is grounded in the belief that sex is offensive to God if it is not between a man and a woman married to each other. It puts being gay, bisexual or transgender in the same category as someone who has sex with animals or family members, calling all of these examples of “sexual immorality.”  “We believe and the Bible teaches that any form of sexual immorality, such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bisexual conduct, bestiality, incest, pornography or any attempt to change one’s sex, or disagreement with one’s biological sex, is sinful and offensive to God,” says the eight-page business document. (Interestingly, over the past several days, the counseling services’ website has become subscription only.)

Mike Johnson, I am sorry to report, is going to be one of the few Speakers in history who will have to get on-the-job training while leading and shaping the House.  Unlike recent speakers like Kevin McCarthy, Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner, Mr. Johnson has no deep ties or muscular network of allies across the country. As such, he lacks one of the most important strengths one looks for in a Speaker: an ability to raise vast sums of money. Say what you want about Kevin McCarthy, he is a six-foot tall ATM when it comes to putting the bite on people. There is nothing in Mike Johnson’s career history to suggest that he is in this league. And with the number of red seats open to question in the 2024 elections, money is going to be key.

So welcome to the world of Speaker and Mrs. Mike Johnson.  While it is definitely not going to be a sitcom, it will likely bring tears to the eyes of the American Eagle.

Copyright©2023 Kurt Franklin Stone

#959: Here Comes Mr. Jordan

Yes, I know: the title of this piece should, in reality, be There Goes” (not “Here Comes”) Mr. Jordan. Truth to tell, when I first started mulling over this week’s op-ed, Ohio Rep. “Gym” Jordan יש"ו  (a Hebrew acronym pronounced y’mach sh’mo v’zikro and meaning “may his name and memory be blotted out” . . . in modern Latin. it’s Damnatio memoriae, “condemnation of memory”), was still in the race for Speaker of the House. The House went through 3 votes this past week, with Gym, who could afford having no more than 4 of his Republican colleagues voting against him if  he were to have any hope of snaring the gavel.  As things turned out, he kept losing more Republican votes in each go-round until by vote number three, he managed to lose the confidence - if not affection - of fully 25 of his colleagues.  In so doing, Mr. Jordan managed to enter the history books by losing more votes from his own party than any Speaker candidate in more than 100 years. And mind you, all this occurred despite Mr. Jordan having received the public endorsement of the FPOTUS, Donald J. Trump.

So what’s this Here Comes Mr. Jordan all about?  Well, first and foremost, it’s the title of a sparkling 1941 Columbia comedy/fantasy/romance starring Robert Montgomery as boxer Joe Pendleton (aka “The Flying Pug) who, flying off to his next bout, appears to have died when his plane crashes while en route.  Joe’s soul is retrieved by 7013 (played by Edward Everett Horton), an officious angel who assumed that Joe could not have survived the crash. Joe's manager, Max "Pop" Corkle (James Gleason), has his body cremated. In the afterlife, the records show that the kind-hearted Joe’s death was a mistake; he was supposed to live for another 50 years. 7013’s superior, Mr. Jordan (Claude Rains) , confirms this, but since there is no more body, Joe will have to take over a newly dead corpse. Jordan explains that a body is just something that is worn, like an overcoat; inside, Joe will still be himself. Joe insists that it be someone in good physical shape, because he wants to continue his boxing career.

After Joe turns down several "candidates", Jordan takes him to see the body of a crooked, extremely wealthy banker and investor named Bruce Farnsworth, who has just been drugged and drowned in a bathtub by his wife and his secretary. Joe is reluctant to take over a life so unlike his previous one, but eventually changes his mind and agrees to take over Farnsworth's body.  There’s a lot more to the story including a murder mystery, Joe’s return to the boxing ring and Joe’s beloved saxophone. Perhaps you may want to see it for yourself. (BTW, Here Comes Mr. Jordan received Academy Award nominations for best picture, best director best actor, and best supporting actor and won for best screenplay and best story.)  

In truth then, this essay would have been better served had it been entitled There Goes Mr. Jordan, for undoubtedly Gym Jordan’s career on Capitol Hill is, from this point on, going to be but a wisp of what it was a mere 10 days ago. Never again will he even dream of scaling any Congressional heights. The reasons for his embarrassing defeat (for which sane people should give thanks) are many-fold. Most importantly, during his 16 years in the House, Congress has yet to pass a single bill Gym Jordan wrote. Then too, he one of the most disliked people on Capitol Hill; to his colleagues, he is nothing more than a bully without a single guiding principle to his name. And oh yes, he is a terrible - and I mean lackluster to the max - fundraiser . . . a prime responsibility for any Speaker. 

Make no mistake  about it: now that Jordan has been hurled onto the trash heap of American political history, Congress - and America’s very future - are in peril.  Without a properly elected Speaker, Congress (meaning both the House and Senate) are incapable of addressing - let alone seriously dealing with - America’s most pressing issues . . . such as funding wars in both Israel and Ukraine, keeping the government from shutting down, and virtually anything that deals with appropriations. Oh  sure, the Republicans and their 4-vote “majority” can continue holding hearings on Hunter Biden’s laptop and the possible impeachment of the POTUS . . . which in the real world  amount to far, far less than a hill of political beans.

 At the moment, there are upwards of 9 Congressional Republicans being considered for the speakership:

• Tom Emmer (Minnesota)

• Austin Scott (Georgia)

• Byron Donalds (Florida)

• Kevin Hern (Oklahoma)

• Jody C. Arrington (Texas)

• Jack Bergman (Michigan)

• MIke Johnson (Louisiana)

• Pete Sessions (Texas)

• Dan Meuser (Pennsylvania
  

A brief look through the nine’s websites will show that all are Trump acolytes, that 7 of the 9 (with the exception of Scott and Emmer) voted against accepting Joe Biden’s victory in the 2022 presidential election. All, with the exception of Mr. Donalds of Florida, are White males, are pro-gun, anti-WOKE and, when it comes to the FPOTUS, absolutely spineless. Several are leaders of the “Freedom Caucus,” founded by the aforementioned Jim Jordan, and the majority of whom are against working together with Democrats on virtually anything and everything.

In the 3 votes for Speaker of the House over the past week, the person claiming the greatest number of votes was, not surprisingly, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. This is not to say that he will ever become Speaker in a House controlled (even by 4 votes) by Republicans, but rather that he leads a totally unified party. It is becoming abundantly clear with each passing day that Jeffries’ Democrats are not only speaking with one voice, but that they actually have an agreed-upon political platform. This is beginning to sink in on the Republican members of the House who, by comparison to their Democratic colleagues, are known for what they are against - like Social Security, Medicare, Student Loan Forgiveness, Covid-19 vaccines, gun safety measures and aid to Israel and the Ukraine, than what they are for: tax cuts for the hyper-wealthy, the banning of books in public school libraries, anti-immigrant legislation, and turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism. And for what?  Certainly not for the purpose of “Making America Great Again.”  With each passing week and each dropped pass, it seems that what the majority of Republicans are after is maintaining good standing with their party leader, the FPOTUS and continuing to be recipients of the toxic crumbs he doles out for obedience at best, silence at worst. 

Needless to say, this is looking pretty damn embarrassing for the Republicans and does not bode well for 2024. Not that long ago, The COP stood for smaller government, lower taxes and greater individual liberty. Sort of like the Republicanism of the late actor Robert Montgomery, the star of “Here Comes Mr. Jordan.” Montgomery, (1904-1981), the well-born son of a corporate executive, quit Hollywood when Dwight Eisenhower asked him to join his administration in order to become his political "image consultant." He thus created a new position in the world of politics. (BTW: Political historians have often speculated that had Montgomery been Richard Nixon’s media consultant in 1960, JFK would never have been elected.)  It is interesting to speculate precisely which party Montgomery (the father of Elizabeth, the future star of “Bewitched”) would have assisted in the age of Donald Trump, Gym Jordan, Matt Gaetz et al. One gets the feeling that even a star of his magnitude couldn’t have done a damned thing.

Copyright©2023 Kurt Franklin Stone

#954: Hip, Hip Hooray Nate White . . . Whoever in the Hell You May Be

An introductory note: My Pal Al sent me an marvelously witty, totally on-point bit of satire about our twice impeached and four times indicted FPOTUS. Try as I might, I could not discover who the purported author, Nate White is. It seems to be some Brit’s nom-de-plume. So far as I can tell, what follows was originally published back in 2020. I just had to share it with you, because in my humble estimation, it is the very best summary of Donald Trump I have ever read. Enjoy!

Why do so many Brits hate Donald Trump?

Someone asked “Why do so many British people not like Donald Trump?”

Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England, wrote this magnificent response:

A few things spring to mind;

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.

You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W. look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

‘My God… what… have… I… created?’

If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

#951 Article XIV, Section 3: The Constitutional Equivalent of the Manhattan Project?

81 years ago this month (Aug. 13, 1942 to be precise) The United States - along with the United Kingdom and Canada - commenced on what would become known as the “Manhattan Project.” For those who don’t know much about mid-20th century history (or have not as yet seen the movie “Oppenheimer,” starring the Irish actor Cillian Murphey as the fabled yet troubled nuclear physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer), the “Manhattan Project” was the top-secret program to make the first atomic bombs during World War II. The project, which employed more than 130,000 people over a period of nearly 5 years, had profound impacts on world history.  It was a truly monumental effort created, crafted and accomplished in the darkest of all earthly shadows.  Without it, it is likely that the Allies would never have defeated the Axis in 1945; only G-d knows what the world would look like today, in 2023.

To a haunting extent, we are once again faced with an evil that threatens our very future: Donald Trump and the threat he and his MAGA cultists pose to the very future of democracy. In both political and psychological terms he himself is a freak of nature.

Despite having been twice impeached; currently facing 4 separate state and federal indictments totaling 91 different charges; having been found guilty of defamation of character against a woman who accused him of rape; having been caught spreading more than 30,000 lies and mistruths during his four years in the White House; getting his followers to pay his legal fees . . . etc., etc., etc., his supporters trust him more than their families or religious leaders. This essay is not the place to get into a discussion of either the nature of cult leaders and their rabid followers or the psychology behind conspiracies . . . though both deserve a thorough airing.

It seems pretty obvious that behind closed doors, a vast percentage of Republican office-holders despise Trump (who my friend Alan refers to as “The Orange Blob”) and wish he and his MAGA maniacs would just fade away. They know and understand (again, “behind closed doors”) that he represents clear and present danger to America. Sadly, most all of them - save former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie - lack the backbone to speak the truth in public. What they pray for is some sort of “magic bullet” that will do Trump in without their having to lift a finger or utter a discouraging word . . . and the skies are not cloudy all day.

Back in 1942, when the future of democracy was in dire straits, the “magic bullet” was underwritten by the FDR Administration, who turned to the sages of science . . . people like J. Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard, Hans Bethe and Ernest O. Lawrence to create that weapon. (Do note that with the exception of Dr. Lawrence, the rest of these distinguished physicists who headed up the Manhattan Project were all Jewish immigrants.) Today, the magic bullet so many seek to put Donald Trump out of democracy’s pending degradation, may well come in the form of Article XIV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, which states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

     Prof. Laurence Tribe and Judge J. Michael Luttig

A couple of days ago, Laurence Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard Law and J. Michael Luttig, the longtime (1991-2006) Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, co-authored a remarkable article in the Atlantic entitled “The Constitution Prohibits Trump from Ever Being President Again."  The two august Constitutional scholars - Tribe a progressive and Luttig a conservative who has often been compared to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, began their article thusly: As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

“The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause. …

Tribe and Luttig are by no means the first to discuss - let alone conclude - that Article XIV, Section 3 can and should disqualify Donald J. Trump from ever again serving as POTUS.  Indeed, this legal/political thread has been a hotly debated issue among academics and political geeks since January 7, 2021.  The swirl of approval surrounding the use of XIV:3 to remove the “disability of Donald Trump" has been growing ever since. Many of the most vocal are conservative members of the Federalist Society.

Writing in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, members of the conservative Federalist Society, agree: “In our view, on the basis of the public record, former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack.”   

This is not to say that there is total agreement ridding the nation of Trump via Constitutional mandate; some are uncertain that it can work.  Since when was there unanimous agreement on anything concerning “the Orange Blob?” And yet, this could be, as they say in Yiddish פֿון הימל קומט אַ מתּנה - “a gift from Heaven.” For Democrats, most Independents and all those Republicans who really, truly don’t want Trump to win the nomination - thus bringing a plague of frogs, lice, vermin and utter defeat at the polls raining on their political parade - this provides the perfect out: keeping quiet and letting the Constitution answer their “behind locked doors” prayers.

As journalist Bill Press, my long ago boss in Governor Jerry Brown’s “Office of Planning and Research” noted just the other day: The language (of article XIV, Section 3) is so clear, not even today’s conservative Supreme Court could read the Constitution any other way. Trump is not only unfit to be president, but he is also constitutionally prohibited from holding that office. Period.    For leaders of the Republican Party, the next step is clear. Follow the 14th Amendment. It’s time to stop entertaining Donald Trump and find another candidate.”

  One gigantic difference between the Manhattan Project and Article XIV, Section 3 of the Constitution is that the former was done under cover of darkness, while the latter is (hopefully) going to be concluded in the bright light of day.

Here’s looking to a better, more democratic tomorrow . . .

Copyright©2023 Kurt Franklin Stone

#950: I Really Do Love Israel . . . However

There is an old tale (most likely originally told in Yiddish) about a Jewish man who got lost at sea and eventually made his way to an uncharted island in the middle of nowhere. After many decades, a passing ship noted smoke rising from the heretofore unknown piece of land, and thus sent a small launch in its direction to check it out and satisfy their curiosity. Tying up their launch, less than a half-mile from the island’s shore, they swam over and were amazed to be greeted by an elderly man with a long beard.

After exchanging pleasantries and learning how he had wound up being there - and that he really had no idea precisely how long ago that was - he asked if he could take them on a brief tour so that he could show them the beauty of his home. The visitors were amazed to discover that over the years the old man had created numerous vegetable gardens, a small patch of land devoted to growing wheat which provided him with flour, a lovely pasture with goats and sheep, and a hatchery for fish. He proudly showed them the grass hut he had built for his home, and then urged them to go with him to the other side of the island so that he could show them "the pièce de résistance.” Trekking to the other side of the island, they immediately spotted two beautiful huts standing proudly on their own mound of highly compacted sand.

“And what are these?” the launch leader asked, “and why are there two, considering that there are no other people living here?”

“Ah,” said the old man, “a good question indeed. Why two? You see, the elderly fellow told them, these are my two shuls.” Quickly seeing the lack of comprehension in their faces, he said : “My two synagogues . . . my places of Jewish worship.”

“But why two?” they asked once again. “Simple,” he told them.” Then pointing to the one on the right he proudly told them “This is the synagogue I go to religiously seven days a week, three times a day in order to pray.” "

“And the other one?” the leader asked.

“That’s the one I would never step foot in!” he said, spitting on the sandy ground . . .

“The Talmudic Argument” by Giuseppe Bonalini

This whimsical bit or irony is probably best understood by what we Jewish folk refer to as “M-O-T” - namely, “Members Of the Tribe.” You see, for as long as we’ve existed, despite being a single people (עם אחד - ahm echad - in Hebrew), we have had our arguments, disputes, and fallings-out with one another. Sometimes they have been vehement enough to cause one segment to walk away from another - e.g. building a shul to which no one goes, as in the story above. But in the long run, over many millennia, we have, more often than not, stood shoulder-to-shoulder when things got really dicey.

Another tale - this from the Talmud: Rabbi Eliezer was in an argument with five fellow rabbis over the proper way to perform a certain ritual. The other five Rabbis were all in agreement with each other, but Rabbi Eliezer vehemently disagreed. Finally, Rabbi Nathan pointed out "Eliezer, the vote is five to one! Give it up already!" Eliezer got fed up and said "If I am right, may God himself tell you so!" Thunder crashed, the heavens opened up, and the voice of God boomed down. "YES, RABBI ELIEZER IS RIGHT. RABBI ELIEZER IS PRETTY MUCH ALWAYS RIGHT." Rabbi Nathan turned and conferred with the other rabbis for a moment, then turned back to Rabbi Eliezer. "All right, Eliezer," he said, "the vote stands at five to TWO."

OK. I’ve - hopefully - gotten the point across that among Jews, arguing can sometimes be akin to sport, sometimes a matter of seriousness.  So let’s get serious . . .  

Over the past year or so, politics in מדינת ישראל (midinat Yisrael - the “State of Israel”) has become more than the subject of argumentation; they have become both unsettling and potentially earth-shattering.  In many ways, what’s been happening on the Israeli political scene is not all that much different from what’s going on in the United States: an increasingly right-wing, religion-driven minority enacting their other-worldly will over the will of the majority . . . as well as leaders whose greatest desire is to remain (or regain) their seat of power in order to stay out of prison.

        Israeli P.M. Bibi Netanyahu

Over the past two years, Israel has seen a number of governments collapse due to coalition partners being unable and unwilling to work with one another. Not even a so-called “Unity Government” could get along. To American observers of Israeli politics, their system is close to incomprehensible; it has aspects of British Parliamentarianism (from which the executive branch achieves its power) and the post-Ataturk Turkish Republic system of governance. Like the U,.K. (and New Zealand, Canada and Saudi Arabia), Israel has no constitution . . . which is part of their problem. Its heterodynamic (sometimes active, sometimes dormant) system makes political unity all but impossible. Case in point: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, the state’s longest-serving PM, in order to remain in that post, cobbled together a coalition which included two of the most ultra-orthodox parties in the business. In turn, these parties - which represent a small minority of the country’s voters and/or wishes, have the power to turn one of the world’s most modern, best-educated, and most technically advanced countries into a 8,560 square mile (approximately the size of New Jersey) shetl . . . the name for medieval Eastern European Jewish market town where rabbis ruled, women’s main tasks were to cook, clean and bear children, and there was no distinction between secular and religious.

This not having a constitution wasn’t the original plan. Israel’s Declaration of Independence explicitly called for a constitution, and the first Knesset (parliament), elected on January 25, 1949, was supposed to create one. They deliberated it for many months but the discussions reached a deadlock. It rapidly became clear that no constitution would be enacted; instead the Knesset would enact a series of Basic Laws that would in time be combined into a constitution. After nearly three-quarters-of-a-century, Israelis are still waiting.

Bibi Netanyahu’s current governing coalition is, as mentioned above, easily the most ultra-conservative and religious in Israel’s history. This is not to say that the various religious parties have remained on the political sidelines up until now. To the contrary: religious parties have always held seats within the 120 member Knesset and have been minor partners in various coalitions in exchange for which they fulfill their major goals. To wit, maintaining the Orthodox strangle-hold on marriages, divorces and conversions, receiving deferments for their young men from military service (so that they may spend their lives studying Talmud) and receiving monetary appropriations directed to the haredim (Hebrew for “those who tremble” - the most ultra-Orthodox) community. On May 23, 2023, Netanyahu’s Knesset approved a raise for Agudat Israel and Otzma Yehudit - the two most powerful religious parties - NIS 250 million raise, to be used for building additional settlements. Even this “chanukah present” came as the result of argumentation: the two party’s opening demand was for NIS 600 million. The cash handouts to the ultra-Orthodox have sparked anger as Israelis of all backgrounds contend with soaring prices and increased interest rates.

Netanyahu’s pandering to the religious parties in his coalition (there are five different parties occupying 31 of the 64-seats making up this session’s majority), has led him to pass legislation calling for a complete overhaul of the Jewish State’s Supreme Court. The 15-member court — which meets in a graceful building on a hill in Jerusalem alongside Parliament — includes secular liberals, religiously observant Jews and conservative residents of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. One justice is an Arab Israeli; six are women, including the court’s president.

  Protesting Netanyahu as a Threat to Democracy

The government has primed itself for battle against the court by portraying it as a bastion of a secular, left-leaning elite and a closed club out of touch with changes sweeping the country. Experts say that characterization has not been true for years.  On September 12, the Court will hold hearings on the overhaul legislation . . . putting them in the Orwellian position  of ruling on their own legitimacy. The legislation in question cancels the court’s ability to use the somewhat vague and subjective standard of reasonableness to overturn government decisions and appointments.  This has raised the hackles and the ire of Israel’s politically astute, mostly secular, majority.  Many believe that Netanyahu has pushed for this legislation as a means of circumventing his own legal problems. 

At the same time, Netanyahu’s ultra-Orthodox allies in the Knesset are seeking to expand the powers of all-male rabbinical courts, and to bar women and men from mixing in many public arenas.  As part of his agreement to give his ultra-Orthodox allies what they want in exchange for keeping him in power, Netanyahu has already made several concessions that have unsettled secular Israelis. Among them are proposals to segregate audiences by sex at some public events, to create new religious residential communities, to allow businesses to refuse to provide services based on religious beliefs, and to expand the powers of all-male rabbinical courts.  Israel’s laws have not been amended to reflect the concessions, but some fear that the changes are already coming, at the expense of women. The Israeli news media has been full of reports in recent months about incidents seen as discriminatory. 

Bus drivers in central Tel Aviv and southern Eilat have refused to pick up young women, because they were wearing crop tops or workout clothes. Last month, ultra-Orthodox men in the religious town of Bnei Brak stopped a public bus and blocked the road because a woman was driving.  As a response, members of בונות אלטרנטיבה (Bonot Alternativa,  Hebrew for “Building an Alternative,”, a  pro-democracy group, as well as a nonpartisan umbrella group of women’s organizations) show up at weekly antigovernment protests dressed in scarlet robes and white wimples that mimic those of the disenfranchised women forced to bear children in the dystopian television show based on Margaret Atwood’s novel “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

There are any number of similarities between Netanyahu’s obsessive need to maintain his premiership, and  Donald Trump’s need to regain his presidency: Both need to give in to their country’s most conservative supporters in order to retain (or regain) power; Both are narcissistic ego-maniacs; Both need power in order to stay out of prison.  

Why Trump needs to be reelected is obvious; everyone in the world knows of all the legal challenges he faces.  Unless he returns to the White House in January 2025, he’s going to wind up in Leavenworth; no Democratic POTUS would ever deign to grant him a pardon.

In the case of Bibi Netanyahu, not nearly so many people know that he has been charged with fraud, breach of trust and corruption. He has pleaded not guilty and says he is the victim of a politically orchestrated “witch-hunt” by the media and the left to remove him from office. (Sound familiar?) As a sitting Prime Minister, he cannot be forced to leave office. (BTW: Netanyahu is not the only member of the cabinet with a troubled legal past: Deputy P.M. Aryeh Deri was convicted of taking $155,000 in bribes while serving as the interior minister, and was given a three-year jail sentence in 2000; Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir has faced charges of hate speech against Arabs and was previously convicted of supporting a terrorist group known as Kach, which espoused an extremist religious Zionist ideology.)

There are those who, reading this post, will accuse me of being either a “self-hating Jew,” a “Jewish anti-Semite,” or a “radical anti-Zionist.” Nothing could be further from the truth. I really, truly love the people of Israel; I love its history, its language and literature (I speak, read and write Hebrew with passable fluency); I love its many, many achievements in the worlds of science, medicine, technology and the arts; of how this tiny country is, generally speaking, the first one to send emergency medical services to both friend and foe alike whenever and wherever the need arises.  I also love it enough to forgive those on the religious right who do not consider me a rabbi, nor will permit me to perform a wedding or effect a conversion within its borders.  G-d willing, some day that will change . . . if and when the people who see the Jewish state the same way I do, recognize that they/we are a majority.

What troubles me - and greatly so - is the direction its politics have taken over the past many years. The very nature of Israel’s national identify has been radically altered by a small faction that seeks to replace the Zionist-humanitarian-socialist democracy of Ben Gurion, Golda Meier and the founders, and turn it into an unrecognizable place based on a rigid Biblical/Rabbinic code of law . . . even if it means going against the will of the majority.

But make no mistake about it: one can be inalterably opposed to this wrenching right-wing turn and still be a patriotic מאהב ישראל (m’ahayv Yisrael _ a ”lover of Israel”). 

Debate, disagreement and divisiveness, after all is said and done, are all part of the Jewish genome.

Copyright©2023 Kurt Franklin Stone

#946: Senator Potato Head

Were it not that Alabama’s senior senator Tommy Tuberville is single-handedly holding up Senate approval of virtually tens of dozens of Generals, Colonels and Admirals to lead the nation’s military, he might easily be the butt of every late-night talk show host not currently picking up a paycheck from Fox, Newsmax or OAN.  But what he is doing is far from funny.  In matter of fact, he is engaged in one of the most dangerous, mindless and thoroughly unpatriotic of all political ploys in the nation’s history.  What’s gotten the Alabama football coach-turned-senator particularly obstructive and petulant is the Pentagon’s decision to reimburse female service members for travel-related abortion expenses, as many of them are stationed in states that are hostile to reproductive rights. Not only that, he is demanding that these women be confined to base and be disallowed from traveling to another state where abortion is still practicable.

Because the overwhelming majority of upper-echelon military promotions are approved by unanimous consent in the Senate, if even one senator objects, the whole process is derailed.  Tuberville has flatly stated that if senators don’t like his unilateral move they can always vote on each separate officer . . . by on-the-record voice votes . . . which would take months to achieve. For decades, all these vacancies have been filled within a few minutes, thus saving time for the senate to engage in other serious business.

Because of the senator’s “feet-in-concrete” position - putting abortion ahead of America’s military readiness at a critical time in history - the United States Marine Corps will be without a Commandant for the first time in 164 years . . .  since before the Civil War.  The last time the Marine Corps was left without an acting commandant was in 1859, when Archibald Henderson, the fifth commandant of the Marines, died at 76 without a successor in place.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger officially retired on this past Monday, leaving Assistant Commandant Gen. Eric Smith as the acting commandant and leader of the military branch until he is confirmed in the Senate.

It’s unclear when Smith could be confirmed. Tuberville’s hold on the Pentagon nominees, which he began in March to protest the Defense Department’s new abortion policy, shows no signs of weakening, even as the block has sparked bipartisan frustration. In addition to the Commandant’s position, there is that of Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. Mark Milley, the current chairman, who retires in September. As of late June, Tuberville’s hold was nearing the beginning of its sixth month. Talk about obduracy!

In a piece he (or a member of his staff or one of his financial supporters) wrote and published in The Washington Post, the former Ole Miss (1995-1998) and Auburn (1999-2008) head coach tried to defend his much maligned move in stating “Acting officials are in each one of the positions that are due for a promotion. The hold affects only those at the very top — generals and flag officers. The people who actually fight are not affected at all.”  This statement all but proves that Tuberville is the dimmest bulb in the lamp, for not only are all those “who actually fight” without official leadership; they are denied the 5.2% pay raise guaranteed in the Defense Department appropriation bill, which is now larded with anti-abortion amendments, thus guaranteeing it will never pass the Senate.

  And what’s more, between 5,000 to 7,400 active-duty service members or civilians employed by the DoD (Department of Defense) have an abortion each year, according to the RAND Corporation. And following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, 40 percent of active-duty female service members live in states where abortion care is unavailable or severely restricted. That’s roughly 18 percent of the active duty military in this country. On top of that, the U.S. military is plagued by alarming levels of sexual assault. So if one happen to stationed in a state with an abortion ban—which may or may not have rape exceptions—the help with travel expenses could be life-changing.

The press has been reporting on Tommy Tuberville’s political shortcomings ever since he first threw his hat into the ring back in 2019. At his first post-election interview, he misidentified the three branches of the federal government (he said they were “House, Senate and Executive”), claimed erroneously that World War II was a battle against socialism, and wrongly asserted that former Vice President Al Gore was president-elect for 30 days. Up until defeating incumbent Senator Doug Jones, he was best known for having defeated in-state rival University of Alabama football team six times in a row and being named Walter Camp Coach of the Year in 2004.  But now, he is getting to be even better known for waging his one-man war against the Department of Defense - at what cost and what purpose no one knows for sure. 

Despite both his fame on the gridiron and infamy in the U.S. Senate, there is still some uncertainty as to the correct pronunciation of  his last name: is it "Tubber-ville” or Tuber-ville?” I’ve heard both. I rather prefer the latter, (Tuber-ville). The first doesn’t work so well; he is anything but physically out of shape. When it comes to mental acuity, he is more like the tuber - a potato or yam or huti huti. Hence the nickname with which I’ve chosen to endow him: “Senator Potato Head.”  

Despite this, the senior senator from Alabama (the junior being Katie Boyd Britt) is no laughing matter; he is a man to be extremely wary of. For not only has he chosen to place a partisan political roadblock in the path of the nation’s military; he has chosen to put service to a sectarian religious creed over service to an historic need . . . namely, keeping the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Merchant Marine far away from politics. And what’s worse, he has also declared that to be a White Christian Nationalist serving in the military is the sign of a patriot.

How very much like a greasy French fry.

Copyright©2023 Kurt Franklin Stone

#943: A Scintilla of Sanity?

           Reps. Adam Schiff & Anna Paulina Luna

The way things go these days of future passed (a reference to the Moody Blues, not the X-Men franchise which is, btw, “. . . future past), many hopeful, potentially ground-breaking news stories never make it into the headlines, but rather - as Grandpa Doc used to refer to it - “ . . . just beneath the truss ads on page 47.” Case in point: While virtually every network, cable, and print media outlet made loud, large headlines out of FPOTUS Donald J. Trump’s pleading innocent to 37 federal charges in a Miami court the other day, little to nothing was mentioned about the fact that 20 - count ‘em 20 - House Republicans refused to support Florida Representative Anna Paulina Luna’s (née Meyerhofer) censure resolution concerning Democrat Adam Schiff.

Seeking to vault herself into the topflight rank of MAGA extremists (ala MTG, Boebert, Gaetz, and Higgins) the first-term Republican who represents Florida’s 13th C.D. moved to expel Schiff - the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee and lead impeachment manager (prosecutor) in the first impeachment trial of then-POTUS Trump. In addition to seeking Schiff’s expulsion from the House, Luna’s resolution also called for the California Democrat to be fined an astounding $16 million. In introducing H. Res 412, Luna told an empty House chamber: “Adam Schiff lied to the American people. He used his position on House Intelligence to push a lie that cost American taxpayers millions of dollars and abused the trust placed in him as Chairman. He is a dishonor to the House of Representatives . . . The Durham Report makes clear that the Russian Collusion was a lie from day one and Schiff knowingly used his position in an attempt to divide our country.”

(n.b. The “Durham Report,” which was named after Trump-era special counsel John Durham, who was tasked with reviewing the origins of the FBI's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Four years after his probe began, Durham concluded the Justice Department and FBI "failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law" about the events during the 2016 election. He also found senior FBI personnel "displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities." And he concluded the FBI had relied heavily on investigative leads provided by Trump opponents. 

But much of the information disclosed in Durham's report had already been revealed in a 2019 examination conducted by the Justice Department inspector general into the origins of the FBI's probe into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. That investigation identified several procedural errors, but overall concluded there was no "political bias" at the bureau.)

Outside of attempting to earn some street cred and score some points with her colleagues on the LUNAtic right, I can think of no other reason why the Florida fresher would ever take on a man of Adam Schiff’s stature.  Ever since the days when Schiff, then serving as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Central District of California won a major conviction in the trial of Richard Miller, a former FBI agent who spied for the Soviet Union, he has been on virtually every political cognoscenti’s watch list.  In many, many ways, Adam Schiff has always impressed me as the living embodiment of John Cheever’s "Larry Crutchman” (from his brilliant 1958 short, short story The Worm in the Apple): too good, too successful, too even-tempered, too meritorious to be true  . . . at least for cynics.  But like Larry Crutchman, with Adam Schiff, what you see is what you get . . . he’s just that good.  So in what world could a political neophyte like Anna Paulina Luna ever believe she could bring down a congressional colossus like the gentleman from California’s 28th C.D.?

She must have been dreaming . . . or else taking nips from the bottle of MAGA merlot.

In his more than two-decade House career, Adam Schiff has as mentioned above, served as chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, manager of Donald Trump’s first impeachment, and as one of seven Democratic members of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6, 2021 Attack on the U.S. Capitol. In comparison, Ms. Luna, in addition to trying to expel Mr. Schiff from the House and fine him $16 million, has cosponsored H.Res.113 - Ukraine Fatigue Resolution, (sponsored by Florida Representative Matt Gaetz, which would suspend all foreign aid for the War in Ukraine and demand that all combatants in this conflict reach a peace agreement immediately. She was also among 52 Republicans who voted in favor H. Con. Res. 30, (sponsored by Matt Gaetz) which would remove American troops from Somalia. In baseball terms, Anna Paulina Luna is the Aberdeen IronWorks (the Oriole’s single-A affiliate) challenging the Los Angeles Dodgers and expecting to beat them hands-down.   

In addition to all his accomplishments in the public arena, Adam Schiff is also a truly great writer and a masterly orator . . . when the situation calls for it. (At one point he wanted to be a screenwriter. I personally have had the pleasure of reading some of his stuff through the generosity of his father Ed.)  Adam’s concluding speech before the vote on impeaching Donald Trump the first time has received some of the highest accolades imaginable. He began his speech  with a quote from a letter that Alexander Hamilton wrote to President George Washington, at the height of the Panic of 1792, a financial credit crisis that shook our young nation:

“When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanour—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”

He also quoted Abraham Lincoln’s message to Congress in December 1862: “Fellow citizens we cannot escape history. We of this congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation.”

The response to Chairman Schiff’s speech was - except on the part of Trump supporters in the media - overwhelmingly - even historically - positive:

• Greg Miller national security correspondent for the Washington Post who contended that Schiff is perhaps the most “underestimated” politician California has ever produced, predicted that the speech “will leave a mark on history, exceeding nearly all contemporaries.”

• Richard Stengel, the former editor of Time magazine declared: “When we get back to teaching civics in this country—as we must do—Adam Schiff’s sweeping, beautifully-wrought opening argument, should be on the syllabus.”

• The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin insisted that Schiff had delivered “the most brilliant legal presentation I have heard. None comes close. The tone, the facts, the anticipated defenses. I am in awe.”

• Former Mueller probe investigator Andrew Weissmann, said that Schiff’s speech reminded him of a quote (perhaps falsely) attributed to Lincoln: “’To sin by silence, when they should protest, Makes a coward of men.’ That’s the people who are thinking it’s better to stay silent and ‘I can do better by trying to do the right thing.’ This is really an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment where people really need to stand up.”

• Former Bill Clinton advisor Paul Begala, claimed Schiff’s oratory was, “Sweeping yet specific. Eloquent yet clear. Relentless recitation of damning facts, but with a tone more of sadness than anger. Rooted in our deepest traditions – opening with Alexander Hamilton – yet as current as Trump’s latest tweet. Brilliant.”

And yet, despite all the facts favoring Adam Schiff - at least on paper would have him retaining his seat - the odds seemed long that the MAGA-controlled House would permit Rep. Luna’s H. Res. 142 to go down to defeat.  

And then, something remarkable happened: a scintilla of sanity swept over the House of Representatives. When the final vote was tallied, (20, count ‘em 20) Republicans voted to block the resolution of censure! The final vote was 225-196-7 in favor of killing the measure . . . at least for now. Schiff, in comments after the vote, said he was “frankly surprised.” “And I think it showed a lot of courage for Republican members to stand up to the crazy MAGA folks,” he said “I’m astounded by the vote frankly; it was basically almost 1 of 10 Republicans voted against this resolution,” Schiff later added.  Rep. Luna, who up until the day of the vote Adam Schiff had never met, has promised to come back with another try.

 For the record, the 20 Republicans voting in favor of tabling the resolution were: Reps. Kelly Armstrong (N.D.), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Ore.), Juan Ciscomani (Ariz.), Tom Cole (Okla.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Kay Granger (Texas), Garret Graves (La.), Thomas Kean Jr. (N.J.), Kevin Kiley (Calif.), Young Kim (Calif.), Mike Lawler (N.Y.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Tom McClintock (Calif.), Mark Molinaro (N.Y.), Jay Obernolte (Calif.), Mike Simpson (Idaho), Mike Turner (Ohio), David Valadao (Calif.) and Steve Womack (Ark.).

Interestingly,  Rep. George Santos, the House “Liar-in-Chief” who hours earlier had posted a video on Twitter arguing that Schiff needed to be investigated, wound up voting “present” - certifying that he was there, but chose not to vote. Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie, who voted in favor of tabling the resolution, proved that it is possible for one to do the right thing for the wrong reason. In his statement explaining his vote, he said he would vote against the censure resolution, aligning with Democrats

 “Adam Schiff acted unethically but if a resolution to fine him $16 million comes to the floor, I will vote to table it. (Vote against it) In fact, I’m still litigating a federal lawsuit against Pelosi over a salary reduction she imposed on me for my refusal to wear a mask,” Massie tweeted.

 In other words, Massie couldn't vote for this idiotic censure/expulsion/financial fine measure because it might complicate his equally idiotic lawsuit against Nancy Pelosi. Gift horses, you know. Mouths.

 Whatever their reasons, the fact that one-in-ten Republicans turned against Rep. Luna(tic)’s resolution is a very good thing. Could it indicate that a measure of mental health, a scintilla of sanity has, even if but for a moment, returned to the House of Representatives? Could it mean that for the first time in a long time, merely being opposed to a person’s politics need not mean that the person you disagree with should have their career, their life’s work emblazoned with a scarlet letter . . . or in this case, perhaps, a yellow star?

 One can only hope.

 Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

#941: Ulysses S. Grant, Donald Trump, Kari Lake, Andy Biggs, Voltaire, Isaac Asimov and Stochastic Terrorism

Move over President Grant: As of this coming Tuesday, you will no longer be sui generis . . . in a class by yourself. For the past 151 years you have held the dubious distinction of being the only POTUS to have been arrested. If memory serves well, it was back in 1872 that you were arrested and taken into custody for speeding on a street in the nation’s Capitol. Truth to tell, you weren’t the only one racing a horse-drawn cart that day; a couple of your friends were engaged in competition . . . they likewise were cited. Your bail was set at $20.00 (the equivalent of $500.00 in today’s money) and you were released back to your residence: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The day after your arrest, you didn’t show up in court to answer charges, and thus lost your $20.00. Case closed.

This coming Tuesday (June 13, 2023), fPOTUS Donald J. Trump, along with his ‘Diet Coke valet’ Walt Nauta, will appear in Federal Court in Miami to answer a 49-page, 38-count Federal indictment (read here)  including 31 counts under the Espionage Act of “willful retention” of classified records at his Florida estate and other locations after he left office on January 20, 2021.  The product of more than 6 months of investigation under the leadership of special prosecutor Jack Smith the indictment is extraordinarily comprehensible; a word rarely associated with a Federal indictment  It is also extremely nerve-wracking and makes one wonder just how well the fPOTUS is sleeping. It can’t be very well. I mean, in addition to this latest packet of legal pain, Trump is heading into Miami with two of his best attorneys no longer on the case. He has but one currently working for him . . . far too few for such a hydra-headed beast. Who knows what legal jeopardy all his former attorneys are themselves facing? (Methinks MAGA stands for “Making attorneys get attorneys”).

And he still has all his troubles in Georgia.

In great detail, the indictment recounts how Trump stashed hundreds of documents marked “confidential,” “secret” and “top-secret.”  It also recounts how on several occasions (some were taped) he waved a document around in front of a visitor to Mar-a-Lago, telling them “This is really secret and I know I shouldn’t show it to you but . . .”  Many contained highly classified military and even nuclear matters which, it they found their way into the hands of, say, Russia, China, Iran or North Korea, could be potentially catastrophic. The precise reason why Trump squirreled away all these documents is anyone’s guess:

• For future sale?  

• As a form of “good-faith currency” for future business deals in foreign countries?

• To feed his own ego?

 Last night, Trump addressed several thousand Republican stalwarts in Columbus, GA  at a brick building that ironically, was once an ironworks that manufactured mortars, guns and cannons for the Confederate Army in the Civil War. In this, his first public utterance since the indictment was released to the media, he resorted to using apocalyptic language, tying together a litany of personal afflictions and affronts - his indictments by prosecutors, his utter disdain for the DOJ and FBI, and his bid for the White House - as part of a “final battle” with “corrupt” forces that he maintained are destroying the country. “This is the final battle,” he told his supporters. I use the word “ironic” in describing the building in which he and his acolytes were gathered, because he is, of course, speaking in unguarded terms about a civil war.  

      Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet, 1694-1778)

What the fPOTUS is verbally engaged in is what some call stochastic terrorism. Coming from the Greek stochastikos, which means “skillful in aiming” or “proceeding by guesswork,” stochastic terrorism commonly defined as “The public demonization of a person, or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted.” To the best of my knowledge it first appeared in an article in the August 9, 2016 edition of Rolling Stone magazine in which author David S. Cohen used the term to describe Donald Trump's suggestion that "Second Amendment people" could "do" something about Hillary Clinton:

Stochastic terrorism, as described by a blogger who summarized the concept several years back, means using language and other forms of communication "to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable."

Long before Donald Trump, there was Voltaire, the French Enlightenment writer and philosopher who understood stochastic terrorism vis-à-vis people like Donald Trump and his MAGAites when he wrote “Those who can make us believe absurdities can make us commit atrocities” ("Ceux qui peuvent nous faire croire à des absurdités peuvent nous faire commettre des atrocités").  Along these same lines, Isaac Asimov, one of our times’ greatest polymaths knew that “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” 

Try as I may, I cannot decide whether the fPOTUS’s mouthiest, seemingly most virulent cheerleaders - people like former Arizona newscaster (and failed 2022 gubernatorial candidate) Kari Lake, Arizona Representative Andy Biggs and Louisiana Representative  Clay Higgins, among others - are really, truly as fixated on the idea of breaking up the United States through violence as they seem . . . or are merely in need of staying on 45’s good side.  Speaking in lieu of former VP Mike Pence at the Saturday gathering in Columbus, Georgia (after Pence, at the last minute pulled out), she told the cheering crowd ““If you want to get to President Trump, you are going to have go through me, and you are going to have to go through 75 million Americans just like me. And I’m going to tell you, most of us are card-carrying members of the N.R.A.”  This is chilling  stuff, to be sure.  This is one wacky woman who has changed political affiliations and religions the way many of us change socks. She used to be a liberal Democrat (voting for both John Kerry and Barack Obama); now she is about as far right as you can get.  She grew up as a Catholic, at one time identified as a Buddhist  according to her friends, and as of 2022, she identified as a evangelical Christian

Then there’s Arizona Representative Andy Biggs, who chairs the Judiciary subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance (a most powerful position, considering what’s going on vis-à-vis Hunter Biden’s laptop).  He responded to the 38-count indictment with the words “Eye for an eye,” which he  wrote in a post on Twitter on Friday.  Perhaps the most unhinged stochastic voice out there belongs to Louisiana Representative Clay Higgins.  In a cryptic tweet that prompted thousands of angry responses – and confusion – online, Higgins called the arraignment "a perimeter probe from the oppressors." He also used language interpreted by one author as a call for right-wing militia groups to mobilize in support of Trump when he is arraigned Tuesday in Miami.  

In language that few (including yours truly) can translate, Higgins wrote: “President Trump said he has been summoned to appear at the Federal Courthouse in Miami on Tuesday, at 3 PM. This is a perimeter probe from the oppressors. Hold. rPOTUS has this. Buckle up. 1/50K know your bridges. Rock steady calm. That is all.”  Though Higgins did not respond to a request for clarification, author, journalist and professor Jeff Sharlet took his words as a call for war. Sharlet is a scholar who knows of what he speaks: his latest book, "The Undertow: Scenes from a Slow Civil War," is an in-depth look at right-wing extremism. 

Parsing/translating Higgins’ highly jargonized tweet, Sharlet  wrote Friday on his Twitter account: “Take this seriously. ’Perimeter probe’: Higgins thinks indictment precedes bigger attack. ‘rPOTUS’: real POTUS, Trump. ‘Hold’: stand back & stand by. ‘Buckle up’: prepare for war. ‘1/50 k’: military scale maps (mostly publicly available that show nearby military installations). ‘Know your bridges’: militia speak for prepare to seize bridges.”

Indeed, we are living in extremely dangerous times. For many intelligent people, it is impossible to see how patriotic citizens could ever bring themselves to vote for such a flawed human being as Donald Trump for president. To understand how this could be, we return once again to the insights of Isaac Azimov:

“When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent.”

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti- intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone   # 🟦     

#939 A Majority of One #🟦

Besides being the title of both a superb Broadway play that ran for 556 performances back in the late 1950s, and an even better motion picture that garnered 3 Golden Globes in 1962, A Majority of One, as a concept, doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense. I mean, when you stop and think about it, isn’t a “majority of one” a rather clunky way of saying “unanimous?” It seems to be the living-breathing definition of an oxymoron.  I mean, how can a single “yeah” or “nay” vote be a majority? Actually, there has long been one place where a single vote can defeat unanimity: the United States Senate. 

Ever since 1846, the nation’s upper legislative chamber has  operated under terms of what are called the "Unanimous Consent” agreements.  As the senate website explains, these agreements "bring order and structure to floor business and expedite the course of legislation.”  Anyone who watches CSPAN has repeatedly heard an individual senator begin the day’s work with the words "I ask unanimous consent that the Senate dispenses with the reading of the previous day’s minutes.”  Then, the chair will silently count “One Mississippi, two Mississippi,” bang down the gavel and move on to the next item on the agenda . . . which may or may not call for a unanimous consent agreement.  No minutes will be read, thus saving the body from wasting at least an hour-and-a-half of its supposedly precious time. 99.999% of the time, that’s the way things work.   Rarely in its history has a single member of the United States Senate availed him/herself of right to hold up legislative action by being the sole individual to object to the unanimous consent agreement. This more often than not was done by a Southern member seeking to slow things to a deadly halt during the Civil Rights era.  

Frighteningly, a new and utterly eerie form of “Unanimous Consent” has begun emerging in political society, wherein a single citizen objects to something going on in the state, county, or town that gets the powers that be to pay immediate heed. Two cases in point: both of which involve book banning in Florida, the state where I have resided (not truly lived) for the past 41 years.

The first involves Amanda Gorman, the 25-year old poet, Harvard graduate, the nation’s first “Youth Poet Laureate” and youngest person to ever read a poem at a presidential inaugural. That poem, The Hill We Climb, immediately went viral, thus marking her as a dazzling literary talent who, like Emily Dickenson, Walt Whitman, Robert Frost, Sylvia Plath as well as Thoreau, Sandberg and Emerson could easily become, in her time the American poet. What all these great poets had in common was an ear attuned to their own time and station, as well as being the quintessence of America.  The two things they did not share with one another was that they were neither African American, nor visible to millions via YouTube.     

Ms. Gorman composed the poem on short notice; she was invited to serve as inaugural poet in late December 2020. During such challenging times this was no small task. Gorman, as befitting a Harvard alumna, conducted preliminary research by reading the poems of previous inaugural poets (and talking to two of them, Richard Blanco and Elizabeth Alexander) and studying speeches of famous orators such as Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Winston Churchill. As reported by The New York Times, Gorman had completed about half of the poem when the January 6 events unfolded at the U.S. Capitol. The events spurred her to finish the poem late that night, with several new lines alluding to what had transpired. 

Despite all her breath-taking talent, her having taken center-stage at both a presidential inauguration and the U.N, General Assembly, a single parent’s complaint about her inaugural poem resulted in her book containing that poem being pulled from the library shelf in a Miami-Dade County (Florida) school.  The parent making the complaint (Daily Salinas) alleged that the book in which the poem was included, ". . .  would cause confusion and indoctrinate children.”  What precisely it might "indoctrinate” them into was never stated.  The form Ms. Salinas filled out in her complaint/warning wasn’t even filled out properly: for one question, asking whether she has seen professional reviews of the materials, she replied, "I don't need it."  She also claimed that the book was both written and published by Oprah Winfrey! (In reality, Ms. Winfrey wrote the forward).  Nonetheless, the book was pulled from the library shelf at the Bob Graham Education Center, the school where her two children attend. Despite all the flaws in both Ms. Salinas’ thinking and  paperwork, the book was put under a ban; neither the principal, school librarian nor many of the teachers wished to place their careers in jeopardy.  And so, a majority of one had its way.

The second instance of a “majority of one” removing a book from a public school library shelf - by a single complainant  -  recently occurred when the Duval County (Jacksonville - the state’s largest city) Board of Education removed some 176 books from their libraries.  The list of banned books includes stories of people who are Hispanic, LGBTQ, Asian, Muslim, Black and Native American, among others.

And by the way, there is one more group: Jews who observe Shabbat. 

The censored book, Chik Chak Shabbat, by Mara Rockliff and Kyrsten Brooker has an intended audience of kids who are 7 years old and younger. (And from here, I owe a debt of extreme gratitude to my colleague Rabbi Jeffrey Salkin - a most enlightened scholar whose many online essays [Martini Judaism] are brilliant).

Chik Chak Shabbat is the tale of a woman named Goldie Simcha. Normally, she makes her famous cholent (stew) for the Jewish sabbath, but as the book opens, she is under the weather. Hence, the neighbors in her diverse apartment building find a way to help. The book is categorized by online booksellers as being appropriate for preschool through second grade.  

What could possibly be wrong with a book about making a Jewish stew for Sabbath? (Cholent is a stew that observant Jews eat on Shabbat. It is a mixture of meat, beans, potatoes and anything non-dairy one might find in the fridge or a kitchen cabinet. You light the fire on the stove before Shabbat, so as not to violate the prohibition of starting a fire on the holy day, and then let it cook. It continues cooking, slowly, of its own free will throughout Shabbat.

Cholent is the bipolar opposite of fast food. You cannot do it chik chak, (Israeli slang for “in the wink of an eye”).  I’m not sure what in the world the members of the Duval school board found to be SO damnably controversial about this book other than the fact that (a): the cholent was made by a bunch of diverse people all working together to help Goldie (nascent Communism?) and that (b), most of them - including Goldie - are immigrants . . . outsiders. Whatever it was that bothered the members of the school board (whether they had, in fact, read it or not), was enough to pull Chik Chak Shabbat off the school shelves. Another instance of a majority of one (in this case, one school board).

A Majority of One, written by Leonard Spigelglas, tells a gentle tale of a middle-aged Orthodox Jewish widow (played on Broadway by Gertrude Berg and in the film by Rosalind Russell) and a Japanese multi-millionaire industrialist who is a practicing Buddhist (played on stage by Sir Cedric Hardwicke and in the film by Sir Alec Guinness). The unlikely couple have two things in common: both widowed, and both lost children during WWII . . . her only son was killed while serving in the Pacific Theatre; his only daughter in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.  Despite their deep-seated cultural aversions, they manage to become friends - and more - through learning the lessons of tolerance, kindness, and forgiveness.  Against all odds these vastly dissimilar people become “a majority of one.” A great - though nearly impossible - lesson for our present time of political, cultural and demographic insularity.

                        H.D. Thoreau (1817-1862)

The likely origin of “a majority of one” comes from a poet mentioned above: Henry David Thoreau. In his 1849 essay Civil Disobedience, Thoreau argued that citizens must disobey the rule of law when the law proves to be unjust. Thoreau drew on his own experiences and explained in his essay why he refused to pay taxes in protest of slavery and the Mexican War. Thoreau wrote that there are two laws: the laws of men and the higher laws of God and humanity. If the laws of men are unjust, then one has every right to disobey them. He is, of course, referring to an eternal, universal moral law, not one which is either temporal or purely political. The most telling line in the essay - and the one best remembered in light of this blog article reads: " . . . any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already."

It should be noted that Thoreau’s “moral majority” has virtually nothing to do with that of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell; his “moral majority” was based not on universal principles, but rather a narrow view of American society as seen under the flawed microscope of fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity . . . for the sake of partisan political gain.

Banning books, making immigrants, refugees, members of the LGBTQ community and other “undesirables” the scapegoats of the present time is yet another form of a “majority of one.”  In this case, the “one” is the  “one way” to understand how society must be if it is to survive. And it matters not a fig if the vast majority disagree; the “majority of one” will always live, act and believe that they - and only they - have God on their side.

One of my all-time favorite British comedies is Are You Being Served? which ran on the BBC from 1972-1985.  It dealt with the misadventures of the staff of a retail floor at “Grace Brothers” Department Store.  Filled with stereotypic (at least for Brits) characters - the fey Mr. Humphries, sexy Miss Brahams, curmudgeonly Capt. Peacock and batty Mrs. Slocomb - the half-hour show was filled with hijinks, incomprehensible Cockney and more malaprops, double-entendres and catch-phrases than can be found in all the works of Sheridan, Shaw and Oscar Wilde. My favorite of all comes from the opinionated Mrs. Slocomb (Molly Sugden) who, whenever voicing her opinion, would conclude by saying "And I am unanimous in that!”

Sounds hauntingly like the cast and crew of MAGA . . . 

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone      #🟦

#936: Ten Trillion Here, Twenty Trillion There #🟦

Fairbanks & Chaplin: 1918 Wall Street Bond Rally

Mark Twain, that most notable and quotable of all American authors once wrote “Never put off till tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow.” Because, so far as I know, he wasn’t referring to any contemporary situation in particular, his aphorism is thus both brilliant and timeless; it speaks to human nature in general.

In reflecting on how little time remains until the United States - for the first times in its history - defaults on its debt obligations . . . which, as of this past January, stood at $31.38 trillion and rising . . . Twain’s remark seems all the more tailor-made.

Trying to access blame – to determine precisely which side shoulders the greater burden in the nation’s titanic debt obligations – brings to mind yet another writer of renown:  the occasionally controversial cartoonist Walt Kelly. Kelly (1913-1973) put into the mouth of Okefenokee Swamp-dwelling oposum Pogo, his greatest creation, the immortal words “We have met the enemy and he is us!” (n.b. This is an abridgement of what Master Commandant Oliver Hazard Perry announced at the Battle of Lake Erie, when his small naval force had defeated the British in 1813: "We have met the enemy and he is ours.")

In other words, Democrats and Republicans alike share a mutual blame for America’s massive debt; it’s just that the former are more “tax-and-spend,” the latter “cut-taxes-and-spend.”  With America's Debt Ceiling about to be breached (it’s already been reached) by June 1, President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy are about to sit down and see if anything can be done. POTUS wants a “clean bill,” wherein Congress passes an increase in the ceiling without any attached budgetary strings. Period. 

By contrast, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's "Limit, Save, Grow Act" of 2023, as recently passed by the House, would require broad-based spending cuts totaling $4.5 trillion over the next decade. President Biden had said in no uncertain terms that he will refuse to sign the act into law; he spoke truth-to-power when he referred to it as "dead on arrival" in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Speaker McCarthy wants to tie any rise to a series of draconian spending cuts which would most likely affect the poorest among us: veterans, children relying on food-stamps, students being crushed by debts, Medicaid Recipients, etc.  Moreover this act mandates dramatic cuts in monies already allocated for such things as climate change programs and the addition of 78,000 new IRS agents . . . whose purpose is to make sure that millionaires and billionaires are paying their fair share.  

Can you say “stalemate?”

The United States started running up debt long before July 4, 1776.  Someone had to help pay for General Washington’s troops and the creation of the Continental Congress. The Revolutionary War was, to a great degree, financed through the selling of “Continentals bills of exchange,” arranged for by one Hayim Salomon, a Polish-born Jewish businessman living in Philadelphia. Salomon (1740-85) risked his growing fortune to travel to Europe and broker these bills of exchange at rock bottom prices. For his services, Salomon - who also made interest-free loans to many of the Founding Fathers and himself died a pauper at age 46 - charged a measly one-quarter-of-one-percent. (BTW: In 1941, Howard Fast wrote an impressive historical novel about Salomon, called Hayim Salomon: Liberty’s Son. If you are interested, there are still copies available . . . )

From 1776 to the turn of the 20th century, the Treasury Department had to go to get Congress’ approval whenever it needed to engage in deficit spending. Then, in the early 20th century, the debt limit was instituted so that the U.S. Treasury would not need to ask Congress for permission each time it had to issue debt to pay bills. During World War I, Congress passed the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 to give the Treasury more flexibility to issue debt and manage federal finances. All over the country, people gathered to buy tens of millions of dollars worth of war bonds to help finance the Great War. The most famous such gathering was on Wall Street, where movie stars Douglas Fairbanks, Charles Chaplin, Mary Pickford and Marie Dressler, along with then Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt, reached out to an estimated 20,000 people crowded into Wall Street, doing their best to get them to buy, buy, buy, lend, lend, lend. Within two hours, the assemblage bought more than $3,000,000 worth of bonds. (The actuality at the top of this article is a photo of that historic event.) Similar rallies would occur all around the country.

The first debt limit was instituted by Congress in 1939. Congress consolidated limits on specific forms of debt (e.g., separate caps on bonds and shorter-term debt) into one aggregate debt limit. The first federal debt limit was set at $45 billion and gave the Treasury Department wide discretion over what borrowing instruments to use, so long as total debt did not exceed that level. From then until now, Congress has raised the debt ceiling with every passing war (whether Congressionally mandated or not) and crisis. During the 4 years of the Trump administration, the president and Congress increased America’s debt limit by nearly 25%, due in part to an unprecedented tax cut which he sold to both Congress and the American public by claiming that it would pay for itself by greatly increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by up to 6% per annum. He was wrong.

Indeed, raising the debt ceiling used to be most commonplace, least dramatic event of a congressional session. Why even during the Trump years, Congress increased the nation’ ability to borrow on 3 separate occasions. In matter of fact, when asked about threatening spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, he told reporters “I cant think of anyone using the debt ceiling as a negotiating wedge.” (Someone should have asked a follow-up question, like “Mr. President, can you explain to us precisely what the ‘debt ceiling’ is? Come to think of it, of all 46 presidents in American history, he likely knows more about debt than any of his colleagues . . . real estate empires are, after all, colossi of debt.)

Speaker McCarthy’s insistence that the House will never accept a “clean” bill unless the White House accepts massive spending cuts is, in the words of President Biden, “D.O.A.” . . . “Dead On Arrival.” The MAGA branch of the House appears to believe that they can actually sell the American public on this toxic witches’ brew. How is that possible? Don’t they know that raising the debt limit has virtually nothing - NOTHING - to do with future spending? That cutting spending from the next budget will have no effect - NONE, NADA, GORNISHT - on what we have already committed ourselves to spending? Or, even worse, don’t they really care? Are they more interested in winning the next election - even if it means seeing the American economy go up in smoke, thus triggering the loss of millions of jobs, trillions of dollars of losses in people’s retirement savings, a major stock market crash and ensuing global depression? Are they looking to finish that which January 6, 2021 began . . . the overthrowing of the government? Nothing provides greater fodder for revolution than economic uncertainty and collapse. But do remember, all fodder is, when one puts it under a microscope, nothing more than manure.

               $1,000,000,000,000,000.00!

To be certain, there are a couple of bizarre, dystopian suggestions on the horizon. Some economists (none I trust) have stated it's time for a break-the-glass option: a trillion-dollar coin. The coin — which wouldn't need to be bigger than an average coin, and can be made quickly — as part of a potential debt-ceiling loophole. The Treasury Department can mint platinum coins of any denomination. That's led to a school of thought that says Secretary Yellen should simply mint a trillion-dollar platinum coin and deposit it to pay off the debts until a more permanent solution can be found. Even conservative economists have found the notion to be “beyond silly.” The first problem, of course, is that it would have to get past Treasury Secretary Yellin; the second that the courts would, in all likelihood, shoot it down. But this is precisely the kind of simple-mindedness that MAGA Republicans believe they can sell their base on . . . even if they themselves know it is twaddle.

Then, there is a theory being discussed behind closed doors at the White House ,that the government would be required by the 14th Amendment to continue issuing new debt to pay bondholders, Social Security recipients, government employees and others, even if Congress fails to lift the limit before the so-called X-date. This theory rests on the 14th Amendment clause stating that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Some legal scholars contend that this language overrides the statutory borrowing limit, which currently caps federal debt at $31.4 trillion and requires congressional approval to raise or lift. Top economic and legal officials at the White House, the Treasury Department and the Justice Department have made that theory a subject of intense and unresolved debate in recent months, according to several people familiar with the discussions.

It is unclear whether President Biden would support such a move, which would have serious ramifications for the economy and almost undoubtedly elicit legal challenges from Republicans. Continuing to issue debt in that situation would avoid an immediate disruption in consumer demand by maintaining government payments, but borrowing costs are likely to soar, at least temporarily.

Oh how I wish I had paid better attention to Dr. Daniel Suits’ class in “The Politics of Economics” 50+ years ago! All I know at this point in time is that playing “Debt Chicken” is an incredibly dangerous, economically lethal, game.

As of today, all I can hear is Ella Fitzgerald singing “Something’s Gotta Give.” Where oh where are the adults? There’s far, far more to politics than winning another term . . . or the White House, or taking back the Senate. Whatever happened to doing the right thing for the nation?

To paraphrase the late Senator Everett Dirksen (after whom a senate office building is named): “A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone #🟦

#935 Let's Heed Florence Kahn's Advice (Satire) #🟦

           Rep. Florence Prag Kahn (1866-1948)

Of the more than nearly 225 Jewish men and women who have served in the United States Congress, one of my favorites, without question, is Florence Prag Kahn, who represented what would eventually become Sala Burton’s, Barbara Boxer’s and Nancy Pelosi’s District in San Francisco. In interviewing the three for my mammoth biographic works The Congressional Minyan (2000) and The Jews of Capitol Hill (2010) they all remembered with great fondness the many hours they had spent with their young children (and now grandchildren) at the Julius Kahn Playground and Clubhouse which was named after Florence’s late husband Julius, himself a member of Congress for 24 years. Located at Jackson and Spruce, the “JK” is the nation’s largest urban park.

Born in Salt Lake City, Utah on November 9, 1866, her parents, who had immigrated from Poland in the early 1860s, were actually friends with the Mormon leader Brigham Young.

Florence Prag Kahn lived a life of firsts:

• The first Jew born in Utah

• The first woman to graduate from Berkeley (class of 1887)

• The first woman to manage a congressional campaign (for her husband Julius, in 1899)

• The first Jewish woman elected to the House of Representatives

• The first woman to serve on both the House Military Affairs and Appropriations Committees.

Additionally, she was largely responsible for the funding of both the Golden Gate and Oakland Bay Bridges, and was so instrumental in the early funding of the FBI that its director, J. Edgar Hoover, always referred to her as “The mother of the FBI.”

Politically adroit, fearless and frumpy, Rep. Kahn also had a dry sense of humor and was known to possess the quickest wit on The Hill. Once, when asked how she was able to pass far more significant legislation than most of her male colleagues, she famously responded: Don’t you know? It’s my sex appeal, honey!” When assigned to the committee on Indian Affairs, she flatly turned it down, telling then-Speaker Nicholas Longworth III (the husband of T.R.’s daughter “Princess Alice” Roosevelt) “The only Indians in my district are made of wood and sit outside cigar stores . . . and I can’t do a damn thing for them! Put me on Military Affairs!” Then there was the time that New York Representative Fiorello LaGuardia accused her of being “. . . nothing but a standpatter, following the reactionary Senator Moses of New Hampshire.” Mrs. Kahn is reported to have wriggled loose from her chair, jammed her nondescript hat over her nose, and bellowed: “Why shouldn’t I choose Moses as my leader? Haven’t my people been following him for ages?” The House erupted into gales of laughter, LaGuardia - himself the son of a Jewish mother - included.

My favorite Florence Prag Kahn quip - and the genesis for this satiric posting - comes from the time when the House’s most ultraconservative - and least liked - member acidly asked her, “Would you support a birth control law?” Without taking time to draw a breath, she answered, “Yes I will . . . if you will personally make it retroactive!” I remember doing my initial research on Mrs. Kahn back in the early 1990s. I was occupying a tiny cubby on the top floor of Harvard’s Widener Library. When I came across this line I cracked up and almost fell out of my chair . . . so much so that there quickly erupted the sound of a couple of dozen people “shushing” me. Believe me, it was hard to stop laughing . . .

Frequently, Mrs. Kahn used her rapier-like wit as a cover for her revulsion or distaste; call it the verbal version of Bonaparte’s “iron fist in a velvet glove” . . . firmness being couched not with outward gentleness, but with wit. Alas, such is rarely the case within the halls and walls of Congress. Today, instead of wit and double-entendre zingers, we hear catcalls and shouts of “YOU LIE!” as well as inanities such as “a stepmother really isn’t a mother at all,” or “Women who support abortion rights are too ugly to need them. Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb.”

       Stewart and Travers in “It’s a Wonderful Life”

The various members of Congress (mostly notably those who are members of the so-called “Freedom Caucus”) and nasty “influencers” who make these sort of comments - comments which drip with animus and ignorance - are perfect examples of the sorts of people to whom Florence Kahn was referring - those who would have made far greater contributions to society by never having been born in the first place. Think of the Frank Capra/James Stewart classic It’s a Wonderful Life . . . but in reverse. In the 1946 film (the best film never to have won an Oscar), Stewart’s character George Bailey sees his life fall apart so quickly that he contemplates suicide.  He reasons that his family - indeed, the entire world - would be better off with him dead. But the prayers of his loved ones result in his guardian angel named Clarence Odbody (played to perfection by Henry Travers) coming to Earth to help him, with the promise of earning his wings. He shows him what things would have been like if he had never been born.  And of course, being a Frank Capra film, everything comes up roses, sweet tea, and scones.

Now let’s reverse that by implementing Rep. Kahn’s sarcastic quip, and granting retroactivity to the births of those who are daily making the world more dangerous, less civil and stupidly intolerant by march, march, marching to the beat of deafening dictatorial drums. These are the merchants of mayhem, whose chief wares are fear, fanaticism provincialism and bigotry . . . four things the world can definitely do without.

Oh if only they had never been born!

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone                                                                                             #🟦

#934: Musophobia: Rhonda Santis and the House of Mouse #🟦

One obvious measure of success - or notoriety - for people in the public eye or historic spotlight is the acquiring of one or more easily recognizable nicknames. In politics, “Honest Abe,” “Governor Moonbeam” and “The Governator” are, of course, respectively, Abraham Lincoln, and former California governors Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger. In baseball, most fans can immediately identify “The Babe” (Babe Ruth), “The Georgia Peach” (Ty Cobb), “Mr. Cub” (Ernie Banks), “Mr. October” (Reggie Jackson) and my favorite, “The Splendid Splinter” (Ted Williams). Basketball fans have no trouble identifying “The Stilt” (Wilt Chamberlin), “Zeke from Cabin Creek” (Jerry West) and for my money, the best of the best, “The Round Mound of Rebound” (Charles Barkley.) For those who are gaga about classic Hollywood movie stars, there’s no problem in identifying the identities of “The Little Tramp” (Charlie Chaplin), “The King” (originally Wallace Reid, most famously Clark Gable), “The Great Profile” (John Barrymore), “The ‘It’ Girl” (Clara Bow) and “The Italian Marilyn Monroe” (Sophia Loren.).

One will note that historically, most nicknames were either descriptive (“The Stoneface” - Buster Keaton) or laudatory (The Father of His Country” (G. Washington). Today, nicknames can be either satiric or downright mean and insulting. Perhaps no one in recent history has bestowed more insulting nicknames on public figures than former President Donald Trump:

• “Lyin’ Ted” (Texas Senator Ted Cruz)

• “Disloyal Sleezebag” (Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell)

• “The Nutty Professor” (Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders)

• “Gretchen Half-Whitmer” (Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer) and

• “Maggot Haberman” (New York Times White House Correspondent Maggie Haberman).

Of late, the politician who has garnered the greatest number of potential nicknames - whether descriptive, laudatory or downright mean and insulting is current Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who I almost always refer to as “Rhonda Santis,” due to his obsession with drag queens. Indeed, there is even a website devoted exclusively to his many sobriquets, both congratulatory and disparaging. Because he was, until late, considered to be Donald Trump’s strongest competitor for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, he is being most closely vetted by both the national media and the former president’s strongest, most steadfast allies. That’s how the game is played; any- and everyone considering running for high office had better know this . . . and have about them the hide of a rhinoceros. 

At this point, the question is whether or not Governor DeSantis is “ready for prime-time.”  Paying very close attention to what he has been doing, saying and mandating here in Florida, I would have to say the answer is a rounding NO! HE IS BY NO MEANS READY FOR PRIME TIME!! Anyone who is following DeSantis from the point of his being the Florida Governor will likely conclude that virtually everything he declares or does within the Sunshine State is meant to send a message to what he deems the Republican base. He seems to be not at all aware that running to the right of Donald Trump is not smart; that his advisors are little better than rank amateurs. Compared to the obnoxious, narcissistic, dumb-as-a-bag-of-hair, twice impeached Trump, DeSantis is little more than the former President’s “Mini-Me.”

That which keeps the MAGA wing of the Republican Party in Donald Trump’s shadow is mostly his audacity; his lack of concern about what anyone else believes or thinks about him.  Politically speaking, he is rara avis; the only politician I am aware of who, when he is indicted for 34 different felonies, actually gains in the polls!  To his followers, he is the future of an America which will soon become a minority/majority country. DeSantis, on the other hand, seeks to collect brownie points by attacking and punishing those who disagree with the Trumpian vision of the American future.  Back in 2011, when he was beginning his run for governor, DeSantis published a book-length screed against then President Barack Obama entitled Dreams From Our Forefathers. In this truly terrible, child-like tome, DeSantis screamed at President Barack Obama for 286 pages, implying he was a closet Marxist, and at one point wrote that Obama had "Muslim roots."  Even worse, DeSantis' book included justifications excusing the legalization of slavery in the U.S. Constitution, as well as repeated complaints about policies designed to protect women from rape and domestic violence.

We were warned as far back as 2011 . . . and still, 62 of Florida’s 67 counties voted for him in 2022.

But as the commercial tagline goes: “But wait . . . there’s more!”  In many parts of America - and even here in Florida itself - he is making himself look like the “Fool on the Hill” . . . 

“Nobody seems to like him, they can tell what he wants to do 
And he never shows his feelings. But the fool on the hill
sees the sun going down, and the eyes in his head see the world spinning 'round."

As Florida’s fool on the hill travels the country, ostensibly hawking his new book, The Courage to be Free (which contains a chapter entitled “The Magic Kingdom of Woke Corporatism”), he is becoming well-known for that which revs his political engine:

• Banning books in public school libraries;

• Putting the nation’s fifth most progressive institution of higher learning -  Sarasota’s New College - into the hands of a newly appointed board that wishes to remake it in the image of, say, Michigan’s Hillsdale College, a private conservative Christian school founded by members of the Free Will Baptists in 1844.  In a DeSantis dictatorship, he would ban diversity, equity, and inclusion (D.E.I.) programs and the teaching of critical race theory, give New College trustees broader powers to review and fire faculty, and compel all state colleges to deprioritize fields deemed to fit a “political agenda”; 

• Making sure that any entertainment spot featuring performers in Drag while there are children present (even if brought there by their parents) will lose its liquor license;

• Threaten any teacher who teaches about anything involving sex, gender or what he calls “The WOKE history of the Civil War” will likely loose their teaching license, be fined and even subject to imprisonment  . . . and the most notorious, most puzzling and most publicized of ‘em all:

• His all out  war on the House of Mouse - by far the state’s largest single employer and payer of taxes.  

It’s not that Rhonda is musophobic (i.e. overwhelmingly and irrationally fearful of mice and other small rodents);  I mean for crying out loud he and wife Casey’s 2009 nuptials took place at Disney World.  In his book. DeSantis explains that he grew disillusioned with the corporation as it moved “beyond mere virtue, signaling to liberal activists.” So how did it morph from being “The happiest place on earth” to being a coven of crazies? Simple: its leadership exercised their First Amendment right to speak their mind.  Now, the disparagement - if not dismemberment - of the house of mouse is a core part of his political identity.  Everyone remembers that it was Nero who fiddled while Rome burnt to the ground.  In the case of DeSantis, he פארקויפט (sold) copies of his new book while Broward County (which happens to be the most Democratic county in the state) washed away. It’s akin to Senator Ted Cruz vacationing in Cancun while Texas froze.

The latest imbroglio began when Disney announced it would halt its political contributions in Florida and pledged to work to get the “Don’t Say Gay” law overturned.  As in a game of chess between a beginner and a grand master, DeSantis took aim at the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which had overseen Disney World’s government services since the 1960s.

Vowing to end Disney’s “special privileges,” DeSantis had the stupid-majority Florida legislature pass a law to put the district under state control; Disney responded by reaching a development agreement meant to undo that law; mate, Disney.  Now, DeSantis is threatening to have the state take over safety inspections for rides and monorails at Disney World, or potentially sell off the company’s utilities . . . or even build the state’s largest prison right next door to the state’s most powerful tourist magnet. This comment made national headlines and became fodder for cartoonists and comedians.

It also has caused his polling numbers to plunge.

Not only is Disney the state’s biggest employer, its economic multiplier is vast.  Without Disney World, there would likely be no Universal Orlando Resort, no Sea World, no Disney Hollywood Studio, no Sea World Orlando, no Toy Story Land . . . as well as all the hotels, motels, restaurants and shopping areas servicing the area.  And don’t forget to think about all the thousands upon thousands of people who have jobs as a result of all these tourist attractions.

None of these places are cheap.  I well remember when Disneyland opened in 1955.  We went there shortly after it first opened its gates on July the 17th.  Then, the one attraction which drew the longest  lines was "Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride” (it still exists); believe it or not, in 1955, a day’s ticket was $1.00 . . . $.50 for children.  If you were upper middle class, you might follow up a visit to Disney with a jaunt over to Knott’s Berry Farm in nearby Buena Park.  Situated on 57 acres, admission was free (until 1968, when the fee was $1.00 for adults and $.25 for kids).  And then, after a long, joy-filled day, you would go home.  Today, minus hotel and food charges, a one-day pass to Disney World will set one back anywhere between $109.00-$189.00.  This is to say that in 68 years, the price of a good time has gone from pocket change to a second mortgage.

And this is the ultimate cash cow that Governor DeSantis wants to punish for having the audacity to stand up for the rights of LGBTQ+ men, women and children . . . as well as their grandparents, friends and tourists to the Sunshine State.

 To my way of thinking, Ron DeSantis and his narrow-minded clique are even more toxic than the mice and other small rodents they so breathlessly fear . . . 

 Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone.     #🟦

The Historic Importance of January 6th . . . 1941

                     January 6, 1941: “The Four Freedoms”:

It seems like the prime-time presenters on MSNBC (Ari Melber, Joy Reid, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell ) have been reporting on nothing but the historical importance of January 6, 2021 for the past year-and-a-half. Who can blame them? After all, that is a day - which, to borrow a quote from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt - “which shall live in infamy.” The major difference, of course, is that FDR’s December 8, 1941 “live in infamy” address to Congress, concerned Japan’s bombing of the U.S. Fleet at Pearl Harbor; our “day of infamy” is the seditious storming of the U.S Capitol on January 6, 2021.  The people of MSNBC have spent the lion’s share of their on-air time investigating and reporting on virtually every aspect of that day when democracy was nearly destroyed.  It fascinates me no end that no one has mentioned or figured out what, most eerily, happened on Capitol Hill precisely 80 years before (that’s 29,200 days and 700,800 hours before) on January 6, 1941: FDR’s State of the Union Address, where he set out in bold and eloquent detail that which has ever since been known as “The Four Freedoms.”  What makes it all the more eerie - not to mention prescient and breathtaking - is how much FDR’s speech mirrors America and the world 80 years later . . . to the day. 

To be certain, there are a handful of speeches which stand out in American political history:

• George Washington’s “Farewell Address” in 1796.

• Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (“Four score and seven years ago . . . “)

• JKF’s Inaugural Address (“Ask not what your country can do for you . . . “)

But topping them all, in my humble opinion, is FDR’s State of the Union address to Congress on January 6, 1941. For his “Four Freedoms” address, while not white-washed with the good news and optimistic phrases of most annual presidential addresses, set a course and a purpose for this nation that has never since been equaled. As America entered the war these "four freedoms" - the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear - symbolized America's war aims and gave hope in the following years to a war-wearied people because they knew they were fighting for freedom. Indeed, it is the only one speech in American history that inspired a multitude of books and films, the establishment of its own park, a series of paintings by a world famous artist, a prestigious international award and a United Nation’s resolution on Human Rights.

At the time of Franklin Roosevelt’s State of the Union address on January 6, 1941, he had just been reelected president for an unprecedented third term. At the time, the world faced unprecedented dangers, instability, and uncertainty. Much of Europe had fallen to the advancing German Army and Great Britain was barely holding its own; London was being strafed from the air by the German Luftwaffe on a nightly basis. A great number of Americans remained committed to isolationism and the belief that the United Sates should continue to stay out of the war, but President Roosevelt understood Britain's need for American support and attempted to convince the American people of the gravity of the situation. 

In his State of the Union, FDR articulated a powerful vision for a world in which all people had freedom of speech and of religion, and freedom from want and fear.

The ideas enunciated in Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms were the foundational principles that evolved into the Atlantic Charter declared by Winston Churchill and FDR in August 1941; the United Nations Declaration of January 1, 1942; President Roosevelt’s vision for an international organization that became the United Nations after his death; and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948 through the work of Eleanor Roosevelt.

As tyrannical leaders once again resort to brutal oppression and terrorism to achieve their goals, as democracy and journalism are under attack from extremists and conspiratorialists both in the United States and across the globe, and as surveillance and technology threaten individual liberties and freedom of expression, FDRs bold vision for a world that embraces these four fundamental freedoms is as vital today as it was more than 80 years ago.  For those who are interested in reading the speech in its entirety, please check out FDR’s Four Freedoms Speech.

Interestingly, FDR, after consulting with his behind-the-scenes advisors, dictated the speech in a matter of minutes to his secretary Grace Tully.  Unlike presidents ever since, FDR rarely used a team of speechwriters.  This SOTU  came from his heart; it would wind up changing the world. 

               FDR’s Handwritten Notes for the January 6, 1941 SOTU                 

In 1941, there were plenty of people who believed that FDR was a “traitor to his class” - an aristocrat who actually cared about the state and fate of the downtrodden; one who believed that democracy was the most superior form of government. There were also those who found him “too much of a Socialist” (FDIC, Social Security and the Tennessee Valley Authority). He surrounded himself with a stellar brain trust (Samuel Rosenman, Benjamin Cohen, Felix Frankfurter and Bernard Baruch, to name but a few) and listened intently to the advise he was given.  He also understood that the fate of America and her allies was ultimately up to him, and did whatever he could to motivate a nation to do the right thing.  Yes, it is true, his State Department didn’t always do the right thing when it came to the Jews attempting to escape Nazi oppression (which causes many modern-day Jews to throw him on the ash-heap of history); nonetheless, FDR responded to his ilk by telling them that Democracy belonged to everyone . . . not just the WASPS he grew up and was educated amongst.

At the time of the January 6, 1941 State of the Union address, there was both a loud, staunchly vituperative isolationist wing of  the Republican Party (“America First,” led nationally by Charles A. Lindbergh) and a fully-armed batch of Nazi sympathizers (The “German American Bund,” led for many years by Fritz Kuhn, the so-called “American Fuhrer.” 

Today, more than 80 years  after that first, historic January 6th, America is once again beset by isolationists (the MAGA wing of the Republican Party), growing anti-Semitism and conspiracies galore. This time, we are led by a decidedly non-Blue Blood president who like FDR, understands the critical role America can and must play in a world that once again is falling in love with autocracy and fascism.  But unlike FDR, who was accused of being an enemy of America’s hereditary aristocracy, Joe Biden is attacked for being the leader of a “woke” nation; the leader of a left-wing socialist/communist conspiracy which attempts to make “sissies” of us all.  It is just as moronically idiotic today as it was 80+ years ago.  

    jean Baptiste Alphonse Karr 

 Way back in 1849, French critic, journalist and novelist Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr wrote “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose “ – the more things change, the more they stay the same…  From January 6, 1941 to the same date in 2021, many, many things have changed in and about the United States of America . . . if indeed, not the entire world.  But Karr was and always shall be unerringly correct for in modern idiomatic English, “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose means “What goes around comes around.”

Let us work and teach, give voice and vote that which FDR pledged on the first historic January 6 - the Four Freedoms - will continue to go around and come around.  For it is only through maintaining these four indelible freedoms that America can continue being a beacon of bright light for the rest of the world.

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

Purim, Politics, and Satire

This evening, when the sun goes down, Jewish folks the world over will observe the holiday of Purim, the happiest - and least theistic - of all our holidays. Costumes, noisemakers, wine and sweet treats (called hamentashchen) are all part of the celebration. It is said that unless and until one cannot distinguish between baruch Mordechai (Blessed be Mordechai) and arur Haman (Cursed be Haman), one has neither consumed enough wine nor entered the true riotous, satiric spirit of the day.

Purim, the “Feast of Lots,” celebrates a Jewish miracle in ancient Persia. It commemorates the Divinely orchestrated salvation of the Jewish people in the ancient Persian empire from a plot orchestrated by a narcissistic, racist bigot’s plot “to destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews, young and old, infants and women, in a single day.” Literally “lots” in ancient Persian, Purim was thus named since Haman (the ultimate bad guy who happened to be the King’s Prime Minister) had thrown lots to determine when he would carry out his diabolical scheme, as recorded in the Megillah (the Biblical book of Esther . . . the only one which does not specifically mention G-d).

The Persian Empire of the 4th century BCE extended over 127 lands, and all the Jews were its subjects. When King Ahasuerus had his wife, Queen Vashti, executed for failing to follow his orders, he arranged a beauty pageant to find a new queen. A Jewish girl, Esther (Jewish name, Hadassah), found favor in his eyes and became the new queen, though she refused to divulge her nationality.

Meanwhile, the Jew-hating Haman was appointed prime minister of the empire. Mordechai, the leader of the Jews (and Esther’s cousin), defied the king’s orders and refused to bow to Haman. Haman was incensed, and he convinced the king to issue a decree ordering the extermination of all the Jews on the 13th of  the Jewish month of Adar, a date chosen by a lottery Haman made. 

Mordechai galvanized all the Jews, convincing them to repent, fast and pray to G‑d. Meanwhile, Esther asked the king and Haman to join her for a feast. At a subsequent feast, Esther revealed to the king her Jewish identity. Haman was hanged, Mordechai was appointed prime minister in his stead, and a new decree was issued, granting the Jews the right to defend themselves against their enemies.

On the 13th of Adar, the Jews mobilized and killed many of their enemies. On the 14th of Adar, they rested and celebrated. In the capital city of Shushan, they took one more day to finish the job.

Purim is a raucous holiday; it involves most people being clad in costumes, consuming more wine than usual, cheering on Mordechai (the hero) each time he is mentioned, and blotting out the name of Haman (the bad guy) every time his name is mentioned.  It is also a time for satire and parody.  For years, I have written and performed parodies based on Broadway musicals (Westside Story, Oliver!, The Pirates of Penzance, as well as "A British Invasion Purim”, and “A Woodstock Purim.”

As but one terribly small example, Paul Simon’s The Boxer was turned into The Fixer:

Esther, once Hadassah has a story quite well-known,

She’s the girl who saved our people,

From the mania of Haman, he’s the enemy.

He was a pest, ‘cause he cast a lot that sealed our fate

To put us all to rest.  Lai lai lai . . .

When she heard the news from Mordechai

Of what Haman planned to do,

She retreated to her chamber,

In the quiet of the royal palace, good and scared.

Praying slow, seeking out the one solution

That would “let her people go”

Looking for the blessing only G-d would know.  Lai lai lai . . .

Then too, it became the custom over the centuries to create what came to be known as The Purim Torah, in which rabbinic scholars would do parodies of Talmudic tractates. One of the most famous was done in 1929 by “Reverend” Gershon Kiss of Brooklyn as a parody on the era of Prohibition (the cover page can be seen above.  It’s title, translated into English is Tractate Prohibition).  It captured the spirit of Purim brilliantly poking fun at both Rabbinic dialectic and American society. Written in a combination of Hebrew, Aramaic and the occasional Anglicism (“do not read for the Jews there was light and joy va-yikar, rather there was light and joy and liquor”) and formatted like a traditional Talmudic tractate, with a “gemara” framed by a Rashi-like commentary, This little-known work makes for excellent reading and even study as part of the holiday festivities. Regrettably, it is not easily translatable. “Tractate Prohibition” is best enjoyed by readers familiar with Talmudic terminology, who will appreciate its subtle allusions to classic passages, Mishnah and Gemara (“ha-kol shokhtin,” the opening of tractate Hulin, is rendered as “ha-kol shotin:” “everyone is eligible to perform ritual slaughter” now reads “everyone is eligible to drink”). Even readers with less experience in Talmud, however, will enjoy the social satire evident on every page. The text wonders, for example, if the mandated temperance extends to “Mar (“Mister”) Vilson,” meaning President Woodrow Wilson, during whose term the 18th Amendment was enacted. The “Rabbis” conclude that President Wilson is exempted from prohibition “ki gavra rabah hu,” meaning “he is a great man.”

Every year, I prepare myself for Purim  by rereading the Biblical Book of Esther along with its commentaries and rereading what, to my way of thinking, is the greatest of all modern satires: Voltaire’s Candide, a satire about eternal optimism.  After so many, many years, Candide. his tutor, the “optimistic metaphysician” Dr. Pangloss (“This is the best of all possible worlds”) his true love, Cunégonde, and her brother, The Baron of Thunder-ten-Tronckh, are friends.  This week, while rereading Candide, I also continued reading the political news from around the country, focusing in closely on the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and the upcoming annual session of the Florida State Legislature.  I was amazed by just how closely the pronouncements of MAGA Republicans seemed to be satiric . . . except they weren’t.  

Let’s deal with the latter first - that which is being proposed in Tallahassee.  Just the other day, State Senator Jason Brodeur (R.- Lake Mary) filed a bill which would require bloggers who are covering political figures in Florida—including the governor, lieutenant governor, Cabinet or state legislators—to register with the state and report whether they received compensation for their posts.  This would include yours truly who, although I have never received a single cent for any of the nearly 950 political essays I’ve posted over the past 18 years,  would, if this asinine legislation were to become law,  have to fill out a ton-and-a-half of paperwork and likely be both fined and arrested.  

The bill has drawn criticism from free speech advocates, who have warned that it would eat away at the constitutionally-protected right to freedom of speech and press.  Sen. Brodeur has defended the bill, saying that paid bloggers equate to lobbyists and should therefore be required to report their compensation.  I wonder if he, Brodeur, would be willing to list the names and amounts of everyone who has contributed to his campaigns were, by law, required to be listed.  This legislative proposal (SB 1316) is so obnoxious and unsavory (and obviously meant to curry favor with the ultra-right MAGA wing of his party) that even former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich has spoken out against it: "The idea that bloggers criticizing a politician should register with the government is insane. it is an embarrassment that it is a Republican state legislator in Florida who introduced a bill to that effect. He should withdraw it immediately," he tweeted.  (Ironically, Prior to his election in 2022, Senator Brodeur was found to have dumped tens of thousands of dollars of campaign money into firms operated by prominent Republicans, as well as payments to Jacob Engels [a.k.a. “Roger Stone’s “Mini-Me”], an Orlando blogger associated with InfoWars and a neo-fascist group the Proud Boys.

The other “Purim satire” centers around conservative pundit/actor/Daily Wire podcaster Michael Knowles who, speaking before attendees at the annual gathering of CPAC, boldly declared that “trans people do not have a right to exist.” Predictably, he denied having said this . . . despite tons of videos proving he did.  “For the good of society … transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.”  That’s what he said, verbatim. Knowles subsequently claimed that “eradicating” “transgenderism” is not a call for eradicating transgender people and demanded retractions from numerous publications, including Rolling Stone. This would be as laughable and parodic as a Purim gathering - if it were not so incredibly horrifying.  Knowles and his many followers - both in and out of public office - have loudly voiced their support for bills to deprive transgender people of gender affirming medical care, bans on using public bathrooms, and the targeting of live performances by trans individuals.

Geoff Wetrosky, the Human Right’s Campaign National Campaign Director, responded to Knowles and other Cu speakers, saying they were attempting to appeal to a right-wing audience — and putting trans people and other members of the LGBTQ community at risk.

“Their vile, anti-trans rhetoric does not resonate with the majority of Americans who are interested in solutions, not slander. But that doesn’t mean their transphobic hate and propaganda won’t cause harm,” Wetrosky said. “Their words rile up far-right extremists resulting in more stigma, discrimination and violence against LGBTQ+ people. The rights and very existence of trans people are not up for debate. We will keep fighting back until we are all treated equally, with dignity and respect.”

Knowles occupies a not-unique space on the far-right spectrum.  His A-historicism is as bone-chilling as that of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister for Propaganda: “Nobody is calling to exterminate anybody, because the other problem with that statement is that transgender people is not a real ontological (relating to the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being) category — it’s not a legitimate category of being, There are people who think that they are the wrong sex, but they are mistaken. They’re laboring under a delusion. And so we need to correct that delusion.”  

According to Jewish tradition, Haman ha-rasha (“the wicked Haman) was a descendent of Amalek, who was the grandson of Esau and likely history’s first anti-Semite. The Hebrew Bible (Deuteronomy 25:17–19) commands “Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey after you left Egypt . . . you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under the heaven. DO NOT FORGET!” This is why we put our noisemakers (called either graggers [Yiddish] or ra-ahsh-shanim [Hebrew] to work, making a noisy cacophony of sound every time Haman’s name is mentioned in the reading/chanting of the Purim scroll. It’s somewhat akin to the ancient custom of writing the name of one’s enemy on the soles of one’s sandals and then stomping about in the mud.

And so I say, wineglass in hand, noisemaker at the ready: ARUR (cursed be) MAGA! ARUR CPAC! ARUR HOMOPHOBES, WHITE SUPREMACISTS AND ALL RIGHT-WING CULTURE WARRIORS!

!חג פוּרים שמח (Chag Purim samayach) Have a riotous Purim

 Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

The 21st Century's Most Malignant Legacy?

This past Tuesday (Feb. 7, 2023) President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. delivered his second State of the Union (SOTU) address before a joint session of Congress. Depending on which side of the Congressional House of Worship you occupied, you were either witness to a political chess master easily parrying the jabs and overhand (far) rights of a bunch of punch-drunk amateurs, or cheering on the manhandling of a WOKE-supporting, mentally unstable octogenarian by a courageous group of young Republicans who understand that “there are no rules in a knife fight” (Yes, this is of course a famous line from "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, which the likes of Marjorie ‘Cruella Deville’ Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz and the rest of the Hole-in-the Head Gang have, in all likelihood, never heard of.)

For proof of this bipolar analysis of last Tuesday’s SOTU, all one needed to do was catch the “post-game” recaps provided by either MSNBC and CNN on the sensible middle, or Fox News and OAN (One America News) on the freaky far right. To watch and listen to both would give one the impression that there were actually 2 totally different realities surrounding the President’s speech; one with heroes (and heroines) sitting on either side of the aisle telling nothing but the truth (i.e. that MAGA Republicans are on record as wanting to cancel both Social Security and Medicare), the other totally incapable of anything but utter dishonesty, putting masks of incomprehension on their faces and shouting out “LIAR!  YOU LIE.”  While watching all this take place, I was reminded of something I read long ago: “Never attempt to destroy someone else’s life with a lie when yours can be destroyed with the truth.

                Rep. Marjorie Taylor “Cruella Deville” Greene (R-GA)

 I for one gave President Biden’s State of the Union address an “A.” (Personally, I have never given any student an ““A+” and certainly don’t believe that there should be any G.P.A. higher than 4.0.)  He was everything a POTUS should be: warm, upbeat, unflappable, occasionally showing that Biden 20 megawatt smile, humorous when called for, and above all, presenting a full-bodied, well-conceived legislative wish-list with a minimum of ho-hum political bromides.  One of the longest-lived politicians in American history (36 years as a Senator, 8 years a Vice President and now 2 years as POTUS), Joe Biden understands better than most the dignity demanded of his office, as well as knowing how to handle himself in front of a camera, and how to deflect a political haymaker with extraordinary éclat (striking effect).  He is, in brief, everything his predecessor was not.  Unlike '45, he doesn’t affix nasty nicknames to his political foes, nor carry himself about like a deranged cult master.  He really, truly believes in working across the aisle (note that was he who initiated the handshake with Speaker McCarthy) and is a gentleman.  

Sara Huckabee Sanders, the newly-elected Governor of Arkansas was, against all reason, chosen to give the response to the State of the Union . . . historically, a position which adds next to nothing to a politician’s c.v. Sanders was likely chosen for two, perhaps three reasons: first, she is 40 years old where President Biden is twice her age; second, she is a woman . . . a demographic which the Republicans are seeing slip through their fingers in the post Roe v. Wade era; and third, she can sling red meat to the MAGA base with the best of them. And if Donald Trump faces a large field of Republican office holders in the 2024 primaries, he’s going to have to capture every last MAGA vote in America . . . that’s where Sanders likely comes in.

In her 20-minute rebuttal, the former Presidential press secretary painted a dystopian portrait of the country leaning heavily into Republican culture war issues and accusing Biden of pursuing “woke fantasies.” “While you reap the consequences of their failures, the Biden administration seems more interested in woke fantasies than the hard reality Americans face every day,” said Sanders, the former White House press secretary. “Most Americans simply want to live their lives in freedom and peace, but we are under attack in a left-wing culture war we didn’t start and never wanted to fight.” She didn’t mention Trump by name, which to the base, is tantamount to a preacher delivering an impassioned Sunday sermon without once mentioning Jesus. Instead, she embraced conservatives’ fights against the way race is taught in public school. She called Biden’s administration “completely hijacked by the radical left.”

“The dividing line in America is no longer right or left,” she said. “The choice is between normal or crazy,” she said. Democrats made much of that line, giving it full-throated support while endlessly running video captures to prove the point that its the Republicans who are the crazy ones . . . Indeed, this line may go down in history as the 2022 equivalent of Senator Marco Rubio reaching for a bottle of water during his 2013 response to President Obama’s SOTU.

In other words, Governor Sanders, like the Republican’s Capitol Hill “Crazy Caucus” are planning on running (and winning) in 2024 on the lies and mistruths of the past many years . . . likely their most malignant legacy to America.  Lies and mistruths have become so endemic to politics and society in general - thanks  in part to the growth and omnipresence of social media and cable “news” outlets, and in part to the moral albinism of its most hypocritical practitioners - that it’s become neigh on impossible to separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of mendacity.  For far too many, that which goes against their grain is the product of “fake news.”  This is incredibly dangerous for the future of civilization.  When lies become nothing more than a commodity to be sold under the brand name “truth,” then our republic - let alone civilization itself - is definitely imperiled and likely subject to autocratisation. 

It never ceases to amaze me how much trash and dishonest bloviating a goodly segment of the public is willing to accept as the god’s honest truth.  A few examples: going into the 2020 election, a photo was posted on Facebook claiming that “Joe Biden lives in the biggest mansion in his state and just bought another mansion in Washington, D.C.”  It was quickly shared more than 1,000 times and became “a well-known fact” shortly thereafter.  Stuff and nonsense!  Delaware is the ancestral home of the DuPont family . . . ergo, no one has ever - or shall ever - possess a residence larger than theirs.  The  Winterthur Estate could be considered Delaware's largest mansion. The house was originally built in 1839 but has been enlarged considerably over the years. Henry Francis du Pont renovated the building between 1929 and 1931, resulting in a 175-room mansion sitting on 2,500 acres. This estate was turned into a museum in 1951, however, so some may not consider it to be the "largest mansion" in Delaware.

The Du Pont family built another massive property in Delaware in the early 1900s. While the Nemours Mansion dwarfs the properties owned by Biden at 47,000 sq. ft. (compared to 7,000 for the 2 Biden properties), this property, too, no longer serves as a single-family residence and therefore may not be an applicable comparison.  

Then there is the entire universe of Hunter Biden tales.  Depending on the source of your news, the president’s son made anywhere between $45,000 and $83,677 per month for a position on the board of the Ukrainian oil and gas company Burisma Holdings from 2014 to 2019 - a time when his father was V.P. through the beginning of his presidential campaign.  Recently, rocker Ted Nugent (“The Motor City Madman”) posted a Facebook meme falsely insinuating that Hunter’s payments from the company ended with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Then there is Fox’s Tucker Carlson who issues negative reports on President Biden’s profligate son so often, that somehow he has forgotten the days when he actually asked Hunter for his help in getting his son into Georgetown University, including writing a letter of recommendation. And by the way, why hasn’t anyone suggested looking into all the money the Trump and Kushner families made during the time ‘45 was in office?  What Jared and Ivanka pulled in in a single  year would have taken Hunter nearly 640 years to make.  (And this does not include Jared’s $1.3 billion loan from the Saudis . . . )

One of the first items on the House Republican’s agenda in this new congress is the impeachment of President Biden, based largely on the many so-called corruptions of his son.  Indeed, Hunter is about to become the “Hillary Clinton Benghazi Hearings” of the 118th Congress.  Many will recall that Congressional Republicans spent more than 2 years and $7 million looking for something - anything - which  would lay guilt at the feet of the former Secretary of State in the death of Chris Stevens, the American Ambassador to Libya.  What they were hoping for, of course, was an indelible stain on her at the beginning of the 2016 presidential election cycle. After 6 hearings, they issued their 800-page report; it landed with a thud.  And yet, to this very day, there are those Republican House members who want to reopen the Benghazi probe.  And so do their most hypnotized followers who, to this day, “know for a fact” that Secretary Clinton was guilty of murder.

As Mark Twain (or Winston Churchill) once noted, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

Or better still:

 Lies are like a pain killer; it gives instant relief, but has lethal side effects forever.

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

Just When We Thought We'd Heard It All

Audio Block

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

Let’s face it: nearly all Republicans (we’ll give a pass to the 4 or 5 remaining moderate ones) have little to add to the current political dialog. Other than complaining and blaming Democrats for nearly everything under the sun, they rarely say anything worth listening to, let alone seriously considering.

An example or two or three: Republicans continuously blame Democrats in general (and President Biden in particular) for inflation, high gas prices, high rates of violent crime, the stalled consumer pipe-line (which leads to higher prices), increases in the number of immigrants, asylees and refugees entering the country, and a thousand-and-one other things. (Oh, if only Donald Trump had been able to complete his wall . . . the one the Mexican government was supposed to pay for.) 

On the other hand, Republicans rarely - if ever - offer concrete suggestions about containing, constricting or curtailing - let alone solving - any of these challenges . . . short of legislating deep cuts to entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, lowering corporate taxes, impeaching President Biden, A.G. Garland, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkis and Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swallwell, and passing a so-called “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” which  ordains that all infants born after attempted abortions must get medical care. (Do remember that the number of babies actually surviving late-term abortions is infinitesimal . . . save in the imaginations of some truly warped individuals;  it is already a crime [it’s called homicide] to intentionally kill an infant that is born alive.)

Besides not possessing any concrete plans or proposals for dealing with the above referenced political challenges (as amply proven in both the 2020 presidential and 2022 midterm elections), many of these challenges are easing due to the efforts of both the Biden Administration and two years of a Congress controlled by the Democrats. Do note that although high, the rise in inflation is beginning to be contained; gas prices are slumping due to a production surplus; (note that the millions of barrels of oil we “lent” ourselves from our Strategic Petroleum Reserves have already been returned . . . and at a lower price) and regardless of what the disloyal opposition broadcasts, the national debt has been reduced by nearly $200 billion, with more reductions on the way . . . assuming that troglodytes do not prevail.

So what is a political party and their mouthpieces to do? Simple: raise new issues guaranteed to consume the attention of their base . . . even if they are untrue and/or simply asinine. The first of two such attempts to keep their base fired up and fearful deals with gas stoves. According to reports popping up on such slanted sources as Fox, the Washington Examiner and the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal, President Biden and his administration are about to take away even more of our personal freedom by “coming to take away our gas stoves.”  (Is that before or after they take away our guns?)

It goes without saying that this canal water about gas stoves is not true.  So how did this rumor - one which numerous Republican members of Congress have been scaring the pants off their constituents over - come to be such a hot issue?  Well, recently, Richard Trumka Jr., a U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) agency commissioner, said in an interview with Bloomberg that there was rising concern about hazardous indoor pollutants caused by gas stoves.  In the interview, he floated the idea of a ban as a possible solution to the problem. “This is a hidden hazard," he said. "Any option is on the table. Products that can't be made safe can be banned." 

In a public statement about Commissioner Trumka’s interview, a spokesperson for the CPSC explicitly stated that the agency is not considering new guidelines for regulating, or banning, gas stoves. Anything the group proposes, the spokesperson firmly averred,  would “undergo a lengthy review process."  The CPSC spokesperson further stated that Trumka's views do not reflect the views of the entire organization. While the agency was not considering new regulatory measures, nor a ban, the spokesperson said they were planning to gather information from the public "on hazards from gas stoves and potential solutions to hazardous gas [emissions].

 And yet, despite a welter of information which shows that no one is going to be forced to get rid of their gas stoves on pain of legal penalty, the lie persists. You had better believe that it will continue playing a role in conservative talking points from now until the 2024 elections.

But this is by no means the nuttiest, most mind-numbing of fears tearing at the minds and hearts of the right. Believe it or not, one of the greatest fears is a “. . . no-doubt fury that Mars Wrigley, the candy company that manufactures and markets M&Ms, has gone “WOKE.”  Over the past couple of years, M&Ms has adopted new interior flavors (such as pretzel, strawberry shake and espresso) and a host of new colors.  Additionally, Mars has rebranded six of its iconic mascots to represent "more nuanced personalities to underscore the importance of self-expression and power of community through storytelling."

Mars Wrigley has debuted a new promotional wrapper for M&Ms that features three female candy characters, and introduces a new Purple M&M along with Green and Brown. Mars Wrigley has announced they would be donating some of the profits from these M&M sales to organizations that support a variety of professional pursuits by women. The "sexy" green M&M's character has traded in her signature go-go boots for a pair of "cool, laid-back sneakers to reflect her effortless confidence," while the orange M&M's character will suffer from anxiety "to better reflect young people." From a marketing point of view this makes sense; every product goes through changes in order to attract new customers, thus keeping up sales.

Ah, but according to Fox News’ Tucker Carlson,  whom we are told is the single-most popular and influential face on cable, the newest changes are a conspiracy in order to push a “WOKE” philosophy.  According to Carlson, the “Paul Revere” of this conspiracy “M&M’s will not be satisfied until every last cartoon character is deeply unappealing and totally androgynous—until the moment you wouldn’t want to have a drink with any one of them.”  Personally, I don’t know anyone (myself included) who has ever had the desire to down a pint or gigger with a chocolate icon.  Methinks Mr. Carlson needs to get a life.

One of the things which bothers and concerns me the most in issues like gas stoves and WOKE M&Ms, is that those who speak the loudest and most passionately about them in reality, could give a rat’s rump.  They don’t really believe that the Biden Administration is coming to take away their gas stoves any more than Florida Governor “Rhonda Santis” believes that children reading certain books will make them want to change sexes, or that the newest shapes, accoutrements and colors of M&Ms are a danger to America’s moral fiber.  No, they are after more political support, more votes, and higher offices.

Just when we think we’ve heard it all, we discover that we’re wrong . . . 

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

The Clown Car is All Gassed Up . . . But With No Place to Go

Whether the great unwashed majority realizes it or not, we the American people have just gone through the eeriest, most divisive week of political danse macbre in at least the past 150 years. It took 15 votes - 15 VOTES - over 4 days for Kevin McCarthy to fulfill his lifelong dream of becoming Speaker of the House of Representatives. He managed to accomplish his single-vote victory by trading away virtually all the powers historically vested in the Speaker. He ran a race fueled not by a set of political goals or principles, but solely by the power of his ego. And so, within less than 168 hours, the House went from being a body run by Nancy Pelosi, one of the strongest, most powerful and politically adroit Speakers in all American history, to Kevin McCarthy, whose speakership could come crashing down with a mere finger snap on the part of Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert or any of a number of Freedom Caucus clowns.  Indeed, the House has quickly gone from a body led by a cunning tigress to one that whose leader is both defanged and likely on the road to political defenestration.

Precisely what Speaker McCarthy had to give in to in order to win the gavel is, at this point, unknown. Bits and pieces of his most craven concessions may be easily assumed, such as bestowing plumb committee assignments (Rules, Appropriations, Ways and Means, Judiciary) and chairmanships of various subcommittees to Freedom Caucus disrupters and election deniers. We already know that a minimum of 3 Freedom Caucus members will be appointed to House Rules, easily the most crucial committee under the dome.

Unlike most other committees, Rules is not concerned with policy substance; rather, it is what incoming chair, Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma explained to VOX, “. . . is a process committee.” Its role is to set the terms of debate and decide whether bills are subject to amendments on the floor . . . and whether they need to be germane to the subject at hand. It has long been the redoubt (e.g., protective barrier) of House leadership in both parties and exists, in Cole’s words, to “make sure [legislation] gets to the floor in the form that the speaker thinks [or in the case of Kevin McCarthy, is told he thinks] is most likely to pass.” Even more importantly, this committee can keep any bill they don’t like from ever reaching the floor . . . without the House resorting to what is called a discharge petition . . . a means of bringing a bill out of committee and to the floor for consideration without a report from the committee. The problem is, according to clause 2 of rule XV of the Rules of the House, it requires a majority vote in order to succeed.  Good luck!

From what has been learned, McCarthy’s highest-profile concession: to allow any one member — down from his previous compromise of five — to force a House-wide no-confidence vote in the speaker at any time (known as “a motion to vacate”).  Under Speaker Pelosi, a motion to vacate could be offered on the House floor only if a majority of either party agreed to it.  Prior to Pelosi’s revolution, a motion to vacate could be put forth at the instigation of a single member . . . that which McCarthy has relented to.  Therefore, the issue isn’t even that a single member could topple a speaker; it would still take a majority vote of the entire House to actually vacate the seat. Instead, the real issue is that the current, 10-seat Republican majority is so small — and McCarthy’s speakership victory so slim — that the threat of defection is likely to loom over every bill, giving the same rebels who have paralyzed Congress this week endless opportunities to do the same thing again and again.  

What this adds up to is an extraordinary amount of leverage for a miniscule group of men and women who were, in large part, Congressional instigators and backers of the January 6 rebellion.  

These are people who have no political agenda or platform.  They aren’t, when all is said and done, true conservatives,  What they are is a gaggle of libertarians, Christian Nationalists, White Supremacists, “Great Replacement” theorists and QAnon-believing conspirators bent on shrinking the federal government to the point where it can fit into a ditty bag.  

The most frightening thing about all this is that people like Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, Eli Crane, Bob Good, Matt Rosendale, Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz (the “Ken & Barbie” of Capitol Hill) will, without blinking an eye, do everything in their power to make  sure the debt ceiling is not raised (which will cause America to default, thus causing the stock market to crash, I.R.A.s to become worthless and likely bring on an international Depression (and in their hopes and dreams the Second Coming); cut off all future aid to Ukraine and restore Jim Crow laws.  And they will do all this in the name of “Making America great again!”  And Speaker McCarthy won’t be able to do a thing about it . . . for fear that a single passenger on the Congressional Clown Car will call for a motion to vacate.  And you know what?  He won’t have anyone to blame save himself and his Brobdingnagian ego. The House will be thrown back into utter chaos.

This is no time for Democratic schadenfreude - deriving pleasure from another’s complete misfortune; if the Republicans stomp on the clown car brakes, we all - and I mean we all will suffer. Merely saying “Well, these mental schlubs brought it on themselves” won’t accomplish a damn thing So what can be done? If Democrats band together and refuse to lift a finger of assistance to Speaker McCarthy, it is likely that come 2024, Republicans will suffer a cataclysmic fall the likes of which has never been seen in all American history. But then too, so will all of us. Perhaps under Minority Leader Jeffries (who, by the way gave a historic, brilliant speech stressing the “A-to-Zs” of what Democrats stand for) could, working with his own caucus add just enough votes to keep McCarthy out of the political snake pit whenever he (meaning McCarthy) faces a motion to vacate. In theory, that could force the speaker and the so-called “moderate” Republicans to cut the Democrats a bit of slack out of gratitude. Then too, during a future motion to vacate, perhaps the Democrats could put together a kind of coalition approach to House governance that would essentially throw the clowns off the bus.

Whatever the case, there is no question but that we are going to continue to be observers - if not participants - in history’s eeriest political danse macabre.

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

Politics and Poker

                    Senator Krysten Sinema (I-AZ)

On Monday, November 23, 1959, a much anticipated musical, Fiorello, made its Broadway debut at the Broadhurst Theatre on West 44th Street. Based on the life of the late, legendary New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, with music by Jerry Bock, lyrics by Sheldon Harnick from a book by Jerome Weidman and George Abbot, it would run an impressive 785 performances and be awarded the 1960 Tony Award for best musical. It’s two main stars were Tom Bosley (best remembered for playing Ritchie Cunningham’s father Howard on “Happy Days”) as Fiorello (who, like hizzoner was actually Jewish), and Howard Da Silva (Silverblatt) as Republican machine boss Ben Marino.  (An avid, active leftist, Da Silva was coming off nearly a decade’s worth of political blacklisting when he was hired for the part of Boss Marino.  The role , which would win him a Tony Award, wound up reviving his career.  Today, he is best remembered for playing Benjamin Franklin in both the Broadway production and movie version of “1776”).

Fiorello follows La Guardia’s career during World War I, his years in Congress, and then his time as mayor. As Mayor of New York City La Guardia reformed city politics by helping end Tammany Hall's vaunted political machine. And of course, as everyone remembers, he read the funnies over radio during a city-wide newspaper strike so that the kiddies wouldn’t be bereft of “Popeye the Sailor Man,” “Lil Abner,” and “Dick Tracy.” Fiorello is filled with pointedly witty songs adorned with great lyrics.  Hell, what can you expect from a musical birthed by the likes of Sheldon Harnick (Fiddler on the Roof), Jerome Weidman (I Can Get It For You Wholesale) and George Abbot (The Pajama Game)?  My favorite song in Fiorello is Poker and Politics, sung by Republican boss Ben Marino (Da Silva) and his cronies.  It includes the lyrics:

Politics and poker, politics and poker
Playing for a pot that's mediocre
Politics and poker, running neck and neck
If politics seems more predictable
That's because usually you can stack the deck!

Politics and poker, politics and poker
Makes the average guy a heavy, heavy smoker
Bless the nominee and give him our regards
And watch while he learns that in poker and politics
Brother, you've gotta have that slippery haphazardous commodity
You've gotta have the cards!

These lyrics came to mind the other day when I woke up and learned that overnight, Arizona Senator Krysten Sinema had announced her defection from the Democratic Party and would henceforth be a registered Independent. My initial response - like that of most of my Democratic friends and colleagues - was a string of vile, four-twelve-letter epithets and an angry feeling of ultimate betrayal. Imagine that! Just a few hours after we were able to cheer Raphael Warnock’s victory in the Georgia election and crow over the fact that come January 3, 2023, the Democrats would have a solid 51-49 lead in the United States Senate, Arizona’s least-favorite drama queen turned back the clock. “DAMN HER TO HELL!” was my initial thought.

But then, miraculously, “Poker and Politics” came to mind:

Quickly, I hunted it up on YouTube, replayed it and understood that in switching from Democrat to Independent, she might actually have done us (Democrats, that is), a favor.  For in this case, the cause of her decision was far more in keeping with poker than with chess . . . the pursuit I most commonly liken the art of practical politics to.   

It seems to me that Senator Sinema’s move is more political stunt than parliamentary strategy.  Not all that much will change as a result of her “caucusing” in the same broom closet as the senate’s other two independents: Vermont’s Bernie Sanders and Maine’s Angus King.  In the main, Krysten Sinema is quite liberal on social and  cultural issues, receives high marks from the likes of Planned Parenthood and anti-gun organizations, has a history of policy advocacy regarding LGBT rights and issues, and has always voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act.  Where she tends to differ with her now former Democratic colleagues is on issues affecting taxation and the economy.  But even there she can sound like a progressive: "Raising taxes is more economically sound than cutting vital social services."  According to the Bipartisan Index created by the Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, Sinema was the sixth most bipartisan member of the U.S. House of Representatives during the first session of the 115th United States Congress.  

One can easily say that Krysten Sinema has always marched to the beat of her own drummer.  Consider that in her 2018 race for the senate (which she eventually won, defeating incumbent Martha McSally by a scant 55,000 votes out of nearly 2.4 million cast), she described herself as having “a fierce, independent record,” and being “independent, just like Arizona.”  Nonetheless, her jumping the fence won’t really amount to a hill of beans. Chuck Schumer will still be Senate Majority Leader, but this time around won’t have to share power with Senator McConnell; Democrats will have greater power within Senate committees, having the ability to issue subpoenas and get judicial nominees to the floor without having to resort to Discharge Resolutions.  

So why has she left the Democratic fold and become an independent?  Because of the cards she’s been dealt . . . that’s why.  Facing reelection in 2024, she looks at her “hand” (polling figures, that is) and sees that among Arizona voters in general, she holds a mere 18% approval rating. Among Democrats in particular, her favorable-versus-unfavorable rate is 5% to 82%; among Independents it’s 25%/56%, and among Republicans 25%-54%. She is smart enough to realize that were she to run in a Democratic primary, she could be beaten by a pair of deuces.

By changing her Arizona registration, she leaves the Democratic field open. Whoever jumps in feet-first will have the obvious edge. Chances are that person will be 7-term Democratic Representative Ruben Gallego, who served as a combat marine during Iraqi Freedom, is bilingual, a formidable fundraiser, and a member of the House Armed Services Committee and chair of the Intelligence and Special Operations subcommittee. His campaign website is already operational, thus pretty much clearing the field for himself.

 On the Republican side of the aisle, leaders of the non-MAGA wing of the Arizona GOP have long dreamt of current Governor Doug Ducey pulling up a chair joining playing a little 5-card stud. They had courted him to run this year against incumbent (and former astronaut) Mark Kelly who carries an enviable 78% approval rating among Arizona Democrats. Ducey ultimately declined to do so, thus leaving the field to MAGA venture capitalist Blake Masters, who was crushed by Kelly. Ducey has already stated that he has no interest in running for Senate. But Republicans are again pushing him to get in for 2024 . . . they simply cannot stomach another MAGA-ite representing their party.

This scenario leaves Senator Sinema with a pass into the general election. Generally speaking, Arizona political history shows that when an independent runs in a statewide general election, that person tends to draw votes away from Democrats rather than Republicans. Of course, it all presumes that the Republicans don’t make the same mistake as they did over and over again in 2022 . . . nominate a Luddite from the MAGA wing of the party.

In all likelihood, Krysten Sinema’s political career has run its course. Perhaps by registering as an Independent, she has given herself a plausible way to leave the game of politics and poker and start earning a seven-figure income as a lobbyist.

It sure beats the daylights out of working for a living.

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

A Tale Told by an Idiot . . . Signifying Nothing

Nearly 60 years ago, “our crowd” of academically enriched students at Robert A. Millikan Junior High School (which as of February 8 of this year was renamed “Louis Armstrong Middle School”), flocked to a year-long elective class called, simply, “Reading Enrichment.” This class was taught by Edward Blakely, one of the most literate people we would ever know. His class was both brilliant and controversial, and made many demands upon us . . . like reading, reading, reading, writing, writing, writing. thinking, thinking, thinking, and memorizing, memorizing, memorizing. Part Renaissance man, part martinet, under Mr. Blakely’s entrancing guidance, we delved deeply into some of the world’s greatest, most noteworthy and censorable literature of all time. (n.b. It is rather doubtful that here, in Ron DeSantis’ Florida c. 2022, that a majority of the books, plays and essays we were assigned would remain on library bookshelves, let alone be taught in what today is referred to as a middle school.)

Even after so many, many years, I can still picture the students in that wonderful class: Gottlieb, Halpert, Korinblith, Miller, Saltzman, Sands, Scharf, Wilson, Wald, and yours truly. (Alan: any names I may have forgotten, please clue me . . . I, like you, am afflicted with junior moments). Even more importantly, many of us can still recite from memory passages of the novels, plays and essays our beloved teacher assigned us. Mr. Blakley was a galaxy-class instructor who introduced us to the joys and intricacies of such works and writers as:

• Aristophanes (Lysistrata), a bawdy anti-war comedy, wherein the title character, a strong as nails woman, convinces the women of Greece to withhold sexual privileges from their husbands as a means of forcing the men to negotiate a peace;

• Beowulf, an epic 8th century old English poem which tells the story of the Scandinavian hero Beowulf, who gains fame as a young man by vanquishing the monster Grendel and Grendel's mother, thus becoming king;

• Boccaccio (The Decameron, also known as “The Human Comedy”) which is a series of 100 short tales told by 7 young men and 3 young women during a ten-day period in which they are quarantined due to a pandemic;

• Chaucer (The Canterbury Tales), a so-called “frame story” (a narrative that frames or surrounds another story or set of stories), in which the framing device is used for the collection of stories told by 30 people on a pilgrimage to the shrine of Thomas Becket in Canterbury, Kent;

• Charles Dickens (Great Expectations), likely the great English novel of all time, and

• William Shakespeare’s, Macbeth, in which Three witches tell the Scottish general Macbeth that he will rise to become King of Scotland. Encouraged by his wife, Macbeth kills the king (Duncan), becomes the new king, and kills more people out of sheer paranoia. Civil war erupts to overthrow Macbeth, resulting in more death. Seventeen years after killing King Duncan, Malcolm Canmore, (the son of King Duncan) in turn murders Macbeth.

Macbeth is indeed, a most grisly play in 5 acts; it puts one of the most psychologically flawed (if not THE most psychologically flawed) characters in all classic literature right up there on center stage. It is also a deeply political work, much like Lysistrata, Beowulf, Great Expectations, and virtually every work Mr. Blakely assigned our class. And by “political,” I mean far more than the modern definition of “relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics.” Going way back to the days of Aristotle and Plato, they saw politics as being equal parts art, science, and strategy . . . a far cry from where we are today.

So what does all this “remembrance of things past” (not to be confused with Marcel Proust’s massive 7-volume novel of the same name [À la recherche du temps perdu]? Isn’t this a mostly political blog? And partisan politics at that?

Well, it is. With all the ink and hot air still accruing to our FPOTUS - especially in light of his recent announcement that he is once again running for the nation’s highest office - I find myself remembering the many, many months we spent reading, learning. contemplating and memorizing under the tutelage of Mr. Blakely . . . especially Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Or to be painfully precise, Act 5, Scene 5. lines 19-28. Tell me if you sense an eerie pre-prescience in this famous soliloquy. What is frequently forgotten is that before launching into his brief, dispirited downer, Seyton, Macbeth’s chief servant, informs him The Queen, my Lord, is dead. Macbeth responds not with grief for his mate, nor with tears staining his face , but with an oft-forgotten line: She should have died hereafter: / There would have been time for such a word.

It is only then that he launches into the meditation memorized and analyzed by oh so many over the past 400 years:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

I’ve listened to literally dozens of great actors (Orson Welles, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Patrick Stewart, Baron Olivier and Sir Ian McKellen, among others) pronounce these words. To my way of thinking, only Sir Ian seems to have gotten it right . . . putting the first “tomorrow” as the end of the sentence which preceded it. In other words, it should be read She should have died hereafter: / There would have been time for such a word TOMORROW.

Lady Macbeth’s death prompts Macbeth to reflect upon the futility of all of his actions: his ‘overweening ambition’, which had spurred him on to commit murder after murder (including that of King Duncan, no less) and take the kingdom for himself. It has all been for nothing; now he is truly alone, with most of the lords rallying to Macduff, and standing foursquarely against him.

Although not nearly so self-aware as Shakespeare’s fictional King, Donald Trump is every bit as avaricious and power mad as the Scottish thane-cum monarch. But listening to and watching him over the past several weeks, he finally seems, eerily, a bit more like Macbeth: beginning to grasp that much of what he has accomplished is, in the end of all his tomorrows, a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. I find myself wondering if, like the former Thane of Glammis and Thane of Cawdor, he is beginning to realize that all his mendacious verbiage has finally amounted to little more than A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I have to wonder precisely what - or who - Donald Trump sees when he looks into his gilt mirror: a leader whose power and greatness are inspired by God above, or "a poor player who struts his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. Even Macbeth came to recognize that he was alone . . . that all his troops, advisors and acolytes had stormed out in droves, leaving him with only his blindly loyal attendant Seyton (could this be Shakespeare’s play on the name Satan?); a single “yes-man” to stand by his side to face his ultimate fate. Who does Donald Trump have left? Madison Cawthorn? Matt Gaetz? Mike “My Pillow” Lindell? Senator Tommy Tuberville? Former California Rep. Devin Nunes? Indeed, what he is left with is little more than “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I do not in the least feel sorry for Donald Trump. I do feel both deeply angry and greatly concerned for what he has forced upon the American future. As a politically active member of a generation often accused of being pro-Communist and anti-American, I am stupefied by just how much the tables have turned. Those who accused us of being in league with drugs and the devil more than a half-century ago, are now the true anti-patriots; those who once considered themselves the most pro-American, are now the ones who could most easily destroy the American ideals of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Mr. Blakely, it turns out, was oh so wise to teach us everything he knew about Macbeth. Without knowing it, he was preparing us for the future. Turns out, his desire to teach was matched by our need to learn . . .

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

How Low Can You Go?

Although DeSantis, Abbott & Ducey may sound like the name of a high-tone law firm, it is of course, anything but. The three principals are, the MAGA-Republican governors of, respectively, Florida, Texas, and Arizona. They pretty much stand together on the major political issues of the day (they are all vehemently pro-life, pro-Second Amendment and anti-immigrant), and each harbors thoughts about someday running for POTUS. And oh yes, all three find the greatest amount of political comfort among the most ardent followers of Donald Trump. The mere contemplation of the lengths the three are willing to go in order to impress this growing gaggle of anti-(small d) democrats, is enough to make a good night’s sleep next to impossible.

Day-by-day, hour-by-hour, the story about how the three - especially Florida’s DeSantis, the man who seeks to out-Trump Trump - have, through trickery, been transporting mostly Venezuelan migrants to places like Martha’s Vineyard, New York City, and Vice President Harris’ own front yard in Washington, D.C., it grows and grows. The three have become exporters of migrant misery in order to put America’s border policy woes back on the front burner, thus reinvigorating the MAGA-Republican’s political playbook just in time for the 2022 midterm elections. The obvious political strategy is that when you haven’t got a positive platform to run on, stick to what you do best: label everyone on the other side of the political fence “radical libs,” “socialists” or “anti-Americans” and oh yes, don’t forget to blame the nation’s many intractable woes on “illegal aliens.”

Besides being what The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols correctly called “a sadistic political stunt,” DeSantis’ ploy could well get him indicted . . . which likely wouldn’t bother his political followers one iota. For a man who graduated magna cum laude from Yale and earned a juris doctor at Harvard, DeSantis loves coming across to his fan base as the reincarnation of “Lonesome Rhodes,” the raucous hayseed turned right-wing demagogue, played to haunting perfection by newcomer Andy Griffith in the 1957 film A Face in the Crowd.” In the film, “Lonesome,” who on mic or before the television camera regularly proclaims things like “The family that prays together, stays together,” is anything but a Bible-toting Christian. In reality, he is a truly mean-spirited miscreant who considers his adoring fans to be nothing more than cretinous fools and idiots. Eventually, he gets his comeuppance when Marcia Jeffries (marvelously played by Patricia Neal), the woman who made him a super-star, leaves the microphone on at the end of a broadcast, thus ruining Lonesome’s career when he is finally unmasked as a total fraud; a man motivated only by money and his own egotistical thirst for power.

In chartering 2 planes to take upwards of 50 Venezuelan asylees from Texas (not Florida as was at first mistakenly assumed) up North to Martha’s Vineyard, DeSantis found himself quickly becoming the butt of late-night jokes, inquiries into the legality of what he had done, and even the wrath of the FPOTUS. Mind you, Donald Trump’s outrage had nothing to do with moral revulsion at his protege’s using human beings as unsuspecting pawns for a political attack. Instead, Trump has been telling allies and confidants that he’s outraged that DeSantis seems to think he’s allowed to steal the ex-president’s mantle as both media star, and undocumented-immigrant-basher-in-chief. Trump and his advisors are smart enough to realize that DeSantis’ ploy is intended to be a shot across the bow of the Former President’s plans for running in 2024, and intend to do something about it.  What that “something” is, is unknown, considering just how full to overflowing Trump’s political dance card is these days.

As much as other Republicans may think poorly of just how low DeSantis has sunk, few - if indeed any - have gone public with their thoughts and/or condemnation. It is once again pointing out the moral and political bankruptcy of just about every Republican within range of a camera. Need an example? Here’s Texas Senator Ted Cruz - who like the highly-educated DeSantis is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law, proclaiming that the law is "clear" and a citizen could "easily be arrested" for moving migrants from one state to another, and yet still stating that he supports the Republican governors’ doing it: "I commend Greg Abbott for sending the immigrants to these blue cities, I commend Ron DeSantis for doing so, and they need to do more," Cruz said. "Tomorrow, Martha's Vineyard needs a hundred. The next day they need two hundred. The next day they need a thousand," he concluded. Got that? Harvard should rescind his law degree!

So far as I know, about-to-become-former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney is the sole Republican to utter so much as a single syllable against the likes of DeSantis, Abbott and Ducey. Have they no sense of what is moral, ethical or legal? Are they so fearful of losing the support of Donald Trump or the MAGA-Republican base as to remain mute in the face of gross inhumanity, not to mention the most vile form of  mendacity?

Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell − who's married to an immigrant, former U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao − acknowledged at a news conference ". . . there's been a good deal of talk about what some of the governors have done to transport illegal immigrants up to other parts of the country. I personally thought it was a good idea. If you added up all of the [immigrants] who've been taken to Chicago or Washington or Martha's Vineyard, it would be fewer than people down in Texas have to deal with on a daily basis."

If there is any justice left in America, Ron DeSantis should be in a world of legal - not to mention moral and ethical - jeopardy. There are questions aplenty to be asked and investigated:

• About DeSantis’ use of federal COVID-19 dollars to fund his Martha’s Vineyard (and now Delaware) stunt;

• About the relationship between the DeSantis-for Governor campaign and Vertol Systems, a Destin, Florida-based company which is a major Republican contributor, that was paid more than $615,000 to charter the two planes which flew the 50 migrants (lawfully awaiting their asylum hearings) from Texas (not Florida) to Massachusetts. (n.b.: The Vertol Systems website link is suddenly no longer operable.)

• About whether or not DeSantis conned the migrants into signing consent documents holding both him and the State of Florida harmless from any legal action.  (As a medical ethicist, I can tell you that unless an informed consent document is written so that anyone capable of reading can understand it, it simply is not legal.  It also has to be written in the language which the subject is most literate.) 

Bexar County (Texas) Sheriff Javier Salazar has launched a criminal investigation into DeSantis’ cruel stunt. The decision comes on the heels of immigration rights groups and Democrats accusing Republicans of exploiting vulnerable migrants for political points by promising them jobs and housing, only to fly them to an island off the coast of Massachusetts that was not warned people needing help were coming.

Salazar, sheriff for the county where San Antonio is located, said it is too early in the investigation to name suspects or know what laws were broken. But he said he is talking to an attorney representing some of the migrants who have already filed a class-action suit and trying to figure out what charges should be made and against whom.

“We want to know what was promised to them. What, if anything, did they sign? Did they understand the document that was put in front of them if they signed something? Or was this strictly a predatory measure?” Salazar said.

For all his efforts, it would appear that Ron DeSantis has wound up being on the wrong side of Donald Trump. According to a report from Rolling Stone, Trump felt DeSantis not only stole his thunder, but also his idea to ship illegal migrants into heavily Democratic areas of the country. Rolling Stone writers Aswin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley reported they spoke to two people in Trump’s orbit in the days after the migrants were flown to the ritzy resort island:

Trump has fumed over all the praise DeSantis’ action has been receiving in influential conservative circles lately - such as on right-wing media like Fox News - and has privately accused DeSantis of doing this largely to generate a 2024 polling boost for himself among GOP voters.

It seems to me that Ron DeSantis’ sights had better be on November’s gubernatorial race before he starts drooling over 2024; goodness knows how many Florida Hispanic voters are going to either vote for Democrat Charlie Crist or simply stay away from the polls, as a means for expressing their anger and outrage at the man who used to be called Trump’s ‘Mini-Me.’

Time and again, “Rambo” DeSantis has proven that he will do or say anything that can put him at the top of the MAGA-Republican list of favorites. He may be well-educated, but clearly is none too smart . . . and has an utter lack of scruples.

To paraphrase the old Chubby Checker song:

Every Rambo boy and girl
All around the Rambo world
Gonna do the Rambo rock
All around the Rambo crock

Ron be Rambo, Ron be thick
Ron go unda Rambo shtick
All around the Rambo rock
Hey, let's do the Rambo crock

Rambo lower now
Rambo lower now
How low can you go?

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone