There's More to President Grant Than War, Whiskey and Dishonest Dealings

Today is the 4th of July; America’s 245th birthday. It is, of course, a day of fireworks (“The bombs bursting in air”), backyard barbeques and for some of us, watching for the umpteenth time Peter Stone’s magnificent musical 1776, starring William Daniels (John Adams), Howard Da Silva (Benjamin Franklin) and Ken Howard (Thomas Jefferson). For American historians, it is the time to write yet another essay, hopefully shedding even greater light on this magnificent experiment in liberty and representative democracy called America. At this time of year, Presidential historians are, as is their wont, surveying anew the presidential ranking of all 45 of the nation’s Chief Executives - from Washington to Trump. (#46, Joe Biden has not yet made the list as of today he’s only served in office 165 days.)

                             Ulysses S. Grant: America’s 18th President

When it comes to Presidential ranks decade-by-date, there are many givens: Lincoln, Washington, FDR and TR have ranked numbers 1-4 as long as anyone can remember. Then too, those at the bottom of the list - Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Warren G. Harding and John Tyler - haven’t budged; they are still the worst of the worst . . . with the exception of Donald J. Trump who now enters the list at 41 out of 45.  (BTW: Barack Obama debuted at #12 in 2016 and as of the latest polling, has moved up to #10). There are some surprises: Dwight Eisenhower, as an example, has moved all the way from 9th to 5th best over the past 2 decades.  The president whose reputation has improved the most in the past two decades? That’s Ulysses S. Grant, who started at No. 33 and is now ranked 20th. Grant has had a number of sympathetic biographies in recent years, and these days gets more credit for Reconstruction and his diplomacy than condemnation for his supposed dipsomania and alleged corruption.

That Grant loved bourbon (likely “Old Crow”) was well known to just about everyone.  According to one tale, a leading politician told President Abraham Lincoln that the man he was about to appoint his commanding general was nothing more than a rotten drunk.  “He is not himself half the time; he can’t be relied upon, it is a shame to have such a man in command of an army,” the man told Lincoln. “So Grant gets drunk, does he?” queried Lincoln, addressing himself to one of the particularly active detractors of the soldier. “Yes, he does, and I can prove it,” was the reply. “Well,” returned Lincoln, with the faintest suspicion of a twinkle in his eye, “you needn’t waste your time getting proof; you just find out, to oblige me, what brand of whiskey Grant drinks, because I want to send a barrel of it to each one of my generals.”  That might have ended the crusade against General Grant . . . not the historic stereotype . . . which may or may not be true.  

At the end of  1930, Scribner’s Magazine began publishing what would prove to be a short-lived series of “alternative history” pieces. The first installment, in the November issue, was “If Booth Had Missed Lincoln.” This was followed by a contribution from none other than Winston Churchill who turned the concept on its head. It was piece bafflingly titled “If Lee Had Not Won the Battle of Gettysburg”—but, as we all know, Lee didn’t win the Battle of Gettysburg.  Reading Churchill’s story brought out the zaniness in parodist James Thurber, who then wrote “If Grant Had Been Drinking at Appomattox” in The New Yorker in December of that year. The next month Scribner’s published a third essay (“If Napoleon Had Escaped to America”) before bringing the series to an end. All three pieces were soon forgotten, but Thurber’s parody became one of his most famous and beloved works, and is still being performed on stage.  I urge you to you read If Grant Had Been Drinking at Appomattox and have a good laugh . . .  So much for Grant’s affinity for whisky.  Politically, his presidency was long associated with corruption . . . most notably (and ironically) the so-called “Whiskey Ring,” a scandal uncovered in 1875 involving whiskey distillers, agents of the I.R.S. Treasury clerks and various members of the Grant Administration.  Although Grant appointed the nation’s first “special prosecutor” to look into the case (who discovered, tried and sentenced the culprits), the president and his time in office were nonetheless forever tarnished. In the eyes of history, he may have been a successful commanding general, but was definitely a worthless drunk and criminal.

Presidential historians, it turns out, have begun finding out that U.S. Grant was far, far better than his reputation or personal stereotype would have us believe.  He was responsible for bringing hundreds of thousands of former slaves into American society, and see that the  South not get away Scot-free with their moral and political transgressions.  Although deeply flawed, the “Reconstruction Era” did make it possible for government to get back on its feet after the War.  Grant had a lot to do with making the politics of that difficult program possible.

Then too, Grant was far better read and far more philosophical than historians have given him credit.  He was a damn good writer whose prose was praised by none other than the great Mark Twain who came to Grant’s financial aid during the former president’s final days by convincing Merrill Lynch to put up $50,000.00 to buy the rights to Grant’s autobiography, which Twain would then publish. (Twain accomplished what he sought out to do; most regrettably, Grant put the finishing touches on his autobiography just 5 days before dying in July 1885 at age 63.  The two-volume work was published at the end of that year.)

One of the Grant’s most prescient and chilling messages was delivered in a speech he gave at the Annual Reunion of the Army of the Tennessee in Des Moines, Iowa, on Sept. 29, 1875.  Its most revealing passage sounds like something could - and should - be spoken on this year’s Fourth of July observance.  We will conclude with these words, think about them, and then prepare to watch 1776:

I do not bring into this assemblage politics, certainly not partisan politics, but it is a
fair subject for soldiers in their deliberations to consider what may be necessary to secure the prize for which they battled in a republic like ours. Where the citizen is sovereign and the official the servant, where no power is exercised except by the will of the people, it is important that the sovereign — the people — should possess intelligence.

The free school is the promoter of that intelligence which is to preserve us as a free nation. If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon’s, but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition, and ignorance on the other.

Now in this centennial year of our national existence, I believe it a good time to begin the work of strengthening the foundation of the house commenced by our patriotic forefathers one hundred years ago, at Concord and Lexington. Let us all labor to add all needful guarantees for the more perfect security of free thought, free speech, and free press, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and of equal rights and privileges to all men, irrespective of nationality, color, or religion.

Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar of money appropriated to their support, no matter how raised, shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that the State or Nation, or both combined, shall furnish to every child growing up in the land, the means of acquiring a good common-school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistic tenets. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate. With these safeguards, I believe the battles which created the Army of the Tennessee will not have been fought in vain. 

And may Ulysses S. Grant’s name, deeds and reputation grow with every passing year.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

The Collapse of Champlain Towers South: Oh the Humanity

I am beginning to write this piece at precisely 4:09 PM EDT on Sunday June 27. It has been about 63 hours since the Champlain Towers South collapsed in Surfside, Florida. The latest update, issued ten minutes ago by our local NPR station (WLRN) - shows at least 9 deaths and at least 156 unaccounted for. Specialized rescue crews from all up and down the beach and as far away as Mexico and Israel (פיקוד העורף pekud ha-oref “The Home Front Command”) are continuing to work at a breathless, nonstop pace, using heavy equipment, highly trained rescue K-9s and EMTs from virtually every part of Florida. I know one of these EMTs quite well; I performed her wedding, her father’s funeral and tutored several members of the family for becoming b’nai mitzvah. I cannot imagine the level of adrenaline flowing through her veins.

Camera crews, local, national and even international reporters are on the scene, along with an occasional visit from our governor, our two senators. a host of local elected officials and civil engineers, as was well as Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose congressional district includes Surfside. The Biden Administration has weighed in, declaring a “State of Emergency,” and unlocking the key to millions upon millions of FEMA dollars. Even Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has thanked the president for the extreme alacrity with which he has set the trusty wheels of government in motion.

It is now 5:10 PM, EDT.  The numbers have yet to change, but already there are at least two law suits which have been filed, a full-blown conspiracy theory blaming the tragedy on the recently-deceased software pioneer (and world-class screwball) John McAfee for the tragedy, and numerous suggestions from construction engineers as to what possibly went wrong and who was ultimately to blame for it.  Champlain Towers South is, when compared to, say,  New York’s Dakota (1881) or Hollywood’s Chateau Marmont (1926) an architectural newbie: it was completed a mere 40 years ago.  However, the land upon which it sits (a man-made spit of sand) is far less structurally amendable than Manhattan’s rock-hard 72nd Street or Hollywood’s far more tractable Sunset Blvd. 

Questions about the long-term problems of a twelve-story building erected on sand - especially in an era of rising tides) abound.  Then too, there are all those questions about how often a tower on Collins Avenue should be inspected by civic engineers.  But all this for the future.  Today - and tomorrow and the day after - can and must deal with checking out not only the structural safety and integrity of the  North Tower but all those condos and apartments stretching from Surfside to Miami Beach and from Hollywood north to Boca Raton and Palm Beach.  Surfside is a unique bit of heaven a few feet from the Atlantic Ocean.  A high percentage of its inhabitants are Orthodox Jews, many of whom are originally from Russia . . . as well as South America (notably Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay).  This is the place where many have purchased winter homes, have created innumerable shuls and synagogues as well as a plethora of kosher restaurants.  One is just as likely to hear Russian, Yiddish or Hebrew  spoken on its streets as Spanish or English.  Personally, I spent a couple of semesters lecturing on American and International politics (on behalf of Florida International University) in the Surfside City Hall chambers. The city leaders were kind enough to lure my students to class by providing them with first-class lunches.  For the most part, these men and women were well-educated, deeply engaged, and always ready to be both challenged and challenging.    

Unlike with many disasters - whether of natural, manmade, political or idiopathic character - it is next to impossible to know precisely what to do . . . how to play a part in the solution without at the same time playing the  simplistic - though well-intentioned - fool.  Within the past 65 hours (it is now 6:15 PM EDT) we have all heard the  words “our thoughts and prayers are with them.”  While “thoughts and prayers”  are certainly both welcome and understandable, in the long-run they accomplish more for those who read or hear about disaster than those who actually suffer or undergo it.  (I  wrote about this in March 2019 at the time of the Christchurch,  New Zealand, disaster.  You may want to check it out). 

What is far more important in these early hours and days of the Surfside disaster is good old-fashioned cash. Many of the people who have managed to survive the collapse will need places to stay as well as food and transportation.  Then too, it is highly likely that those in the North Tower are going to have to move lest their homes come falling down.  They too will need financial assistance. Prayers and wishes are certainly meaningful.  Attempting to assess blame and lodge legal claims – although understandable, lack immediacy.  Making contributions for those in need is what we call in Hebrew תיקון עולם - literally, “Repairing the world.” It is one of the highest and most important of all Divine Commandments, and that which is most important at a time like this. This is not an act meant to be directed to Jewish people alone, but rather to all of G-d’s creatures who are suffering from disaster. Please, I beg  you: take it upon yourself and - along with your thoughts and prayers - to make a tangible contribution to the families and survivors of the Champlain South Towers. Therefore, I urge everyone reading this essay to contact one of the many agencies whose sole purpose is to get assistance to these people.  Here are a few of the best and most honest:

• The Miami Heat and several local organizations have launched a hardship fund for the victims: supportsurfside.org

• The Chesed Fund: The Shul of Bal Harbour created a central fund that will be donated as needed to victims and their families. Click here to donate to the Miami Tragedy Central Emergency Fund.

• The Greater Miami Jewish Federation launched an emergency fund for families and individuals for short-term and long-term needs. Click here to make a monetary donation online.

• Those in need of crisis counseling and housing assistance can call 211.

• Members of the clergy are on-site at the Surfside Community Center. To reach a chaplain, email rabbiklein@gmjf.org.

Once again, please consider making a tangible contribution to the families and survivals of the Champlain South Towers.

Thank you.

Copyright©2001 Kurt F. Stone

Is It Finally Time to Stop Being so Damned "Nice?"

“When they go low, we go high.” These were the words of a political catchphrase first made famous by First Lady Michelle Obama at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. “When they go low, we go high,” she said while discussing how to best “handle bullies” in support of Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House. Her motto quickly caught on. Even Secretary Clinton herself used it to defend herself against then-Republican candidate Donald Trump a few months later during their final presidential debate. “Going low is easy, which is why people go to it,” the former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State told Oprah Winfrey in 2020. “It’s easy to go low. It’s easy to lead by fear. It’s easy to be divisive. It’s easy to make people feel afraid. That’s the easy thing and it’s also the short-term thing . . . . When I want to go low, it’s all about my own ego. It’s not about solving anything.... It’s about seeking revenge on the thing that happened to you.”

For quite some time, many of us - mostly Democrats and Independents, but a handful of Republicans to boot - have found Michele Obama’s pronouncement to be on the money; an accommodating, well-conceived and gracious response to irresponsible political lunacy.  But now, after having lived through the first six-months of the Biden presidency - which has, in the main been quite successful despite what the opposition would have their core backers believe  - have begun reconsidering Mrs. Obama’s bon mot. To wit:

• When they go low, we might well consider going even lower;

• When they lie, we must call it out in 1,000 decibel syllables;

• When they insult, we should return fire;

• When they use fear instead of a political platform, we must boldly proclaim what our positions are. 

It’s easier said than done . . .

For as long as many of us can remember, it simply hasn’t been in Democratic DNA to “go low.”  Holding our heads up high and traveling a road of higher elevation has been both our wont and our custom.  The party of FDR, JFK, LBJ, Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden has produced few - if any - demagogues. Oh sure, back in the days of the “solid south” there were any number of Democratic S.O.Bs and racist brutes to make us quake in our brogues and loafers.  But that was then and now is now . . . when the brutes and liars, the fictionalizing fearmongers and abject bigots all seem to be products what was once proudly called “The party of Lincoln.”  Today. it is “The party of Trump,” and whereas it was founded on the lofty principles of  honesty, humanity and justice for all, today it is swirling around a toilet bowl overflowing with grifters, gougers and alarmist prophets of doom.  In these days of paranoid Cassandras, can we continue to afford “going high” when they persist in remaining “low?”

In a recent article entitled For Republicans, ‘Crisis’ Is the Message as the Outrage Machine Ramps Up the New York Times’ Jonathan Weisman summarizes the above by noting: House Republican leaders would like everyone to know that the nation is in crisis. There is an economic crisis, they say, with rising prices and overly generous unemployment benefits; a national security crisis; a border security crisis, with its attendant homeland security crisis, humanitarian crisis, and public health crisis; and a separate energy crisis.  These seemingly disparate issues have one thing in common: they are all meant to scare the pants off of Republicans and reinforce the absolute necessity of ridding America of the “Communist/Socialist Democrats.”  

For fans of Fox News, News Max and One America News America is on verge of becoming a Marxist dictatorship.  The supreme enemies of the state are President Biden (whom, they claim, is suffering from significant mental deficits), Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (both of whom are pushing an obvious Socialist agenda), the six House members making up “The Squad” (who are all virulent anti-Semitic racists) and Dr. Anthony Fauci (whom Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has accused of being "criminally liable" for allegedly helping to create the COVID-19 "bioweapon” and then making a personal fortune off of it. Then too, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the loudest and most pugnacious of all Republicans, has been telling anyone who will listen that that President Biden's face-to-face meeting this past Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Switzerland was a “disaster” which showed that American leader “has no idea who Putin is.”  And let’s not  to forget about Vice President Kamala Harris, she has come under fire for not having visited the nation’s Southern Border while on a recent diplomatic mission to Guatemala and Mexico.

Yes indeed: according to Trumpeters, QAnon aficionados and other assorted conspiratorialists, there is so much to be fearful of . . . and we haven’t even mentioned the teaching of Critical Race Theory (a.k.a. “Lessons in ‘how to hate America’”), stolen elections, the participation of transgender athletes participating in high school sports, and  the taking away of oh so many liberties from “real” Americans by “forcing” them to become vaccinated against COVID-19 and confiscating all their automatic weapons.

As anyone who follows national politics closely knows, there is a lot of tension and dislocation within the Republican Party.  While many give the public impression of being 100% dyed in the wool supporters of the former president, in reality, it is not truly political support they are expressing . . . it is a fear of falling out of favor with their “beloved leader” and facing an even more stridently pro-Trumpeter in the 2022 primary. About the only tie that binds Republicans  together is outrage . . . and fear-mongering. Outrage at what the “Socialistic Democrats” are planning for America, and the  spreading of abject fear. In his aforementioned Times “memo,” Jonathan Weisman noted that “House Republicans, still overwhelmingly in the thrall of Donald J. Trump, have learned over the last four years that grievance, loudly expressed, carries political weight, especially with their core voters.

In other words, House and Senate Republicans are already in full mid-term election mode, stressing not political policies or plans, but the need for a one-party Congress.  They have made abundantly clear that they will stand up defeat whatever Democrats seek to enact, and live up to the old saw that “the best defense is a good offense.”  It also keeps them from having to deal in any way, shape or form with the cataclysm of January 6. 

Republicans have long been far better than Democrats at imparting a sense of impending crisis.  Well, isn’t it about time that the Democrats learn from their so-called “friends across the aisle?” Republicans have long been better than Democrats at imparting a sense of crisis. How many remember the Solyndra crisis?  Congressional Republicans made the failed solar company a household name back in 2011, with heated news conferences, accusatory hearings and angry statements, when the solar company went bankrupt and left the Obama administration — and the taxpayers — the bill for a $535 million federal loan guarantee. This week, an electric pickup truck plant in Lordstown, Ohio, midwifed by the previous president, lost its top executives, its prototype burst into flames and it is on the brink of economic collapse.  And yet, there hasn’t been word one emanating from the Biden White House, Speaker Pelosi’s office or any Democrat of note.  As we used to say in high school, “There are times when you just have to ‘show some hair.’”  If they really tried, Democrats could make Lordstown the new Solyndra.  

Then too, there was the 2012 deadly terrorist attack on Benghazi in Libya, which became a two-year ordeal for Hillary Clinton, thanks to the Republican outrage machine.  Literally dozens of congressional hearings were held, all seeking to turn the then-Secretary of State into the guilty party.  It wasn’t until late June 0f 2016 that the  the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Secretary Clinton in the Libya that left four Americans dead.  The 800-page report delivered a broad rebuke of the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department — and the officials who led them — for failing to grasp the acute security risks in Benghazi, and especially for maintaining outposts there that they could not protect.  And keep in mind, that all of the committees which held hearings were chaired and staffed by Republicans.

Then there was the botched military attack ordered by President Trump in Niger, in which 4 American soldiers died.  Not only did the Republican-controlled Congress fail to look into this tragedy which led to the largest loss of American troops during combat in Africa since the 1993’s “Black Hawk Down” debacle in Somalia; the president fumbled the name of one of the dead and told a grieving widow her husband “knew what he signed up for.”  This debacle quickly became forgotten, due mostly to the Democrats keeping their mouths shut.  Once again, Democrats failed to explain to the American public the gross culpability, insensitivity and incompetence of the other guys.

I say it is time to stop being so damned nice and quit “going high” whenever Republicans “go low.” The traditional Republican playbill, which for eons has stressed “more freedom for individuals with lower taxes, a stronger economy and a safer nation,” has all but evaporated amid a constantly shifting menu of crises and outrages. For whatever reason, most Democratic leaders don’t believe the Republicans’ crisis talk is working, beyond spinning out clicks for right-wing media outlets and Facebook algorithms that thrive on outrage over such things as the decision by Dr. Seuss’s estate to cease publishing works that include egregious racial and ethnic stereotypes or the switch by Hasbro to a non-gendered brand name for its iconic plastic toy, now known as Potato Head. Democrats who truly believe this, do so at their own political peril.

It seems to me that if Democrats really, truly want to counter the Republican “world of crisis,” they must stop going high and, with all apologies to Michelle Obama, attack the current Republican strategy by calling a spade a spade, and replacing that spade with a full-throttled agenda. Democrats are not pernicious Socialists; Republicans are not prideful Patriots.

It’ time to stop being so damn nice, and start fighting pernicious fire with the power of full-throated truth.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Guess Who?

We’ve all heard it time and again. It’s gotten to the point where many we wish we wore hearing aids, just so we could shut them down or take them off . . . if for no other reason than to blot out the noxious noise of political lunacy and outright lies. How often do we have to listen to such blather as “Fake news,” "The greatest election fraud in the history of the country . . . in the history of any democracy," and “The deep state is deep within this government” before we go absolutely מְשׁוּגָע (m’shugah - “bonkers)?

If you think you know who’s been making all these אמירות הזויות (amirote h’zvee’yot - “delusional statements”) look no further than the language we are employing . . . it’s Hebrew . . . the language of about-to-become former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. And yes, the over-the-top charges with which Bibi has long been attacking his political enemies does sound an awful lot like the bilious puke the previous POTUS has been spewing at his political foes. In matter of fact, they frequently sound and act like they are following the same playbook . . . one written from right-to-left, the other from left-to-right.

But as Ed Valenti (the father of the modern infomercial and creator of Ginzu Knives) would say, “BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!” Both Trump and Netanyahu are largely despised by a majority of their respective constituencies for being cruel, overly abrasive, fabulistic (to put it kindly) and consumed with the fear that they will end their days bankrupted and perhaps behind bars. Unlike Trump, Netanyahu is already on trial for his sins; unlike Netanyahu, Trump maintains just enough political power among his base to continue being a cause for political concern.

As you are reading this post, there is every likelihood that Bibi Netanyahu’s twelve year run as Israeli P.M. will have come to a crashing conclusion. And while he is still a member of the Knesset and leader of the once vaunted Likud bloc, he leaves his post under a deep, storm-tossed cloud. Israel hasn’t had a functioning budget in more than two years. His personal relationship with President Joe Biden, although publicly strong is, behind closed doors, problematic at best. Bibi’s longtime coalition, an amalgam of hard-core conservatives, ultra-nationalists and far-right religious parties is about to be replaced by a coalition consisting of 3 conservative parties, 2 liberal, 2 centrist and, for the first time, an Arab party. About the only thing they have in common is their utter dislike for Bibi.

Under a rotation deal, Naftali Bennett, leader of Yamina (“Rightward”) will serve as P.M. for the first two years, with Yair Lapid, leader of the centrist Yesh Ateed (“There is a future”) party taking over as P.M. for the next two. Speaking about the new unity coalition, Israeli political scientist Shlomo Avineri said “The parties are disparate, but they share a commitment to reconstitute Israel as a functioning liberal democracy . . . . In recent years we saw Netanyahu begin to govern in a semi-authoritarian way.” Another prominent political observer, Tamar Hermann, who teaches at Israel’s “Open University” noted “They (the parties in the coalition) will not deal with the highly contentious issues between left and right,” In practice, this means a likely concentration on domestic rather than foreign affairs.

Here in the United States, President Biden, who has long prided himself on “working across the political aisle” in order to get things done, has found that compromise with Republicans is next to impossible. In Israel, the fact that so many disparate parties have agreed to come together in common cause - despite their innate philosophical and political differences - is a telling sign. In Israel, hard core political folks on the right have a tendency to move closer to the center. Here in the United States, it is nigh-on impossible to find even a handful of Republicans who will back any bill or initiative emanating from the Democrats. Their fear of Trumpian revenge surpasses their love of country.

                      Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett

Naftali Bennett, an America-bred modern Orthodox self-made tech millionaire who is considered to be to the right even of Mr. Netanyahu on many issues, is determined to deliver higher standards of living and prosperity to a population weary of such paralysis.  His main coalition partner,  former newscaster Yair Lapid, is a former news anchor known for his chiseled good looks Lapid Lapid is the Tel Aviv-born son of the fiercely secular former justice minister Yosef "Tommy" Lapid, another journalist who left the media to enter politics. His mother, Shulamit, is a novelist, playwright and poet. Lapid was a newspaper columnist and has also published a dozen books. His role as a presenter on Channel 2 TV boosted his stardom.

The new 8-party coalition will make establishing good relations with the Biden administration, a priority, and improving relations with America’s majority liberal Jewish community - another significant goal - will also require centrist restraint. The parties in this coalition, which range from Mr. Bennett’s Yamina party on the far-right to Labor and Meretz on the left, and Ra’am (the acronym for הרשימה הערבית המאוחדת (ha-r’shemah ha-ahraveem ha’m’ohkhedet - “United Arab List”) disagree on virtually everything from L.G.B.T.Q. rights to public transport on Shabbat. The one thing they do agree on is that Netanyahu must go. Autocracy must be replaced by democracy.

The decision by Ra’am, to join the government so soon after last month’s violent clashes between Jewish and Arab mobs in Israel last month, reflects a growing realization that the marginalization of Arab parties brings only paralysis and repetitive elections. It also suggests a desire among some Palestinian citizens of Israel to exert more political influence. Fakhira Halloun, an expert in conflict resolution at George Mason University, recently wrote: “Usually the dominant discourse is one of perceiving Palestinians inside Israel as an internal enemy. We need to change this perception by not being always in the opposition.”

Certainly, Ra’am, with four seats in Parliament, will be critical to the survival of the coalition, even if it will not hold any cabinet posts. The coalition will have to consider the interests of the Palestinian minority in a different way. Among many questions to be answered, none is more important than whether Mr. Bennett turns out to be an ideologue or a pragmatist.  Already, the new Knesset has chosen a member of Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid, Mickey Levy, to become the new Speaker.  He beat out Yaakov Margi, an ultra-Orthodox politician who is part of Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition. Mr. Levy, 69, is a former police officer who commanded police units in Jerusalem during the second intifada, or Palestinian uprising, in the early 2000s. He later served as a police attaché at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, according to his biography on the Parliament website, and then ran a bus company.  As speaker, Mr. Levy will exert considerable influence over parliamentary procedure, giving his government greater influence over the passage of legislation. This is a sign that Bennett and Lapid are serious about making this government work.

Unquestionably, there is much work to be done together by political parties and factions that have long been at one another’s throats. If they can help put Israel back on a strong democratic footing it will teach democracies the world over that those who manage to place country above party and the commonweal above the individual have it within their collective power to work miracles.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Charles Laughton Recites Lincoln's Gettsyburg Address

Back in 1935, Charles Laughton, one of the 3 or 4 most brilliant stage actors to also star on the Silver Screen, made a classic comedy called Ruggles of Red Gap, based on a best-selling novel by the now long-forgotten Harry Leon Wilson. Directed by Leo McCary and costarring Charles Ruggles, Mary Boland, Roland Young and Zasu Pitts, Laughton plays the impossibly proper English valet Ruggles who, having been won in a poker game by Egbert and Effie Floud of Red Gap, Washington, bring him back to their hometown where he, Ruggles the valet, is decidedly a fish out of water.

The highpoint of the film comes when Laughton, who is beginning to catch on to what it means to be an American, recites Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address from memory to a saloon full of cowboys and western tipplers. Director MCary wisely keeps the camera in motion, panning the faces of the hicks as they become increasingly captivated by the words effortlessly flowing from the valet’s mouth.

Laughton became so attached to Lincoln’s 10 sentences, that he would, over the next quarter century, recite it literally thousands of times . . . to WWII troops in military hospitals, at awards ceremonies and at gatherings of at least 4 presidents.

Last semester, I screened Ruggles of Red Gap in a film course at Florida Atlantic University. Laughton’s 2+minute rendition of the greatest, most moving presidential address in all American history, left not a dry eye in the theater. It is the masterful meeting of a stellar address and a brilliant actor.

Few people can hear these words - whether spoken by Orson Welles, Gregory Peck or Charles Laughton - and not feel their meaning, nor sense that Lincoln wasn’t merely speaking these 278 words to a gathering of fellow citizens in November 19, 1863, but for all Americans ever since. Their meaning is just as powerful, just as compelling today - and tomorrow - as it was nearly 157 years ago.

Please . . . listen as Charles Laughton speaks the words of Abraham Lincoln. And, as the French would say, it is perfectly understandable if you Préparez vos mouchoirs . . . “take out your handkerchiefs.”

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

What in the Hell is "Critical Race Theory?"

Received a message the other day through Facebook in which the writer . . . whom I have never met . . . tried to get my goat by writing “For what it’s worth, you have the greatest governor in the country and Florida has become attractive to me in terms of relocation for the first time in my life.” My response was (I hope) pleasantly direct, mostly truthful, and carrying just a smidge of sarcastic humor: “It has long been a hard and fast rule with me that I neither argue, debate nor discuss politics unless I am getting paid. Having written this I will tell you that I've never been all that wild about Florida. I greatly prefer mountains (which we have in great abundance in my native California), which can be enjoyed from a great distance; oceans, on the other hand, require one to live close by in order to get any benefit. Also, I do like an occasional chilly morning and cold night . . . which is virtually impossible in South Florida. Have a great week.”  I have yet to receive a response.  I would suspect that the reader is an avid Trumpeter who has a world-class political crush on Donald Trump’s “Mini-Me,” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. 

This week’s essay is not expressly about the Florida governor; we posted a piece about him (The Clone) this past March 2, so you know something of my thoughts and opinions about him. Rather, this piece is about an issue that DeSantis and most of his Republican colleagues have been increasingly putting under the political electron microscope for the past several months: “Critical Race Theory.” Simply stated, Critical Race Theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that racism is a social construct, and that it is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice (like racism or [dis]organized white supremacy), but  something embedded in legal systems and policies.

Through continually clanging the ultra-conservative claxon and demanding that the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) be made illegal (lest impressionable children be led to “hate the United States”), they hope to create yet another “Marxist” scare tactic which will keep their more gullible supporters on edge and champing at the Trumpian bit to replace Democracy with authoritarianism. Strategically, “Critical Race Theory” motors along the same highway as the spate of restrictive voting laws passed by the majority of Republican-controlled state legislatures (who would have us believe that the 2020 presidential election was rife with corruption and criminality on the part of the “Socialist Left”),  the gutting of any and every attempt to bring sanity and safety to gun ownership in America, and that illegal immigrants - with the blessing of Left - are increasingly entering the country in order to turn us all into Marxist slaves. These sorts of political canards are all meant to create fear of the so-called “Cancel Culture” and “woke,” and place as many restrictions as possible on anyone and everyone who disagrees with their reality.  This is the new reality for the erstwhile GOP - now called in many circles the “Q (Anon) OP.”

Republican governors and lawmakers across the country have been advancing legislation that would limit how public school teachers can discuss race in their classrooms; increasingly, educators say the efforts are already having a chilling effect on their lessons.

In recent weeks, Republican legislatures in roughly half a dozen states (including Florida) have either adopted or advanced bills purporting to take aim at the teaching of critical race theory. Conservatives have made the teaching of critical race theory a rallying cry in the culture wars, calling it divisive and unpatriotic for forcing students to consider the influence of racism in situations where they might not see it otherwise.

Instead of seeking to galvanize their core activists with such traditional Republican issues as less government, local control and tax cuts, GOP officials at the state level are now rolling out policies that flow from the woke/cancel culture fight. These include limits on public schools’ use of the New York Times’ 1619 Project which chronicles the role of slavery in American history and the teaching of critical race theory at public colleges. They consistently call Critical Race Theory “ . . . a Marxist framework that views society only through the lens of race-based oppression,” and claim “It is everywhere these days . . . In corporations, federal agencies, schools, and even the military; it sows hatred and division in the name of “dignity” and “equality.”

Warnings about the danger inherent in employing critical race theory in public schools and universities are spreading like wildfires in the West. In an article by the Associated Press’s Bryan Anderson it was noted that “Teachers and professors in Idaho will be prevented from ‘indoctrinating’ students on race. Oklahoma teachers will be prohibited from saying certain people are inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously. The Tennessee schools will risk losing state aid if their lessons include particular concepts about race and racism."  At least 16 states are considering or have already signed into law bills that would limit the teachings of certain ideas linked to “Critical Race Theory.” It has gotten so loopy that one state lawmaker in Tennessee actually declared that the Constitution’s original provision designating a slave as three-fifths of a person was adopted for “the purpose of ending slavery.” (n.b. while it is true that many historians agree that this compromise gave slave-holding states more political power, it is far from the historic truth . . . except to modern-day members of the QOP.)

Even House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has gotten into the act.  Recently, he led his party in protesting a proposed Biden administration rule promoting education programs that address systemic racism and the legacy of American slavery, calling the guidance “divisive nonsense.”

In a letter to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, McConnell, along with three dozen other Republicans, singled out a reference in the proposal to The New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project, which was included as an example of a growing emphasis on teaching “the consequences of slavery, and the significant contributions of Black Americans to our society.”

“Families did not ask for this divisive nonsense. Voters did not vote for it,” the senators wrote. “Americans never decided our children should be taught that our country is inherently evil.”  

What is inherently evil, is rewriting, reinterpreting and re-legislating history in order to score points with people who know next to nothing about history.

There are 526 days until the 2020 election.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Congressional Bigots, Racists and Utter Morons

Ever since day one, Congress has been peopled with generations of Blue Bloods like the Saltenstalls, Cabots Lodges, and Freylinghuysens, as well as the Dingells of Michigan, The Chaffees of Rhode Island and the Tafts of Ohio. Then too, there are the California actors who served in Congress; their numbers include the very first, Julius Kahn, a noted Shakespearean actor whose San Francisco district has long been represented by Speaker Nancy Pelosi; former Broadway star (and wife of Melvin Douglas) Helen Gahagan (who was derisively called “The Pink Lady” by California ultraconservatives); Sonny Bono, George Murphy (whom satirical songwriter Tom Lehrer noted “Now we’ve got a senator who can really sing and dance”); and of course two non-members of Congress: Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Moving away from the Golden State, Minnesotans sent Al Franken to the U.S. Senate, Fred Grandy (A.K.A. “Gopher” in The Love Boat) represented an Iowa house district for 8 years, and The Dukes of Hazzard’s Ben “Cooter” Jones, was a two-termer from Georgia.

Among the professional athletes who became successful politicians, several were Hall of Famers in their respective sports: New Jersey Senator and basketball legend Bill Bradley (who was also a Rhodes Scholar and an Olympic Gold Medalist); Kentucky Senator (and Hall of Fame hurler) Jim Bunning; Seattle wide receiver and 4-term member of the House from Oklahoma, Steve Largent.

Congress has also had more than its share of morons, bigots, anti-Semites, and outright intellectual lightweights.  One of the most obnoxious of ‘em all was a sixteen-term Democratic Representative from Mississippi, by the name of John E. Rankin (1882-1960).  Rankin, who served in the House from 1921-1953 at one point chaired the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee. He was a thorough-going racist and anti-Semite. He hated anything involving Hollywood . . . which he believed with all his heart and soul was the American capital of the Communist conspiracy.  That’s Rankin in the picture to the left, enswathed in an endless petition demanding a thorough investigation into the producers, directors, writers and actors in Hollywood . . . all of whom he was certain were card-carrying Jewish Marxists.  One wonders if it ever dawned on him that being draped in all those signatures made him look like a rabbi!

In 1944, Time Magazine reported Rankin referring to Jewish columnist Walter Winchell (Winshell) “the little Kike.” This incident inspired the novelist Laura Z. Hobson to write her world-famous story of antisemitism, Gentleman's Agreement (1947).

Today’s 117th Congress likely has more bigots, racists, anti-Semites and utter morons than any gathering in the past 100 years.  Among the worst are:

• North Carolina Freshman Republican Madison Cawthorn, the youngest member of Congress, who defended his having missed the most votes in Congress by claiming that it was far more important servicing his wife during their honeymoon than serving the people of his district.  "If I have to choose between voting with Nancy Pelosi or spending time with my beautiful wife, I’m choosing Cristina every time," he said.  Cawthorn further admitted he had missed a number of votes in the week he was gone but said it was all "Democrat garbage."

• Georgia Republican Andrew Clyde who likened the mob’s breaching of the Capitol on January 6 to a “normal tourist visit,” despite photos from that day showing him, mouth agape, rushing toward the doors to the House gallery and helping barricade them to prevent rioters from entering. The images resurfaced this week on social media amid a wave of disbelief and outrage over Clyde’s comments, including from several Republicans.  (It should be noted that the actor who probably played more dumb sidekick parts in Hollywood Westerns than anyone in history was the Scottish-born actor Andy Clyde, best known for playing Hopalong Cassidy’s comic relief, “California Carlson.”  Oddly ironic, no?)

• Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar, who is so far out of it that even his siblings want him expelled from Congress. 

• Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert who freely concedes that people believe that he’s the “dumbest member of Congress.”  Among his loopiest actions are claiming his face mask likely gave him COVID-19 (on the extremely rare occasions he wore one) and then taking the failed Donald Trump “cure” hydroxychloroquine to fight it. He has said that caribou love to “date” over oil pipelines and nominated Republican Newt Gingrich to be speaker of the House 13 years after Gingrich left Congress.

• Georgia Freshman Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene who, among many other inanities, recently likened Congressional leaders forcing members to wear masks during their time on the House floor to the Holocaust.  Furthermore, she was voted off all her Congressional committees due to her steadfast support of QAnon supported-reality, and has spent the lion’s share of her free time stalking the likes of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Eric Swalwell as well as Marjorie Stoneman Douglas survivor David Hogg.  Moreover, even before she won her seat in Congress, Greene suggested that  a bank controlled by the Rothschild family, who are Jewish, a utility company responsible for the fire and then-Gov. Jerry Brown had a compelling motive to spark lethal forest fires in California, thus clearing the path for a high speed rail project that Brown wanted.

• Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert who, like her freshman colleague M.T.G. is out on the edge of political sanity, recently posted a tweet asking her followers to reveal their favorite verse from the Bible. Unfortunately for Rep. Boebert, her public tweet garnered responses from people who are decidedly not impressed with the Colorado legislator’s overall performance as one of Congress’s most notorious wanna-be seditionists and gun-rights advocates.

It would seem that Rep, Boebert, who knows as much about the Bible as yours truly does about about lobster bisque, has posted her question in order to gather in more reelection cash. How in the world could I be so dismissive of another’s religious convictions? Well, it seems to me that one who truly knows their Bible, would be aware of certain verses, such as:

                    Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (L) & Lauren Boebert (R)

• “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others,” (Matthew 6:15);

• “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” (Matthew 25, 35)

• If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you.” (Lev. 25: 35)

• '"Before the blind, do not put a stumbling block- (Lev. 19:14).

This last verse, "וְלִפְנֵ֣י עִוֵּ֔ר לֹ֥א תִתֵּ֖ן מִכְשֹׁ֑ל” is, in my humble opinion, one of the most important of all verses in the Bible, and an exceptionally important lesson for anyone who makes their living as an elected official. For this verse makes crystal clear that those who place what we today call a “big lie” before the people, are committing a fundamental sin - not to mention breaking several Divine Commandments. Whether it be getting the public believing that that the last election was purposefully stolen; that the Holocaust was an invention of the Jews; that the COVID-19 pandemic was the intentional work of Dr. Anthony Fauci or that all those who broke into the the U.S. Capitol on January 6 were either “left-wing radical Marxists” or “peace-loving patriotic Americans” are knowingly driving a lethal wedge between neighbors and moving America ever closer to a second Civil War. And for what purpose? To put money in their pockets? To destroy the planet’s oldest and most successful democracy and replace it with a malevolent autocracy? To sell as many stumbling blocks as the market will bear?

An even more basic question has to be “Do the people spewing all this fraud and rhetorical deceit really believe what they are saying?” To be perfectly honest, I don’t know what is worse: believing with a full heart that the 2018 California wildfires were caused by Jewish space lasers (just ask Rep. Taylor-Greene) or knowing that they (the liars-in-chief) know full well that they are absolutely full of what Granny would call “canal water.”

My hope, prayer and dream is that come November 8, 2022, the public will give the likes of Reps. Clyde, Gosar, Gohmert, Greene and Boebert (not to mention Senator Ted Cruz and Florida’s own Matt Gaetz) their walking papers and replace them with ladies and gentlemen (of either party, but hopefully Democrats) who know that Congress is no place for bigots, racists, morons and habitual liars.

 There are 532 days left until November 8, 2022.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

"There's Nothing New Under the Sun"

It seems that hardly a week goes by without my receiving emails from longtime readers of The K.F. Stone Weekly or students in the All Politics All the Time courses I’ve been teaching at local universities for the past 22 or 23 years.  These emails frequently include links to essays or articles with an appended  note asking either What do you think about this? or Is this really true?  More often than not I don’t send back lengthy, detailed replies to the  What do you think? questions . . . either because of the constraints of time or because I feel reasonably certain that the inquirer is less interested in my reply than satisfying him/her self that I haven’t a brain in my head. Ofttimes I handle these Is this true? questions with a link to one of serious fact-checking websites like Snopes or the Washington Post.

One of the most constant questioners (who, mirabile dictu finds that I do have a brain in my head) is a long-time student and dear friend who refers to himself as “Pal Al.” Beyond sharing an obsessive love of baseball (he the Yankees, yours truly the Dodgers) we are both אוהבי ישראל - “lovers of Israel.” and political progressives. It should come as no surprise then, that My Pal Al wrote me asking what my thoughts were about the whys, wherefores and conceivable outcome of the current lethal confrontation between Israel and Hamas. Without having access to either a functioning crystal ball or any inside information, I will nonetheless attempt to share some thoughts - not just for his sake but for mine as well.

Prior to the outbreak of this newest conflict between the Gaza Strip-based Hamas and Israel, sort of led by Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, it had been 7 years since the two sides had gone at it toe-to-toe against one another.  Back in 2014, Barack Obama was POTUS; Donald Trump was starring in the 10th season of The Apprentice; the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) movement was growing on American college campuses and around the world; the official position of both the Obama Administration  and the Democratic Party was in favor of a “Two-State” solution.  Then, in July 2014, Israel began to conduct an operation called Brother’s Keeper as a response to the kidnapping of 3 Israeli teenagers by Hamas members in Gaza.  Soon, a war broke out.  It lasted 7 weeks (July 8-August 26) and ended with both sides claiming victory.  According to Israel and Palestinian Authority President Abbas, Hamas was severely weakened and achieved none of its demands. According to Hamas, Israel was repelled from Gaza. 

The summary for this war could easily have been authored by the Biblical essayists Kohelet (King Solomon), who wrote in Ecclesiastes: .מַה־שֶּֽׁהָיָה֙ ה֣וּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶ֔ה וּמַה־שֶׁנַּֽעֲשָׂ֔ה ה֖וּא שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂ֑ה וְאֵ֥ין כָּל־חָדָ֖שׁ תַּ֥חַת הַשָּֽׁמֶשׁ. (That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.) Since that 7-week conflict, we have experienced 4 years of Donald Trump who, living up to the terms of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (passed during the Clinton Administration) moved our diplomatic mission out of Tel Aviv. Many have adduced (myself included) that this was done far more for purposes of political optics than actual diplomatic progress; after all, it garnered both the support and attention of normally Democratic-voting Jews and pro-Zionist fundamentalist Christians. (How many have times have we heard that “Donald Trump has been better for Israel than any American president”?) Additionally, the Trump Administration yanked the U.S. the hell out of The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iranian nuclear deal, and just this last September, an exultant Donald Trump announced completion of the grandiosely titled “Abraham Accords,” which brought about the normalization of relations with 2 Sunni monarchies . . . Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

At the White House ceremony announcing the pact, Trump proudly announced: “We’re here this afternoon to change the course of history. After decades of division and conflict, we mark the dawn of a new Middle East,” and claimed that it would “serve as the foundation for a comprehensive peace across the entire region.” In the following months, both Sudan and Morocco entered their own processes of normalization with Israel. It should be noted that for better or for worse, this accord was met with overwhelming cynicism in both the Middle East and foreign policy establishment worldwide. Neither the UAE nor tiny Bahrain was ever at war with Israel. They already maintained numerous channels of clandestine cooperation with the Jewish state. The agreements they signed, as would later be the case with Sudan and Morocco, came with significant geopolitical sweeteners from the Trump administration. And as nondemocratic states, their ruling elites could not claim to even represent the abiding views of their small numbers of citizens, let alone the critical mass of regional public opinion.

So what’s behind this latest - and potentially most lethal - battle between Hamas and Israel? What has changed and what might be its cause? One of the first things that comes to mind is the current deadlock in Israel’s national politics. Jerusalem has suffered through 4 national elections in just under 2 years, and is no closer to forming a viable coalition government than it was when the process began.  And to make matters even worse for Netanyahu - Israel’s longest-serving P.M. - he is currently at the center of a corruption trial and fears that if he fails to form a government and is without an office, he may well go to jail. 

As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman recently noted, it is Bibi’s hope that his right-wing rivals might “. . . have to abandon trying to topple him and declare instead that this is no time for a change in leadership.”  It sounds a bit like Republicans arguing that a sitting president can neither be indicted nor tried while occupying the White  House. Many observers have stated a belief that Netanyahu bears responsibility for a brazen action on the part of the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces which underlies the current military action: began on the night of April 13, (which corresponded to the 2nd of Iyar, Israel’s version of Memorial Day . . .  יום הזיכרון . . . when the nation mourns and remembers its fallen soldiers.  The observance begins at sundown with the wailing of a siren that can be heard from one end of the country to the other. Israeli citizens stop whatever they're doing, wherever they are, and stand firm to honor those they've lost. It is both haunting and quite emotional.

It so happens that Israel Memorial Day generally coincides with the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. This year, the 1st day of that holy month coincided with  יום הזיכרון - Yom Hazikaron - Israel Memorial Day. Inexplicably on Tuesday April 13, the local Israeli police broke locks and cut electric lines to the loudspeakers at four minarets in Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque, thus silencing evening calls to prayer. To say the least, this infuriated the Muslim community . . . like a caterer serving pork chops and lobster tails at a Jewish (or Muslim) wedding. Plus, the local Jerusalem authorities had of late been evicting Muslim families from their homes in East Jerusalem, a neighborhood which has long been a bone of both emotional and historic contention.

Another possible answer to the question Why Now? deals with Iran, who has increasingly become the banker of first resort for Hamas. It is the Iranian intention to gain in importance in both Gaza and the West Bank (which Hamas wishes to control). The ground-to-ground weaponry Hamas has purchased with their Iranian rials is neither as sophisticated nor as on-target as the missiles launched from Israeli warplanes or ground installations.  That is why the numbers are so lopsided when it comes to deaths.  Israel, according to their communiques, has trained a majority of its air attacks on the web of underground tunnels in Gaza.  Sadly, many, if not most, of these tunnels run just beneath neighborhoods, schools and hospitals, which increases the civilian carnage.  And unlike Hamas, the  Israelis have the “Iron Dome” defense system, which can destroy a clear majority of the approximately 3,000 missiles they have hurled at Israel before they even come close to their targets.

Interestingly, few Sunni Arab countries have joined in on the murderous catcalls against Israel.  True, they despise Israel; but even more importantly, they don’t really care that much for the plight of the Palestinians; they are far more fearful of Teheran than Jerusalem. According to a recent report from National Public Radio sources on the ground in various Arab capitals, there is a new, popular hashtag which reads (in Arabic): #thePalestiniansarenotmyproblem.

Not surprisingly, this latest war has caused a steep spike in anti-Semitism, particularly in Europe. And here in the United States, where the Biden Administration - which has spent its first 100 days far more engaged in domestic rather than foreign issues - have been more frequent and muscular calls from Democrats for a cease-fire and disparaging remarks from Republicans and some Jews that the current administration is far more disposed toward the Palestinians than the Israelis.  Then too, the most progressive Democrats in Congress (notably the “Squad”) are sounding more and more skeptical about Israel.  Kohelet was correct: There is nothing new under the sun.

Let us conclude with the understanding that being pro-Israel or pro-Zionist does not require one to be a right-wing nationalist. One can still favor a two-state solution or speak out against the Netanyahu policy of settlements in disputed regions without being labeled an anti-Semite . . . or worse. Eventually this latest conflict will wane, a 5th election will be held in Israel, and whatever passes for ‘normality’ in that region of the world will resume . . . for however long it may last.  But the seeds of greater hatred for Israel in the ravaged Gaza Strip and Hamas’ political incursion into the West Bank will become exponentially increased.  

That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Fwed Astaire Stone Has Now Crossed the Rainbow Bridge

Anyone who has ever suffered the loss of a beloved pet has heard of - if not able to recite - the anonymously-written poem The Rainbow Bridge. A simple yet moving poem, it begins with the words:

Just this side of heaven is a place called Rainbow Bridge.

When an animal dies that has been especially close to someone here, that pet goes to Rainbow Bridge. There are meadows and hills for all of our special friends so they can run and play together. There is plenty of food, water and sunshine, and our friends are warm and comfortable.

All the animals who had been ill and old are restored to health and vigor. Those who were hurt or maimed are made whole and strong again, just as we remember them in our dreams of days and times gone by. The animals are happy and content, except for one small thing; they each miss someone very special to them, who had to be left behind.

They all run and play together, but the day comes when one suddenly stops and looks into the distance. His bright eyes are intent. His eager body quivers. Suddenly he begins to run from the group, flying over the green grass, his legs carrying him faster and faster. . . .

It is with profound sadness that Anna and I must report the death of our treasured Greyhound-mix “Fwed Astaire Stone.” He passed on today, Mother’s Day 2021. Not only has he been as dear to us as any of our children, grandchildren or siblings; he was also Annie’s service dog . . . , her assistant, her legs, her protector. He was everything a dog should be: smart as a whip (he understood commands in English Spanish and Hebrew and loved singing ‘Happy Birthday’ over the phone.  He was also a regular attendant at the closing service (neilah) for Yom Kippur where he would stake out a spot just in front of a large table laden with tons of cans, bags and boxes of pet food contributed by our congregants (and yes, we also collected lots and lots of food for hungry and homeless humans as well). 

Fwed, who would have been 13 this coming August, lived a miraculous life.  He was saved from a parking lot down in South Beach by our kids, Ilan and Nurit.  He was only a couple of weeks old and in terrible shape.  Ilan wanted him, and thought Fonzi would be an ideal name.  Unfortunately, he was in no shape to keep a struggling pup in his apartment, so we quickly agreed to take him in.  However, we told him, since we already had a Chocolate Lab named “Ginger Rogers Stone” (many will remember her; she used to wear a pearl necklace to Friday night services); obviously, he would have to be named after Ginger’s dance partner.  Well, it  turned that the “Star of the Month” on TCM that long-ago August was Kay Francis, a long-forgotten Warner Brothers superstar of the mid-1930s.  Warners paid her a bundle (upwards of $10,000 a week) to wear fabulous gowns and star in what used to be known as “weepies.”  Beautiful, elegant and extraordinarily flat-chested, there was only one problem with Kay: she could not pronounce the letter “r”.  Consequently, the folks in Hollywood generally referred to her behind her back as The wavishing Kay Fwancis.  And so, in her  honor, we naturally started calling the newest member of the family “Fwed Astaire Stone.”

Ginger, who was already at least 12 at the time, took Fwed under her wing and taught him everything he would need to know in order to become a top-flight canis familiarus.  Ginger lived past 15 . . . highly unusual for a dog her size.  The vet who cared for them said that so far as he could surmise, the reason why she lived so long is that she had to complete her task with her baby.  As things turned out, she did an even better job than anyone could have imagined; Fwed, a mostly Greyhound/? mix, wound up having the lithe physicality of her genetic hodgepodge but the personality of a Chocolate Lab.

In addition to Ginger, Fwed’s other instructor was the man who trained the Canine Corps for both the Broward and Palm Beach County sheriff’s department.  To say that he was obedient is to put it mildly.   As mentioned above, Fwed was Annie’s service pooch for years and years, proudly wearing his “uniform” and a perfect gentleman for trips to Publix, the hair cutter and just about everywhere in-between.  Wherever he traveled, people would stop, marvel at how handsome and well-behaved he was, and ask if it was alright if they petted him.  “That’s up to him,” we  would always say . . . ask him.”  At a restaurant, he would lay on the ground on his travel blanket right by Annie’s seat; an “I’m on duty” look on his face.  

Fwed could never thank Ilan and Nurit for saving his life and then providing him with your spouses, Amanda and Scott as two more people to love.  He was the best Tio (Spanish for “Uncle”) to Claire, Mia and Lucas, and would cry with tears of joy whenever he saw  and played with them.  

What a gentleman!  Ironically, my late mother had, for the last 12 or more years of her life a special friend named Fred.  We always had to be careful to make it known which Fred we were referring to in conversation.  Eventually, they became either “Florida Fwed” and “California Fred,” or else “Four-legged Fwed” and Two-legged Fred.”  The one time they met, it was love at first sight.

And so now, Fwed Astaire Stone has crossed the Rainbow Bridge and been reunited with Ginger Rogers.  They are both free and can continue that special love they shared for nearly three years.  But what is that Bridge?  To me, The bridge is a mythical overpass said to connect heaven and Earth—and, more to the point, a spot where grieving pet parents (otherwise coarsely called “owners”) reunite for good with their departed furry friends.  It will be a long time before we remove the three beds belonging to him or his many stuffed animals (which after all these years are still in perfect condition) or beloved uniform from the hat track near the front door.  Whether we continue putting water in his bowl and biscuits in his jar  . . . it is far too early to tell.  What we do know is that he was a world-class dog; one who loved being a dog had a loving fascination for cats and a great singing voice. 

The poem ends with the words:

You have been spotted, and when you and your special friend finally meet, you cling together in joyous reunion, never to be parted again. The happy kisses rain upon your face; your hands again caress the beloved head, and you look once more into the trusting eyes of your pet, so long gone from your life but never absent from your heart.

Then you cross Rainbow Bridge together….”

Fwed: please give hugs and kisses from all of us to Panchito, Ginger Rogers, Eleanor Roosevelt and Buster Keaton, and your/our beloved cats Rocky, Malka, Toby, Shlomo and Figaro and let them all know that we speak of them daily and still love them with every fiber of our being.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Great Expectations

Today, May 3, 2021, is the 103rd day of the Biden Administration. After what so many Americans have gone through over the past 4 years, it’s a pleasure to live in a country in which the volume is lower, the vocabulary far less noisome and the level of professionalism far more . . . well, professional. And to a great degree, these factors are being reflected in the polls.

According to polling published in Forbes, Biden’s overall approval rating through his first 92 days in office stood at 53.4%. Meanwhile, 40.1% of Americans disapproved of the job he's doing in the White House. After his first three months in office, Biden’s approval rating is higher than Donald Trump's (41.9%) and Bill Clinton's (52.9%) approval ratings were at the same point in their presidencies. However, it's lower than the approval ratings of Barack Obama (60.2%), George W. Bush (56.2%), and Ronald Reagan (67.6%) at the 92-day mark. From the point of view of bills passed during the first 100 days, Biden (11 bills passed into law) lags well behind his immediate predecessor (30), slightly behind Barack Obama (14) and way, way behind Harry Truman (53) and the granddaddy of ‘em all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had an astounding 76 bills passed in a mere 100 days.

Last week’s address to a joint session of Congress received the overwhelming approval of 82% of those tuning in to the historic speech (mind you, a clear majority of those tuning in were Democrats). Just seeing and hearing the president beginning his speech with the words “Madam Speaker, Madam President,” was enough to bring tears to one’s eyes. It was, indeed, physical symbolism writ larger than any neon sign on the Sunset Strip. And talk about all the proposals brought forward in the name of our infrastructure, the world’s climate, American families, education, economic realignment and jobs, jobs, jobs. Through going from a throaty whisper to a cannon’s roar, President Biden reminded us that he is one hell of a masterful speaker; not in the manner of Barack Obama, the orator’s orator, but rather in the manner of a wise, loving uncle.

This is by no means meant to indicate an overwhelming unanimity of support among American voters. Heck, within 24 hours of his taking the oath of office, Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene threw H.Res 57 into the hopper - a bill of impeachment against Joseph R. Biden for “abuse of power by enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” And, to add to the lunacy, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham has suggested that Republicans will impeach Vice President Kamala Harris if the GOP takes control of the House of Representatives in 2022, after the South Carolina senator falsely claimed that she had paid bail for Black Lives Matter protesters who later “broke somebody’s head open.”

Despite what one might think, not all Republicans are against Joe Biden or consider his administration to be chock full of atheistic socialists or Zionist conspirators. Then too, not all Democrats are in lock-step with every position, protocol or pronouncement of the new administration. Case in point: there are a goodly number of Democrats - both in and out of elective office - who are less than pleased with Biden’s handling of immigration on our southern border. Members of the party’s progressive wing are less than satisfied with Biden’s approach to this issue, and believe he has broken some of the promises he made back during the campaign. Originally, Biden promised that as POTUS, he would raise the annual number of refugees permitted into the country up as high as 125,000. In a statement on World Refugee Day last summer, Mr. Biden, then a candidate for president, made his support explicit.

During the campaign he said, “I will increase the number of refugees we welcome into this country, setting an annual global refugee target of 125,000,” promising to “further raise it over time commensurate with our responsibility.”

After winning the White House, his transition team set about making good on that pledge, debating the pros and cons in a series of meetings in December, 2020. With only six months left in the fiscal year (which ends October 31, 2021), Mr. Biden’s advisers have recommended he could go beyond his campaign pledge. However, as of today, he is stuck at 15,000 refugees . . . the same number as Donald Trump in the last fiscal year of his administration.

In one of his first speeches on the issue, President Biden said “It’s going to take time to rebuild what has been so badly damaged, but that’s precisely what we’re going to do.” He did not mention the number 62,500 (which is a figure repeatedly mentioned once he was inaugurated), but did double down on his promise of 125,000 starting in October, adding, “I’m directing the State Department to consult with Congress about making a down payment on that commitment as soon as possible.”

One should understand that there is a vast difference between asylees and refugees. The former wind up at our Southern border, doing everything in their power to gain admittance. Regrettably, they are stopped at the border and remain in Mexico, awaiting a hearing and praying that they are not sent back to the countries from which they are fleeing. Refugees, on the other hand, get through most of their paperwork in their native countries, express what their fears are about remaining in the lands of their birth, and then await the legal decisions which will grant them entry. Regrettably, there has been little progress for these folks; largely, they remain in the countries of their birth.

Despite all the promises and serious work among leaders within the administration, the number of refugees who may be admitted in the remaining months of this fiscal year remain virtually unchanged from those of the latter Trump Administration. This has raised the ire and hackles of the most progressive members of the Democratic caucus as well as the most conservative of Trump supporters . . . as if they truly cared. They both accuse Biden of going back on his word . . . not a comfortable position to be in.

President Biden’s change of plan has brought about changes around the world as well. Resettlement agencies had already booked flights for hundreds of refugees. Such immigrants must be identified as refugees by the United Nations or other organizations and clear several rounds of vetting that can take, on average, two years, according to the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy organization. Roughly 33,000 refugees have received such approval, and about 115,000 are in the pipeline to be resettled. This is, to put it simply, gut-wrenchingly difficult for those seeking entry as refugees.

There is still a lot of work to be done within the Biden Administration. The expectations are high, the administration is humane, and politics is - as ever - a treacherous zero-sum game.

But this by no means indicates that humanitarianism has no friends.

The Great Expectations of Fall, 2020, will find both allies and solutions before the beginning of the new fiscal year.

Welcome to our refugees . . . you have a family awaiting your arrival.-

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

The Danger of Political Sectarianism

The term “sectarianism” is generally understood to exist mostly - if not exclusively - in the realm of religion. Think of the splits or schisms between Sunni and Shia in Islam; betwixt Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox within the church; or between Sadducee, Pharisee and Essene in early Jewish history. These schisms could and did lead to isolation, recrimination and even violence. An aged Yiddish tale breaths a quaint satiric breath into the nature of religious sectarianism:

A ship traveling across an uncharted sea spots a funnel of smoke upon a distant uncharted island. Making their way there, they discover a very old Jewish man who, it quickly turns out, is the island’s only inhabitant. When asked how long he’s been on the Island, he admits to no longer remembering, but tells them he would be delighted to show them around - to all that he has accomplished in his many, many years of stranded solitude. He takes them on a tour of his home, showing them a beautiful orchard filled with fruit-bearing trees, a pasture with sheep and goats, a garden with numerous varieties of leafy plants and bulbs, and a hutch with dozens of egg-laying hens. At last he says, “If you will follow me to the other side of my island, I will show you the piece de resistance . . . my most prideful accomplishment.” So saying, they all make their way to the other side of the isle only to see two beautifully constructed lanai huts sitting atop carefully crafted hills of sand. They sit about 50 meters apart. “And what are these?” the old man is asked. “These are my two shuls - synagogues” he replies. “And why do you need two?” the captain of the ship asks. “Ah,” the old man smiles and responds . . . “this one is where I pray three times a day.” “And the other?” the captain inquires. “That one,” the elder responds, pointing in its direction, “that’s the one I would never step foot in!”

Religious sectarianism is an age-old plague that has produced a lot of pain, disagreement, dislocation and even death. It can lead to overwhelming certitude . . . or utter humility. As the Indian philosopher, poet and Nobel Prize winner Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) best expressed it, “The pious sectarian is proud because he is confident of his right of possession in God. The man of devotion is meek because he is conscious of God's right of love over his life and soul.” We can say nearly the same about the political sectarian . . . about being proud because he or she is utterly confident of possession in whomsoever is their leader. Look to the certitude of the Stalinist (who holds to “Socialism in one country”) as against that of the Trotskyite (who are adherents to the theory of “Permanent revolution”), the Maoist against the Leninist (wherein the peasantry are the revolutionary vanguard in pre-industrial societies rather than the proletariat) or today, of the Trumpeter over that of the garden-variety non-conspiratorial Republican or progressive Democrat. Indeed, one of the most baffling and worrisome aspects of contemporary politics is precisely this: insuperable, almost cultic sectarianism.

Today, American politics, in the words of the New York Times’ Nate Cohen “faces many challenges: New limits on voting rights. The corrosive effect of [disinformation]. The rise of domestic terrorism. Foreign interference in elections. Efforts to subvert the peaceful transition of power. And making matters worse on all of these issues is a fundamental truth: The two political parties see the other as an enemy.”  As a result, those issues which at one time were subjects for debate - balanced budgets, lower taxes, a strong military - have become existential showdowns. Witness the chief - and extraordinary difference - between the 2020 national Democratic and Republican platforms: the former was chock-a-block with the minutiae of program (everything from what to do about the COVID-19 pandemic and the economy to climate change and the rebuilding of America’s infrastructure); the latter was literally non-existent.  While Democrats ran on what they were for and presented what they hoped to accomplish, the Republicans ran on what they were against . . . what they warned an nauseum was the “ultra-leftist Socialism” of the Democrats versus the “Make America Great Again” populism of the Party of Donald Trump.     

For better or for worse, Joe Biden insisted that the future depended on both parties working together.  For those to his political left, it sounded wistfully Pollyannaish.  But that’s been the Biden political zeitgeist for nearly half-a-century. But now that he has been in office for nearly 100 days, his definition of “bipartisanship” has morphed into something like “a successful bipartisan bill need not attract a single Republican vote.”  As the Washington Post’s Ashley Parker recently noted, “Biden pushed his $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill through the Senate with the support of all 50 Democrats and nary a Republican, yet later declared it a resounding bipartisan triumph. The president and his advisers have also signaled that, while they are planning robust outreach to Republican lawmakers, they are prepared to pass his infrastructure plan on the votes of Democrats alone — and call it a bipartisan victory.”  Truth to tell, Biden and his team have not forsaken bipartisanship; they’ve simply come to understand that Republican support need not come from members of Congress.  Polls are showing increasing support for much of the Biden agenda from Republicans who are not elected to office.  

Something is at work here that few Trump-supporting Republicans seem to grasp. Has it dawned on them that it’s been a long, long time since they captured a majority of the presidential vote? Or that continuing to run on a negative platform which stresses that which political psychologists call “collective victimhood” (e.g. that it is Whites who are far more endangered than people of color, and that unless radical changes are made, America will soon become a “majority-minority country”) . . . that continuing to run to the political beat of this populist/nationalist/white supremacist beat is akin to an extended “Groundhog Day.”

To return to the Times’ Nate Cohen, he concludes that “Whether religious or political, sectarianism is about two hostile identity groups who not only clash over policy and ideology, but see the other side as alien and immoral. It’s the antagonistic feelings between the groups, more than differences over ideas, that drive sectarian conflict.”

American democracy is at a dangerous crossroads . . . for both Democrats and Republicans alike. For Democrats, the task is to stay positive, keep active and turn a blind eye and deaf ear the tortures of vilification. In this way, they may be able to gain even more support from the shops and residences of Main Street U.S.A. For conservative Republicans, their task will be far more difficult. First, to ask themselves what precisely they mean to “conserve,” and how to sell it, and second, what to do about Donald Trump. For as sure as shooting, he is not the answer; he is the predicament. The former POTUS is like a fire: stand too close and you get burned; stand too far away and you are out in the cold.”

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Pandemic, Pandering and Partisan Politics

The story is told that back in 1957, Horace Stoneham (1903-1986), the longtime owner of the National League’s New York Giants, got it into his head that for economic reasons, it would be best to move his team from the Polo Grounds out west to Minneapolis. Stoneham confided this plan to his friend, Dodger owner Walter O’Malley (1903-1979), who in turn let his friend Horace in on a secret: O’Malley himself was already negotiating with the powers-that-be out in Los Angeles to move his team out West. O’Malley suggested that Stoneham ditch the plan to move the Giants out to Minnesota, instead contact San Francisco Mayor George Christopher, and move his team to the City by the Golden Gate . . . thus preserving their bitter rivalry. It was a brilliant idea; today, 63 years after their mutual move out west, there is still no stronger antagonism in all professional sports than that between the two teams . . . and their  respective fans.

Decidedly, rivalries and gross animosities exist in many areas of life.  In American politics, one can go all the way back to Jefferson and Adams; their personal and ideological antipathies were so great that the latter steadfastly refused to attend the inauguration of the former in 1800. The Roosevelts of Oyster Bay could not abide their kinsmen from Hyde Park . . . despite a mutual family member (Anna Eleanor Roosevelt) coming from one side of the clan and marrying into the other.  (BTW: they actually pronounced their family name differently: T.R. and his clan pronounced it “ROOS-e-velt,: while FDR and his, “ROSE-a-velt.”)  For the past several years, due partly to the growth of social media and partly to the - shall we say - “sportive” nature of politics itself, Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Progressives have become as lethally combative as fans of Dodger catcher Johnny Roseboro and Giant pitcher Juan Marichal (that’s them in the picture above, with pitcher Sandy Koufax attempting to play peacemaker).

When all is said and done, historic sports rivalries are nowhere near as serious or as lethal as those in the world of politics. Take the vast divide between conservative Republicans and even moderate Democrats when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines, the wearing of masks, social distancing and science versus conspiracy.  Today, there is a vast gap between those who are ready, willing and able to wear masks, maintain social distancing and get vaccinated just as soon as their name is called, and those who simply will not comply with any recommendation whatsoever.  These folks – mostly conservative Republican men – see in any governmental guideline or suggestion, an invasion meant to take away their First Amendment liberties.  Witness the following verbal contretemps between House Freedom Caucus founder Jim Jordan and America’s leading epidemiologist, Dr. Anthony Fauci:

The very idea - heatedly expressed by Rep. Jordan - that the entire COVID-19 protocol is nothing more than an assault on American freedom and liberty is, of course, utter twaddle. I would imagine that “Gym” Jordan, his Congressional colleagues and political partisans wear seatbelts when they drive and vaccinate their children before sending them to school instead of crying “FOUL” and warning of a loss of individual liberty.  I simply cannot accept they really believe that placing restrictions on businesses during a time of pandemy is nothing but the first step on the downward path to perdition; what they do believe is that loudly proclaiming such is a wonderful way to raise funds, get like-minded souls to the polls and get themselves reelected.  It is an obvious case of pandering for purposes of partisan political gain.  

Consider the following: 

• As of April 15, 2021, just over half of American adults have now received at least one inoculation; this according to a Monmouth University poll released 48 hours ago;

• Similarly, a Quinnipiac University poll, also released on Wednesday, showed that 45 percent of Republicans told pollsters they did not plan to get vaccinated;

• More than two in five Republicans said they would avoid getting vaccinated at all costs; thus suggesting that President Biden has not succeeded in his effort to depoliticize the vaccines;

• The states with the highest vaccination rates are now mostly Democratic-leaning, while the states with the lowest rates are deeply conservative.

  Democrats believe more strongly than Republicans in the power of government. Compare, for example, the chaos of the Trump administration’s virus response, to the Biden administration’s. Democrats belief in the power of government certainly doesn’t ensure they will manage it competently, but it may improve the odds greatly.

  Vaccine hesitancy has declined substantially, polls show. But it is still notably high among registered Republicans.

The relationship between vaccination and politics reflects demographics. Vaccine hesitancy is highest in counties that are rural and have lower income levels and college graduation rates — the same characteristics found in counties that were more likely to have supported Mr. Trump. In wealthier Trump-supporting counties with higher college graduation rates, the vaccination gap is smaller, the analysis found, but the partisan gap holds even after accounting for income, race and age demographics, population density and a county’s infection and death rate.

When asked in polls about their vaccination plans, Republicans across the country (especially men without college educations - have been far less likely than Democrats to say they will likely avail themselves of the free inoculations. As previously mentioned, Monmouth University and Quinnipiac University polls indicated that almost half of Republicans did not plan to pursue vaccinations. Only around one in 20 Democrats said the same. The question is why?  While it is possible that some of the differences in vaccination rates are driven by distribution issues and eligibility rules, most researchers find that hesitancy has more to do with which “team” one roots for.

                                         Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

There has been a tremendous amount of anti-science, pro-”Socialist” claptrap spread around the internet in recent months.  The messages stress that Democrats are urging vaccines, business closings, masking ordinances and social distancing in order to magnify and heighten the fear of the so-called “Socialist agenda” on the American public; of erasing the entire First Amendment. It has been bought hook, line and sinker by a near majority of conservative Republican men.  However, one should also be cognizant of there being a handful of prominent anti-vaxxers on the Democratic side as well.  Robert Kennedy, Jr., the son of the late United States Senator, has been a leading voice in the anti-vaxxer movement.  As far back as 2005, Kennedy wrote an article in Rolling Stone and Salon called "Deadly Immunity", alleging a government conspiracy to conceal a connection between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism. The article contained five factual errors, leading Salon to issue corrections. Six years later, on January 16, 2011, Salon retracted the article completely.  Most recently, Kennedy has promoted multiple conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 including false claims that both Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are trying to profit off a vaccine, and suggesting that Bill Gates would cut off access to money of people who do not get vaccinated, allowing them to starve.  What motivates an otherwise worldly, progressive environmental activist like Mr. Kennedy to immerse himself so publicly and utterly in conspiracy theories when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines?  I for one am mostly stumped, although I do know that one of Bobby, Jr.’s 6 children (son Conor) suffers from anaphylaxis peanut allergies. Kennedy wrote the foreword to The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, in which he and author Heather Fraser link increasing food allergies in children to certain vaccines that were approved beginning in 1989. 

Kennedy I can’t figure out.  However, with regards to conservative Republicans, I am convinced that their conspiracy theories about COVID-19 vaccines and utter distrust for science has everything to do with pandering for the purpose of partisan political gain . . . plain and simple. Shame on those who promote this strategy. Whether they realize it or not all they can hope to accomplish in the long run is to significantly lower the number of conservative Republican voters they can count on to come out to the polls and support their fear-driven platform in 2022, 2024 and beyond.  

Go Dodgers . . . get your shots!

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Can Justice Breyer Become Joe Biden's Justice Brandeis?

                               Mr. Justice Brandeis

Students, scholars and devotees of modern American political history are well aware that FDR’s 1937 “Court Packing Plan” was without question, the lowest moment of his 12+year presidency. Royally furious over a largely conservative Supreme Court’s dismantling of aspects of his New Deal (most notably in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, [a 9-0 ruling which ruled that the President may not remove a Federal Trade commissioner without cause]; Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford , [a 9-0 ruling which declared the Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act unconstitutional], and the A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, [a 9-0 decision which essentially made the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional] it made FDR see red and seek political retribution.

That retribution came in the form of a proposed piece of legislation which would ultimately sink like a heavily-weighted balloon. Shortly after his unprecedented trouncing (538-9 in the Electoral College) of Kansas Governor Alf Landon (a moderate Republican), FDR developed his plan to reform the court in secrecy, working with his attorney general, Homer Cummings, on a way to ensure the court would rule favorably about upcoming cases on Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act.

FDR’s retributive plan was to pass a law—the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937—that would allow the President to appoint an additional justice for every sitting justice who was over 70 years of age, and thus giving Roosevelt the authority to add six of his own justices to the court. With two liberals already on the bench, that would put the odds in well FDR’s favor.  Roosevelt truly believed that coming on the heels of his overwhelming presidential victory and staggering Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress (338-89 in the House and 76-16 in the Senate) he could easily pass his bill, thus “packing” the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.  But such was not to be.  One of key “carpenters” in putting the final nail in FDR’s “Court Packing” plan was his good friend and longtime adviser, Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, the first Jewish member of that august body (he had been appointed by Woodrow Wilson in 1916).

Working through both political channels within Congress and  face-to-face conversations with FDR, Brandeis (whom FDR reverently referred to as “Old Isaiah” likely because he possessed the bearing and moral gravitas of an Old Testament prophet) let it be known that he found the plan to be “a very destructive blow” and that it “impugned the integrity of the court.”  Spurred largely by Brandeis, the momentum behind FDR’s proposed legislation began waning; so much so that editorialists across the country took pen in hand to denounce what they saw as the president’s hubris.  The court packing plan became a major issue in the 1938 midterm elections: The Democratic Party lost a net of eight seats in the U.S. Senate and a net 81 seats in the U.S. House.

President Roosevelt lost the Court-packing battle, but he won the war for control of the Supreme Court . . . not by any novel legislation, but by serving in office for more than twelve years, and appointing eight of the nine Justices of the Court. (With the retirement of Justice Willis Van Devanter in 1937, the Court's composition began to move in support of Roosevelt's legislative agenda. By the end of 1941, following the deaths of Justices Benjamin Cardozo (1938) and Pierce Butler (1939), and the retirements of George Sutherland (1938), Louis Brandeis (1939), James Clark McReynolds (1941), and Charles Evans Hughes (1941), only two Justices (former Associate Justice, by then promoted to Chief Justice, Harlan Fiske Stone, and Associate Justice Owen Roberts) remained from the Court Roosevelt had  inherited in 1933.  

FDR’s failed court packing master plan took place more than 80 years ago.  Now, in 2021, the issue has returned - if not with a vengeance, than at least to the nation’s editorial pages. Just this past Friday, President Joseph R. Biden, fearful that the 6-3 conservative court left him by his predecessor (thus making many of his legislative proposals dead in the water) ordered a 180-day study of adding seats to the Supreme Court. Yes, the possible return of FDR’s ill-fated plan. During the 2020 campaign, Biden promised to establish a bipartisan commission to examine the potentially explosive subjects of expanding the court or setting term limits for justices. While Mr. Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has asserted that the system of judicial nominations is “getting out of whack,” he has declined to say whether he supports altering the size of the court or making other changes — like imposing term limits — to the current system of lifetime appointments.

        Justice Stephen G. Breyer

Enter SCOTUS’s senior justice, 82-year old Stephen G. Breyer, possibly his generation’s “Old Isaiah.”  Like Brandeis before him, Breyer is a progressive.  Like Brandeis, he is a legal scholar of the first rank'; he still lectures at Harvard Law School, his alma mater.  According to the highly-respected Oyez - a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII) - Justice Breyer “ . . . is known for being the most pragmatic justice on the bench. His decisions are often guided by maneuvering around the real life consequences to the people affected by the decision.”  It is with this background that Mr. Justice Breyer, in a recent speech (ironically, the “Scalia Lecture”) to students and faculty at Harvard, warned that expanding the size of the Supreme Court could erode public trust in it by sending the message that it is at its core a political institution.  In his speech he explored the nature of the court’s authority, saying it was undermined by labeling justices as conservative or liberal. Drawing a distinction between law and politics, he said not all splits on the court are predictable and that those that are can generally be explained by differences in judicial philosophy or interpretive methods.

Not being a law school graduate, I can neither attest to nor disagree with Breyer’s rendering of court history.  As one who has long studied and written about both SCOTUS and American political history, I am well aware of the various justices (like the late Chief Justice Earl Warren) who, once appointed to the bench, surprised both the public and legal community by becoming moderating forces.  Yes, like it or not, the Supreme Court is, at base, a political institution.  And yet, as Breyer noted with seeming satisfaction,  “. . . the court did not hear or decide cases that affected the political disagreements arising out of the 2020 election.” And he listed four decisions — on the Affordable Care Act, abortion, the census and young immigrants — in which the court had disappointed conservatives.

Those rulings were all decided by 5-to-4 votes. In all of them, the majority included Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and what was then the court’s four-member liberal wing to form majorities. in his valedictory at Harvard Law, “I hope and expect that the court will retain its authority,” Justice Breyer said. “But that authority, like the rule of law, depends on trust, a trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not politics. Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that perception, further eroding that trust.”

I hope and pray that Breyer’s words, like those of Brandeis long before him, will fall forcefully on the ears, heart and mind of FDR’s newest successor . . . so as not to become a destructively telling issue in the 2022 midterm elections. Also, what goes around comes around . . . meaning in this case that were Biden’s  version of some court packing/tenure limiting plan come into effect, sure as shooting, some other administration/Congress would make Democrats rue in anger the day it became law.

It is likely that Mr. Justice Breyer will be retiring before too long and returning to his beloved San Francisco. At that time, President Biden will hopefully be able to nominate - and get passed - a jurist of the mind, temperament and philosophy of Stephen Breyer. And then, like FDR, perhaps Democratic presidents will be able to outlive as many of the court’s conservative ideologues as possible and return that branch to its exalted perch.

“Old Isaiah” is keeping an eye out from his celestial seat.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Matt Gaetz and Denver Riggleman III: The Craven and the Courageous

Back in the day, Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank’s congressional colleagues and writers at The Hill regularly voted him as being both the brightest AND the funniest member of the House. And this, despite the fact that Barney was far to the left of most Democrats and virtually every Republican . . . not to mention being one of the few proudly “out” gay members of that body.

Today, it’s anybody’s guess who would be voted the best and brightest in the lower chamber; Maryland’s Jamie Raskin? California’s Adam Schiff?  Florida’s Ted Deutch?  Who knows?  By the same token, the one member of the House who has the lowest rating among both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to collegiality, sincerity, honesty and professionalism is, without a doubt, North Florida’s Matt Gaetz, who as of the past several days, has become front-page news all over the country . . . so much so that even Saturday Night Live assigned one of its cast members, Pete Davidson, to skewer the  hyper-conservative Tallahassee blowhard in prime time. 

For those who have been vacationing on Uranus (pun likely intended), Representative Graetz is reportedly being investigated by the U.S. Justice Department over numerous allegations; the most oft-mentioned being that he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl and paid for her travel, which would be a violation of what at one time was called the “Mann Act.” 

(n.b. A word about the Mann Act: Passed by Congress in June 1910, the Mann Act was named after its primary author, Illinois Representative James R. Mann. The act invoked the Commerce Clause to felonize the use of interstate or foreign commerce to transport women for immoral purposes. The Act was aimed at prostitution, immorality, and human trafficking. Congress appointed a commission three years before its passage to investigate into the problem of immigrant prostitutes. It was alleged that immigrant women were brought to America for sexual slavery and immigrant men lured American girls into prostitution (or “white slavery”). Over the years it was in effect, it was used to arrest such well-known people as African-American boxer Jack Johnson (arrested and convicted in 1913, pardoned by Donald J. Trump in 2018; architect Frank Lloyd Wright (arrested, tried and acquitted in 1926 - charges eventually dropped; Charles Chaplin (arrested, tried and acquitted in 1944); and musician Chuck Barry (arrested, tried and found guilty in 1960 - served 3 years in prison). The most famous history of the early days of this act was written shortly after its passage by the “notorious” anarchist Emma Goldman in 1910. She herself would be deported during the 1919 Palmer Raids aboard the “Soviet Ark” ).

Now, before anyone gets on the “it’s all the fault of the liberal Democratic establishment and the lame-stream media" bandwagon, please know that the investigation began during the Trump Administration where A.G. Bill Barr was still calling the shots.  Gaetz responded to the DOJ allegations alleging that he was the victim of a former Justice Department official seeking a $25 million extortion payment.  "We have been cooperating with federal authorities in this matter, and my father has even been wearing a wire at the FBI’s direction to catch these criminals," Gaetz wrote on his Facebook account. With every passing day the story gets seedier, more complex and less credible, the potential charges ever more damning. 

This past week CNN reported that Gaetz showed other Republican legislators nude photos and videos of women he claimed to have had sex with; he showed the photos while on the floor of the House chamber. Charges have also surfaced that Gaetz once led a group of Republican legislators in a game where they scored “points” for sleeping with staffers and interns—with bonus points for virgins—also resurfaced last week. Though this was not the first time. Or the second. Or even the third. 

 As of this past weekend, he is being investigated for whether or not he dipped into either campaign or Congressional office funds to pay for this and other alleged trysts. Then too there is a sidebar about Gaetz’s involvement with his new 26-year old fiancée Ginger Luckey (they became engaged at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club this past December) and her brother, 28-year old Palmer Luckey, a big name in the tech world who is currently seeking government defense contracts for his company (Anduril . . . named for a sword in J.,R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy) to build weaponized drones, thus taking the industry lead away from the Chinese.  It turns out that Rep. Gaetz has already sponsored legislation to ban federal funds from being used to purchase Chinese drones.  The measure did not pass. 

In light of the initial interest in the “sex-with-a-minor-for-hire” charge, one of the most chilling and ironic things to emerge is that Gaetz, the well-heeled scion of a longtime political family (his father, the onetime president of the Florida Senate sold Vitas Healthcare Corporation business for a reported half billion dollars in 2004; his grandfather Jerry Gaetz ran for Lt. Gov. of North Dakota in 1964) the irony turned out to be that Matt Gaetz cast the lone vote against a bill (S.1536) aimed at combating human trafficking.  In defending his vote against the bill - officially  known as the “Combating Human Trafficking in Commercial Vehicles Act,” (which creates a committee within the Department of Transportation to develop “best practices for states and transportation groups to combat human trafficking”) Gaetz defended his vote in a Facebook broadcast averring that “despite the best intentions of the bill,” it represented "mission creep" at the federal level in creating the committee.

He further stated “Unless there is an overwhelming, compelling reason that our existing agencies in the federal government can't handle that problem, I vote no because voters in Northwest Florida did not send me to Washington to go and create more federal government . . . . If anything, we should be abolishing a lot of the agencies at the federal level like the Department of Education, like the EPA and sending that power back to our state governments." 

There is a pathetic irony at work here. In recent weeks, practically every well known official in the New York state Democratic Party, and not a few national figures, have called upon New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign following allegations of sexual harassment. As of forty-eight hours ago, the number of Republican officials calling for the resignation of Rep. Matt Gaetz since it was revealed he is under investigation stands at … zero. How in the world does this fit in with political tribe that refers to itself as “the party of family values?” Somehow they’ve managed to forgive and forget the sins of such party stalwarts as Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump while piling on - not to mention impeaching - Bill Clinton for his indiscretions.

Unquestionably, Matt Gaetz’s chances of being reelected are looking rather slim. It also seems to me that are at least four possible scenarios hovering about the future of this craven “son-of-Trump”

• He will resign office and become a media commentator . . . perhaps at NewsmaxTV or One America News (he has already hinted at this);

• He will face a tangle of well-heeled conservatives in the 2022 Republican primary and either lose or face a run-off;

• He will be expelled from the House of Representatives;

• He will face trial on who knows how many charges.

Regardless of what scenario takes center stage, one can only hope  that justice shall be done.

So much for the craven Matt Gaetz.  Let’s briefly turn our attention to the courageous Denver Riggleman III.  Denver who?  Riggleman (1970- ) a Virginia Republican, served but a single term in Congress (January 3, 2019-January 3, 2021), representing Virginia’s 5th District.  He was/is a mostly conservative (e.g. non-hard right) Republican who served 15 years as an intelligence officer in the United States Airforce, created, along with his wife, Christine Blair and 3 daughters, a 50-acre craft distillery in Afton, Virginia (outside of Charlottesville) called “Silverback Distillery.”  Former Representative Riggleman is not your typical Republican politician.  He is a longtime self-described “Bigfoot scholar” and, although he doesn’t necessarily believe in its existence, self-published a 2020 book entitled Bigfoot… It’s Complicated.  In July 2019 he officiated at the same-sex marriage of 2 friends; the next month he was censured by Republican Party officials who claimed that he had  “abandoned party principles.”  Riggleman was defeated after serving but a single term by Bob Good, a former associate athletic director at Liberty University . . . aptly described as a “reTrumplican.”  

But it wasn’t officiating at the marriage, owning and operating a distillery or his fascination with Bigfoot that got party officials to run and fund Bob Good; it was the fact that Denver Riggleman III showed uncommon valor on the floor of the House of Representatives.  No, it was having the guts to be the lone Republican House member to speak in favor of the passage of H.Res. 1154, a resolution “Condemning QAnon and rejecting the conspiracy theories it promotes.”  In speaking to his House colleagues about the threat of QAnon, then-Rep. Riggleman said, ““The grotesque nature of the tweets and Instagram posts and the anti-Semitic tripe spewed by QAnon adherents should cause concern for everyone . . . .  [The] death threats Tom Malinowski (D-NJ - the resolution’s main sponsor) received were a surprise and a shock,. This type of behavior is easily condemned.”  And for his courageous stance, Riggleman lost his seat. 

But that is not the end of Denver Riggleman’s involvement in the public arena.  He is now working for a group of prominent experts and academics at the Network Contagion Research Institute, which studies the spread of disinformation in American politics and how to thwart it. The group has undertaken several extensive investigations into how extremists have used propaganda and faked information to sow division over some of the most contentious issues of the day, like the coronavirus pandemic and police violence. Their reports have also given lawmakers a better understanding of the QAnon belief system and other radical ideologies that helped fuel the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.  Three cheers for this former Republican who at one point belonged to the House Freedom Caucus and actually supported Donald Trump for President in 2016.

Being a craven blowhard like Matt Gaetz might be ego-fulfilling and sexually exciting; being a courageous public servant like Denver Riggleman III can lead to political dismemberment.  All things considered, I’ll take the latter over the former every day of the year.

 Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

In Every Generation . . .

   Theodore Roberts as Moses in “The Ten Commandments” (1923)

The second Stone family seder will begin in about 7 hours. It will be a smallish affair, yet far less technically challenging than last year’s “Matzah via Zoom.” At the end - after a flood of stories, prayers, the opening of the front door for Elijah the Prophet, and tons of food and wine - we will all say לְשָנָה הַבָאָה בִירוּשָלָיִם (“Next year in Jerusalem”) and then expand that tradition by adding something new:  וְגָם פָּנִים אֶל פָּנִים  (“And also, face-to-face”). Indeed, we have come a long-long way since last year. And thanks to the miracle of modern medicine we’re getting ever closer (both literally and figuratively) to putting a healthy muzzle on that which has enslaved us . . . i.e. COVID19.    To me, the two most important passages in the seder have always been:         

     .שֶבְכָׇל־דּוֹר וָדוֹר עוֹמְדִים עָלֵינוּ לְכַלּוֹתֵינוּ וְהַקָדוֹשׁ בָרוּךְ הוּא מַצִילֵנוּ מִיָדָם.                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                            (In every generation it is incumbent upon each of us to see                                                                                                                                       ourselves as if we had been freed from Egypt) and:                                                                                   

                                                                      שֶבְכָׇל־דּוֹר וָדוֹר עוֹמְדִים עָלֵינוּ לְכַלּוֹתֵינוּ וְהַקָדוֹשׁ בָרוּךְ הוּא מַצִילֵנוּ מִיָדָם.

                        (“In every generation they stand up against us to destroy us, but the Blessed Holy One redeems us from their  hands.”)
                                                                         

 This year, these overarching lessons are of far greater importance than at any time in recent memory . . . and not just in a specifically Jewish sense. For this year we are being beset by innumerable “pharaohs” seeking to “enslave” us such tyrannies as assault weapons and assaults on voting rights, as well as racism and gross economic inequality.

Let’s start with the last first: According to the latest available statistics, the average CEO of a Fortune 500 company earned $21.3 million last year. This means it would take a worker earing minimum wage for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year and working, on average, for 50 years, 13 lifetimes to earn as much as his or her boss makes in a single year (and that’s if the minimum wage were $15.00/hour).

So far as the tyranny of assault weapons and assaults on voting rights, more and more states are enacting more diabolically disabling legislation in order to ensure that fewer and fewer Americans of color, students and retirees will be able to vote. These disabling mechanisms include cutting back on the weeks and hours that voting places can be open; outlawing voting on Sunday and putting stumbling blocks in the path of voting by mail. In this manner, they (the mostly Republican pharaohs) hope to keep their state houses and legislatures filled with those who are at the beck and call of lobbying groups like the National Rifle Association and deep-pocketed, conspiracy-minded conservatives, whose interests begin with scaring the daylights out of average Americans and end in lying with virtual impunity about the threat of a war against Christianity, capitalism and morality.  Of course, what truly scares the daylights out of them is America becoming a minority/majority country.

That is largely why Republicans in 43 states have now introduced 253 voter suppression bills since Donald Trump’s Big Lie spurred the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. As but one example of this, just the other day (a mere 48 hours after the mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado, the Texas legislature passed SB7 which would limit extended early voting hours, prohibit drive-thru voting and allow partisan poll watchers to record voters who receive help filling out their ballots. It would also forbid local election officials from encouraging voters to fill out applications to vote by mail, even if they qualify.

Then there’s the Georgia legislature,  whose bill - SB 202 - just became law. This anti-democratic  voter suppression bill gives Georgia state officials the lawful right and power to overrule county election boards, imposes new voter identification requirements for absentee ballots, empowers state officials to take over local elections boards, limits the use ballot drop boxes and makes it a crime to approach voters in line to give them food and water. It was this last clause (the one about making it a crime to pass out bottles of water to prospective voters standing in the hot sun brings to mind the scene in both versions of Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments (1923’s starring Theodore Roberts and 1956’s starring Charlton Heston) . . . it was this clause that brought to mind Moses’ and Aaron’s sister Miriam (Estelle Taylor in 1923 and Olive Deering in 1956) tenderly giving water to dying Hebrew slaves as they toiled in the broiling sun.  Seems to me that those Republicans who overwhelmingly voted for this law haven’t got a heart . . . and likely never read the Hebrew Bible.

And speaking of the Hebrew Bible (that’s “Old Testament” to non-Jews), during hearings by the U.S. Senate Rules and Administration Committee on the “For the People Act”, which would expand voting rights, Mississippi Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith informed Senator Chuck Schumer that there shouldn’t be any voting on Sunday. Holding up a dollar bill, she condescendingly told the Senate Majority Leader (who is Jewish and a senior member of the committee) “You know this is our currency, this is a dollar bill. This says, ‘The United States of America . . . In God We Trust.’ Etched in stone in the U.S. Senate chamber is ‘In God We Trust.’ When you swore in all of these witnesses, the last thing you said to them in your instructions was, ‘so help you God.’ In God’s word in Exodus 20:18. it says remember the Sabbath, and keep it holy. So that is my response to Senator Schumer.” Schumer, along with Senators Dianne Feinstein and the newly-elected Jon Osoff - the 3 Jewish members of that committee -  were somewhere between bemused and flabbergasted; they refused to inform their colleague of the obvious . . . that in the Hebrew Bible, the Sabbath is on Saturday, not Sunday. Instead, they let the media go after Senator Hyde-Smith with everything they had.

The modern-day pharaohs are doing their utmost to enslave Americans by either blaming others for problems which do not truly exist (such as ridding elections of corruption and chaos where provably there is little to none) or scaring the daylights out of otherwise decent people (“Ban assault-style weapons today and they’ll come and take away all our guns tomorrow”).  Some of their arguments are beyond belief.  Here’s Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) equating gun violence with drunk driving: “I’m not trying to perfectly equate these two but, we have a lot of drunk drivers in America that kill a lot of people. We ought to try to combat that, too. But I think what many folks on my side of the aisle are saying is that the answer is not to get rid of all sober drivers. I don’t believe we have a gun control problem in America, I believe we have an idiot control problem.”  Perhaps he should look in the mirror . . . or at his side of the Senate chamber . . .

Then there is Pharaoh Ted Cruz who warns that no kind of background check will ever stem the tide of gun violence: "Every time there’s a shooting, we play this ridiculous theater, where this committee (Senate Judiciary) gets together and proposes a bunch of laws that would do nothing to stop these murders.”  And what is his suggestion for what can be done to reduce our staggering levels of mass shootings?  “Make sure even more people are armed and can protect themselves and their families.”

The Haggadah speaks the truth when it reminds us that “In every generation they rise up against us,” and further admonishes each of us to hold fast to the memory that “we were slaves in the land of Egypt.” It is a universal message.

What to do about the latest claque of pharaohs is hard to fathom. Oh sure, we could all wait for the Holy Blessed One to bring us out of the newest forms of slavery. But that is not enough. We must work as one to remove all the pharaohs from their thrones of gold.

Along with our hard work, might I suggest a bit of humor to boot:

Let’s treat guns like cars. Do remember that while he sat on the throne, Pharaoh Trump told members of the NRA that “Cars kill people, and if we’re going to outlaw guns, then we will have to outlaw all cars.”

So here’s a proposal to treat guns like automobiles:

• Title and tag at each point of sale;

• Mandated gun training;

• Written tests;

• Practical tests;

• Health requirements;

• Proof of liability insurance and annual renewals and

• Inspections each year.

And, as a further proposal which links guns to voting:

• You can only purchase one gun every two years;

• It can only be on a Tuesday;

• You must go and wait in line;

• There is only one place in your county, regardless of its geographic size or population;

• You must have multiple forms of I.D.

• No one can give you water while you wait in line.

  And with these thoughts my friends, please excuse me while I go and unlock the front door'; in every generation we do this in order to make sure that Elijah the Prophet can enter with the news that once again, we’ve fought back against the Pharaohs and consigned them to what we call גֵיהִנוֹם . . . namely, “Hell.”

Wishing one and all a thoughtful, tasty and energizing Pesach as well as a peaceful and awe-inspiring Easter,

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

The Talking Cure

                        Dr. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

Anyone who has spent even a bit of time learning about the history of Freudian psychoanalysis, is familiar with the term “The talking cure.” In a nutshell, the good Dr. Freud was speaking with a colleague of his, Dr. Josef Breuer one day and Breuer told Freud about a patient he called “Anna O” (in reality, Bertha Pappenheim), who was experiencing “hysteria.” Breuer excitedly told Freud he had discovered that if he hypnotized Anna, she'd reveal all sorts of information she didn't recall when she was conscious — and her symptoms would lessen afterward. Freud tried this “talking cure” in his own private practice, but found patients would talk pretty freely to him without hypnosis, provided they were in a relaxed position — specifically, lying down on a couch — and if they were encouraged to say whatever came into their heads, a process known as “free association.” Once a patient talked at length, Freud could analyze what the person said to figure out what past traumas were likely causing the patient's current distress. Thus was born Freud’s “Talking Cure.” It was a boon to the nascent world  of psychoanalysis . . . not to mention the sale of couches!

As important as the Talking Cure has been to  psychoanalysis, one must keep in mind that it is not - nor ever has been - a panacea; sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Let’s just say that it can be a valuable arrow in Freud’s quiver.

The United States Senate has its own version of the Talking Cure - a tradition which occasionally offers a helping hand to those in the minority, but frequently acts as a political hindrance or impediment to those in the majority.  Here, of course, we are referring to one of the most nettlesome of all legislative strategies: the filibuster.   

Likely stemming from the Dutch /ˈvrɛi̯bœy̯tər/ meaning either a “freebooter” or “a pirate,” the Senate website defines filibuster as “An Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions."  The term filibuster was first used in the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill. In the early years of Congress, representatives, as well as senators, could filibuster bills. However, as the number of representatives grew, the House amended its rules placing specific time limits on debates. In the 100-member Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue. Prior to 1917 the Senate rules did not provide for a way to end debate and force a vote on a measure. That year, the Senate adopted a rule to allow a two-thirds majority to end a filibuster, a procedure known as "cloture." In 1975 the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate.

                James Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes  to Washington” (1939)

For non-political geeks, the greatest exemplar of the term filibuster is Jimmy Stewart playing the young idealistic Senator Jefferson  Smith holding the Senate floor hour after hour so as to keep a handful of his more corrupt colleagues from destroying his dream - creating a national boys’ camp.  Most will recall the hoarse, reeling Smith collapsing on the Senate floor after setting some sort of record for “talking the bill to death.”  In reality, this is a tactic which actually did exist: the “talking filibuster.”  The all-time record for the longest filibuster of ‘em all belongs to the late South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who  spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, according to U.S. Senate records.

Thurmond began speaking at 8:54 p.m. on Aug. 28 and continued until 9:12 p.m. the following evening, reciting the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, President George Washington's farewell address and other historical documents along the way.  So long as he stayed on his feet, it  really didn’t matter what he spoke about. Using what might be called a “tag-team” strategy, Thurmond and several of his colleagues (all Southern Democrats) managed to hold the floor for an amazing 57 days (March 26 -June 19), the day the Civil Rights Act of 1957 passed.  Among the other filibuster champs, several were, believe it or not, progressives: Wisconsin Senators William La Follette, Sr. (18 hours, 28 minutes in 1908) and William Proxmire (16 hours and 12 minutes) who managed to stall debate on an increase of the public debt ceiling in 1981 and Oregon’s Wayne Morse (the “Tiger of the Senate”) who spoke for 22 hours and 26 minutes to stall debate on the Tidelands Oil bill in 1953.

Today, the “talking filibuster” is a remnant of the past.  Just calling for a filibuster on a given bill (most always by the minority party) makes it possible to stall legislative activity against a particular bill while continuing to be in session.  In 2003, Senate Democrats threatened a lengthy filibuster to block several of then-President George W. Bush’s nominees. Republicans discussed invoking the parliamentary move since, like a nuclear explosion, it cannot be controlled once it is unleashed. Former GOP Senate Majority leader Trent Lott coined the term “the Nuclear Option” because both parties saw it as an unthinkable final recourse, just like nuclear war. During a standoff over George W. Bush nominees in 2003, Republicans discussed invoking the parliamentary move by using the codeword “The Hulk" since it, like the superhero alter ego, cannot be controlled once it is unleashed. Senators who wanted to give the maneuver a more positive public image, call it “The Constitutional Option.”

Well, now that Democrats and Republicans are living and working in an equally divided Senate (where only V.P. Harris can break a tie), the idea of minority Republicans reverting to the filibuster has both sides wondering what to do.  Some - mostly the progressive left - want to get rid of the filibuster altogether; others want to go back to the days when cloture requires 60 votes; then there is President Biden, Majority Leader Schumer, his assistant, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, and  the so-called “institutionalists.”  They realize that they simply do not have the votes to change Senate rules (it only takes a majority vote).

If the Democrats managed to end the filibuster (as of today, they don’t have the votes) the first thing they would no doubt do is pass their voting rights bill, (S.1), which would counteract curbs Republicans are placing on mail-in and absentee voting, streamline national voter registration and end the partisan drawing of congressional lines. Voting rights activist Stacey Abrams has argued Democrats could possibly get around the filibuster for this one bill. But most people agree that once a party ends the filibuster for one bill, it'll be hooked and do it again and again.

President Biden is likely the lynchpin in this debate. He was a senator for decades and respects the institution, but he's now a president trying to get things done. Biden told ABC's George Stephanopoulos just the other day he'd like to revert to a "talking filibuster."

"I don't think that you have to eliminate the filibuster, you have to do it [like] what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days," he told Stephanopoulos. "You had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking."

"So you're for that reform? You're for bringing back the talking filibuster?" Stephanopulos asked.

"I am. That's what it was supposed to be," Biden said, a la "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

There is already quite a significant debate over whether or not returning to the “Jefferson Smith” version of the filibuster will solve anything.  Shortly after the president’s sit-down with George Stephanopoulos, CNN political analyst Chris Cillizza wrote an analysis piece flatly stating that A 'talking filibuster' isn't going to solve the Senate's problems.”  Only time will tell.

I personally agree with the POTUS and a growing cadre of Democrats. By going back to the old rule, it would force Republicans to remain on their feet in front of all those cameras, showing themselves to the American public for what they are; obstructionists whose main issue is being against anything and everything the Democrats are for.  Period.  It would b e easy enough to change one aspect of the filibuster rule: mandating that all speechifying must be germane to the topic at hand. In other words, no more reading from the Bible, the White Pages, or Dr. Seuss’ Green Eggs and Ham (as Ted Cruz actually did in September 2013).

Which brings us back to Dr. Freud who, although unbelievably gifted and insightful, was by no means political.  Nonetheless, he did understand the mind, heart and soul of the politician Fpr indeed, here are his thoughts:

“The challenge of leadership is to be strong, but not rude; be kind, but not weak; be bold, but not bully; be thoughtful, but not lazy; be humble, but not timid; be proud, but not arrogant; have humor, but without folly.” 

Can we talk?

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

My Friend Marvin: the Once and Former Conservative Republican

More than 20 years ago, when I was dividing my time between Harvard’s Widener Library, Williams College’s Sawyer Library and the Library of Congress doing research on what would turn out to be the first of two books on the history of the Jews of Congress, someone - now long forgotten - sent me an email asking if I was aware that Oklahoma Republican Mickey Edwards likely came from a Jewish background. And so, dropping everything, I spent a considerable amount of time looking into this conservative Republican’s family history. It turned out that indeed, Mickey Edwards (née Marvin Henry Yarnovsky) was and is a former Jewish member of Congress who was born in Cleveland, Ohio in 1937, the son of Isidore, the orphaned son of Polish immigrants and Rosalie, whose family had changed their name to Miller, and was the daughter of Lithuanians. Mickey would eventually move with his family from Cleveland to the southside Capitol Hill section of Oklahoma City, where his father, (now called “Eddie Edwards”), managed a shoe store. Mickey has long said that were he to have remained in Cleveland, he likely would have turned out a liberal Democrat.

Mickey eventually earned a degree in journalism, graduated from law school and was elected to Congress, where he became a leading Republican. During his 16 years (1977-1993) in Congress, he served variously on the House Budget and Appropriations committees and was the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. He was also a member of the House Republican leadership, serving as the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, the party's fourth-ranking leadership position, He also helped found the Federalist Society and was one of the leading lights of the American Conservative Union.

Once leaving Congress, Mickey, a truly intelligent, well educated man, went into academia, where he spent more than a decade teaching at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, then working as a Lecturer of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and as a member of the Princeton Project on National Security. He taught courses on "How to Win Elections" and "Congress and the Constitution." To this day, he is also a Vice President of the Aspen Institute, and Director of the Aspen Institute-Rodel Fellowships in Public Leadership. In 2013 Mickey was appointed a National Constitution Center – Penn Law Visiting Fellow. But to me, what is most telling is that he gave up his affiliation with conservative Republicanism and eventually left the party altogether.. Why? Because he could no longer abide with the cultish nature (read: pro-Trump) of the G.O.P. In a radio interview on Fresh Air with Terry Gross, Edwards said that he had voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 general election. He endorsed Joe Biden in 2020 and left the Republican Party after the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6 of this year.

In another interview with KFOR, an NBC-affiliated station in Oklahoma City, Edwards said he could not understand how even after Republican, Trump-supporting governors and legislators confirmed it was a fair election, members of Congress continued to call it into question.

“The members of Congress knew better. They knew better. [Oklahoma Senator James] Lankford knew better. Members of the house delegation knew better,” Edwards said. “They knew the results, they had the information. They saw that it was Republican Trump supporters all across the country who were saying, ‘no, we lost.” He simply could no longer lend his name or talents to a Republican party that was devoid of values, issues or morality. “This has become a cult. It’s no longer a political party. It’s a cult. It’s the kind of a cult that when the leader of the cult does anything, no matter what it is, or how awful it is, they voted,” Edwards said. “They voted to question the election results even after people came into the Capitol, tried to kill them and killed a police officer who was trying to protect them. And they did that.”-

Now mind you, these are the words, sentiments and political actions not of what used to be referred to as a “Rockefeller Republican,” or even today’s far more conservation incarnation - a so-called “moderate” Republican - but rather, as mentioned above, a former member of Congress who was a founding trustee of the Heritage Foundation, national chairman of the American Conservative Union and at one time chaired the House Republican Policy Committee. In other words, this is a party which welcomes the loony likes of Senators Ted Cruz (TX) and Rand Paul (KY) and Josh Hawley (MO), or Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA-14), Madison Cawthorn (NC-11), Matt Gaetz (FL-1) or Lauren Boebert (C0-3); it has no place for a legislator/thinker like Mickey.

I call Mickey every once in a while just to see how he is doing, get in a bit of mutual kvetching, and dream dreams about the future.

While we’re at it, let’s get a few things straight:

• First and foremost, the Republican Party, far from being a political party in the historic sense of the term, is a full-blown cult which cares not a whit or farthing about what a majority of voting citizens support or desire, but mostly what their cult leader supports or desires.

• Second, more and more, Republicans are far more easily identified by what they are against than what they are for. They are against abortion, gun safety legislation, taxation, federal spending (on anything but tax cuts) and all Democrats (from AOC and Bernie Sanders to Krysten Sinema and Joe Manchin) . . . whom they want all Americans to believe are nothing more than a toxic gang of traitorous Communists bent on the utter destruction of this country

• Third, that besides taking back the White House and Congress from the hands of these “Communists,” they are only concerned with the money and the votes of quickly fading white Christian majority. And if to keep said majority they must put electoral stumbling blocks in front of all Democrats - suburban housewives, African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, college students and the elderly - so be it.

To my way of thinking and understanding, this is not a winning strategy; it is a blueprint for a dangerously divided America. Think about this:

• Despite the fact that more than 70% of the American public supported passage of the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 stimulus package, not a single Republican in either the House or Senate voted in its favor.

• Despite the fact that the vast majority of Republican legislators want to see Roe v. Wade overturned by the Supreme Court, a majority of Americans (61%) continue to say that abortion should be legal in all cases (27%) or most (34%) cases. A smaller share of the public (38%) says abortion should be illegal in all (12%) or most cases (26%).

• Six percent more Americans say they were in favor of their senators voting to convict former President Donald Trump during the Senate impeachment trial than in his previous trial, according to a new poll. In the poll, conducted by Gallup, 52 percent of Americans said they were in favor of convicting Trump, while 45 percent said they' were in favor of their senators voting against conviction. And yet, when the final vote was taken on February 13, 2021, only 7 Republican senators voted in favor of conviction — and they are now on the former president’s “hit list” - Republicans whom he has sworn to see destroyed due to their lack of loyalty.

Is this any prescription for future electoral success?

Unlike many partisan Democrats I speak with on an almost daily basis, I do not wish to see the GOP disappear.  Any political system that relies on but a single political party to get things done is a system headed towards the land of autocracy.  For myself, I greatly prefer a two-party system in which both major parties campaign on – and can fully explain and justify – what they are for and what they are against.  A political system which exists only on what one party proclaims – and frequently in dishonest terms – what the other side is against, is none too healthy.

In other words, a system which cannot find a place for the likes of my friend Marvin is in deep trouble.  As always, I wish him well, pray for his health and energy, and wish him many, many more years of helping bring healing to his former party . . .  you know, the one created by a guy named Abe? I think I’ll dial him (Marvin, not Abe) tomorrow . . .

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

March 7, 1965

Fifty-six years ago today (March 7, 1965) the then 25-year old civil rights activist John Lewis (1940-2020) led over 600 marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama and faced brutal attacks by oncoming state troopers. Lewis himself was one of 18 who were injured badly enough to require hospitalization. Footage of the violence collectively shocked the nation and galvanized the fight against racial injustice. In response, civil rights leaders planned to take their cause directly to Alabama Governor George Wallace on a 54-mile march from Selma to the state capital of Montgomery. Although Wallace ordered state troopers “to use whatever measures are necessary to prevent a march,” approximately 600 voting rights advocates set out from the Brown Chapel AME Church on Sunday, March 7.

In the wake of the shocking incident, President Lyndon Johnson called for comprehensive voting rights legislation. In a speech to a joint session of Congress on March 15, 1965, the president outlined the devious ways in which election officials denied African American citizens the vote.

Within days, the number of people participating in the march - whose ultimate destination was Montgomery - had grown to more than 25,000.  Now led by John Lewis, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, the horrific event which began on “Bloody Sunday” galvanized the nation.  So much so that Congress passed - and President Lyndon Johnson signed the “Voting Rights Act” on August 6 . . . a mere 5 months after “Bloody Sunday."  The purpose of this act was to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote as guaranteed under the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Voting Rights Act is considered one of the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history.

Unfortunately, over the past several years, governors, state legislators and members of Congress (overwhelmingly Republican) have been doing everything in their power to undo or reverse the Voting Rights Act. The majority of those seeking this reversal are motivated by pretty much the same concern: putting as many stumbling blocks in the path of poor and minority voters, a sizeable percentage of who regularly vote for Democrats. Most readers of The K.F. Stone Weekly know that there are important aspects of voting which are protected by the 15h Amendment which in sum states that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Nonetheless, many state legislatures - especially those under Republican control - have been, as mentioned above - been putting significant roadblocks before the rights of minority voters.

Today, in memory and honor of the 56th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” President Biden has signed an executive order to promote additional access to voting. The administration describes the executive order as an “initial step” to protect voting rights — one that uses “the authority the president has to leverage federal resources to help people register to vote and provide information,” according to an administration official. This move comes not just in memory of “Bloody Sunday,” but also as a strong response to Republicans in statehouses around the country who are doing everything in their power to advance voter suppression legislation, including a bill in Georgia that voting rights groups say targets Black voters. Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, have pushed measures in recent days to increase voting rights, including HR1 -- a sweeping ethics and election package that contains provisions expanding early and mail-in voting, restoring voting rights to former felons, permitting voting on Sunday, and easing voter registration for eligible Americans.

Despite the fact that the decisions of 60 separate courts and Donald Trump’s own Justice Department finding virtually no voting irregularities in the 2020 presidential election (the one which the previous president and his staunchest supporters claimed to be as true as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west) Republican lawmakers in 43 states have introduced 253 bills to restrict ballot access. The greatest activity has been in battleground states, especially Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Measures involve early voting, mail-in ballots, drop boxes, mobile voting facilities, and rules to disqualify ballots received after Election Day that cannot be overruled by the executive branch or the courts.

Some restrictions, however, are likely to be adopted in states in which the GOP controls both the legislature and the governor’s mansion. The Iowa state senate recently passed a bill shortening the early voting period. Although Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis declared that his state “did it right” in November 2020, Florida is poised to reduce the number of drop boxes. Texas lawmakers have submitted a slew of bills limiting voter access.  This week, the Georgia House of Representatives passed a bill whose motive Gwinnett County Republican election official Alice O’Lenick acknowledged was partisan: If House Bill 531 is enacted “at least we have a shot at winning,” she said. The legislation mandates that all counties have the same early voting dates and times: Monday-Friday, during business hours, one mandatory Saturday, one additional Saturday or Sunday. The elimination of early voting in the evening and all but one Sunday is aimed directly at working class Georgians and “souls to polls” initiatives, which usher African Americans to polling places after Sunday morning church services.

An Iowa bill aimed at limiting voting and making it harder for voters to return absentee ballots is headed to Gov. Kim Reynolds' desk this week, after passing both Republican-controlled chambers of the state legislature.

The bill, introduced by a Republican state senator, specifically would reduce the number of early voting days from 29 days to 20 days. It would also close polling places an hour earlier on Election Day (at 8 p.m. instead of 9 p.m.).

The bill also places new restrictions on absentee voting including banning officials from sending applications without a voter first requesting one, and requiring ballots be received by the county before polls close on Election Day.

The Republican-controlled Iowa House passed the measure on Wednesday night in a party line vote of 57-37. That vote came a day after the GOP-controlled Iowa Senate, where the legislation was introduced, also passed the bill on a party line vote.

One attorney representing Arizona before the Supreme Court went so far as to admit that these changes and restrictions had virtually nothing to do with guaranteeing that elections could neither be stolen nor rigged: “We are pushing for these changes for they guarantee the success of Republicans in coming elections.”  If anyone needs a new definition of chutzpah, here it is . . .

So what can be done?” Can or will President Biden’s executive order regarding the 15th Amendment put a horse collar around the Republican-controlled states that wish to turn back the clock?  The only thing that comes to mind on this, the 56th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday” is for everyone to work just as hard to overturn their state legislatures and replace their governors as they/we did to get Joe Biden and Kamala Harris elected in 2020.  

In other words, there’s no rest for the weary.  We simply must keep the spirit of John Lewis and Bloody Sunday alive.

Any takers?  Please let me know.

Copyright©2012 Kurt F. stone

The Clone

Politically speaking, Florida is one of the strangest states in the nation. How so? Because while the farther north one goes in the 50 states, the more liberal/progressive the state tends to become. Likewise, the farther south one travels, the more conservatives you run into. Not so the “Golden State.” Here, the farther north one travels, the more politically southern it becomes. And for those of us who live in the southern-most part of the state (Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties) we bask in the land of Democrats and anti-Trumpers. The Jewish members of our Florida Congressional delegation (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Ted Deutsch, and Lois Frankel) all hale from the South, while the most ultra-conservative represent districts which abut Alabama and Georgia . . . in more ways than one.

Florida is a state with a lot of conservative political clout. Consider that among those giving serious thought about making a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024 - that is, presuming the former President isn’t spending the lion’s share of his time and presumed fortune in court - three (Senators Rick Scott and Marco Rubio as well as Governor Ron DeSantis) are generating a lot of publicity and dollars. In matter of fact, of the three, the 42-year old DeSantis garnered 21% (good for second place) in a straw poll of possible presidential candidates at this weekend’s Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) gathering held in Orlando.  (n.b. Donald Trump came in first with 55% of the vote, and both Rubio and Scott were in single figures.  Without Trump in the mix, DeSantis came in first with 43%, with South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem hauling in 11% for second place and Donald Trump, Jr., coming in third with 8%.)  And unlike politicos like Senators Rubio, Scott, Cruz and Graham, who all went from being targets of some of then-candidate Trump’s most scurrilous, obnoxious, opprobrious barbs and then became among his most ardent supporters, DeSantis has, generally speaking, been a Trump acolyte since day one. (I guess that since DeSantis went to Yale largely on the strength of his prowess as a baseball player [at one time he was captain of the varsity], that would make him Trump’s earliest and biggest “athletic supporter.”  LOL) 

Interestingly, though in his final House race in 2016, then-Rep. DeSantis ran mostly against Democrats and rarely - if ever - mentioned his support for The Donald . . . despite having been one of the very first members of Congress to endorse him.  However, once he became Governor of Florida in early January 2019, he began acting, sounding - even breathing - like a clone of America’s Tweeter-in-Chief. This was especially true when it came to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The lion’s share of Governor DeSantis’ polling numbers deal directly with his handling (or ignoring) of the COVID-19 pandemic. While his mentor was either proclaiming that with the coming of warmer weather the virus would disappear, or overriding his medical advisors and urging that hydroxychloroquine and/or household bleach were the way to go, DeSantis was underreporting the number of COVID-19 cases in Florida; at one point during the presidential election, he simply stopped making daily reports so as not to make his mentor look bad. He also refused to close beaches or bars, and urged that public schools be immediately reopened since “as everyone knows, children don’t get COVID-19,”  and refused to institute anything close to the wearing of masks in public. It got so bad that in December of last year - after Trump lost the election - DeSantis went back to making statistical reports and urging that nursing homes and senior independent living facilities receive the lion’s share of vaccine; The New Republic named DeSantis its “Scoundrel of the Year.”

So what is DeSantis’ strategy vis-à-vis a presidential campaign in 2024?  Coming out of this past weekend’s CPAC gathering – where only 68% of those polled were in favor of Trump running again – DeSantis is likely putting his money on his mentor’s being either “overly occupied” (all those potential legal challenges) or legally debarred from, “beating the Democrats for a third time.” This means that at this early juncture, Governor DeSantis is running for “Mr. Congeniality,” rather than “Mr. America.” One can only wonder what Trump’s feelings were about his political future when he could only win the approval of 68% of his most loyal supporters. DeSantis is likely bright enough to understand that many Republicans are going to be looking at fresh faces in both 2022 and 2024. But for DeSantis, this will mean having to figure out who he is going to be - and what he’s going to be running on - in a post-Trump world. After several years of being the “Trumpiest of the Trumpeters,” he going to have to change both the key and the mode of his silly symphony . . . which of course carries a lot of political risk. For if there’s one thing hard-corps conservative Republicans truly crave it’s taking government back from the Democrats.  Trump lost it; politicos like Cruz, Rubio, Scott, Graham and DeSantis cannot reverse that trend without altering their tune.

 Coming from the ancient Greek κλώνος (klónos) meaning “twig,” cloning is a technique scientists use to make exact genetic copies of living things. Genes, cells, tissues, and even whole animals can all be cloned. Some cloning is actually done in nature; single-celled organisms like bacteria make exact copies of themselves each time they reproduce. Others, of course are made in a lab.  In the world of politics, clones are created self-consciously by organisms seeking to triumph by imitating the ideas, platforms and messages of others.  But just as in nature or the lab, political clones are subject to the same genetic defects, faults and flaws as their original host.

In other words: beware Governor DeSantis . . . the footsteps in which you wish to tread are filled with genetic glitches, gullies and gremlins.  

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

ZZZZZZZZ . . .

There is a medieval tale told about the lord of a vast estate who one day decided to ask three questions of a simple-minded, though thoroughly decent, serf. The reward for answering all three questions correctly was the guarantee of remaining on the estate for the rest of his life. If the  serf failed to answer any of the three correctly, he would be summarily thrown off the estate and thus be out of work. Scared to death that he would soon be both homeless and jobless, he pleaded with his bright and beautiful daughter to help him out. The questions, he told her were:

1. What is the biggest thing in the world?

2. What is the fastest thing in the world?

3. What is the best thing in the world?

“And did you get any hint or suggestion that the lord of the manor had any idea what the correct answers were?” the young maiden asked her distraught father.

“None that I could determine,” her father answered.

“That seems likely,” his daughter responded, a twinkle in her eye. “And so, I will give you 3 answers which cannot be wrong, for they are all well beyond both argument or logic.”

“Beyond what?” her father asked. “Never you mind . . . just memorize the answers I will share with you,” she said, and proceeded thusly: “First, the biggest thing in the world is the earth itself. Second, the fastest thing in the world is an idea. And third . . . well, I firmly believe that the lord of the manor will except ‘a good night’s sleep’ as the best possible answer. Got that?” she asked, a broad smile on her face. The next day, the serf showed up in the master’s morning room and gave him the three answers. And behold, all three answers were found to be perfect . . .  and that as such, he and his daughter would live out their days at the vast estate. (According to at least one version of the tale, the daughter wound also wind up marrying the master.)

So what brings this tale to mind? Well, the other day, while awakening to “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, Annie, stretching herself into wakefulness said: Isn’t it wonderful that without ‘45 hogging every headline, Tweet and minute of news, we can get a good night’s sleep and not have to worry so much about what tomorrow’s headline is going to be? God bless Joe Biden and his administration!”

I tell you, my better half is frequently more insightful than I . . . by far more than half. I don’t know about you, but I actually have been sleeping quite a bit more soundly since the inauguration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and the creation of the newest Cabinet. It is such a joy (מחיה m’chaya) to awaken each day to a bit of normality; to a cabinet peopled by men and women who are both supremely able and experienced in the areas of governance they have been chosen to lead. They got their jobs and positions not because of their “loyalty to the chief” or the amount of gelt they raised, but rather because of their resumes, experience and areas of expertise. This is something new . . . or a return to something old; a pattern we have not come close to experiencing since the beginning of the Trump years.

During the first month of the Biden/Harris administration we have weathered storms of ice, cold and frigid death; of a second impeachment, a clarion call that “America is back” to both our allies and non-friendly nations . . . as well as a dramatic lowering in the number of those contracting COVID-19. We have begun to experience just how much progress can be made when the decibel level is lowered and those who disagree are treated with a bit more humanity and respect. Under “normal circumstances,” this is not a matter of earth-shattering proportions; coming on the heels of the previous administration, this is a change of earth-shattering proportions.

Yes, we have witnessed Senator Lindsey Graham’s threat to impeach Vice President Harris just as soon as Republicans take back the House; as well as newly-elected Representative Marjorie Taylor’s Greene’s (Q-GA) promise to impeach President Biden and Congress’s promise to hold up any COVID-19 relief measure for the American people. And yet, Biden/Harris’ public approval rating is at nearly 70% - far, far above anything achieved by Trump/Pence during their 4 years in office.

This is not to say that the far right-wing conspirators (whose numbers include political enfant terrible Roger Stone and Infowars’ founder and chief conniver Alex Jones) who created, carried out and financed the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol are either sanguine or silenced. They are still part of a horrific and dangerous cabal which will keep American Democracy in the crosshairs for the immediate future. And yet, with a Justice Department under the leadership of Merrick Garland, they shall, I firmly believe, be brought to justice; they shall soon learn what years behind bars truly mean.

All in all, the changes which have already begun changing and disinfecting the political world at home will, God willing, add up to many, many more sleepful hours and positive thoughts about the immediate future of the United States of America . . . the last, best hope the world has for humanity and normality.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone