Faith and Belief . . . Wisdom and Comprehension

(Once again, it’s that time of year when, in addition to twice-weekly medical teleconferences, thrice-weekly college lectures, writing essays and trying to follow as many Dodger games as possible [they are currently in the midst of a nine-game winning streak], preparations for High Holiday services are consuming more and more of my time and grey matter. And again, its that time of the year when, in the hopes of using my waking hours more expeditiously, I double-dip: my weekly blog essays form the main basis for of my Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur services . . . and vice-versa. What follows, will likely be delivered on Tuesday morning, September 7, the first day of the Jewish New Year 5782.)Unlike most monotheistic religions, Judaism has always placed a higher value on the deed, rather than the creed. Want proof? Ask ten learned rabbis what Jews believe about X or Y, and chances are, the rabbis will stroke their beards (that is, if they are males) and get a thoughtful look on their faces and then begin with something like “Well, some Jews believe . . . “ Then again, ask the same ten learned rabbis what Jews do in situation X or Y and the answer will be quickly forthcoming if not precisely the same. I have long assumed that the bit with pulling on a beard (or perhaps twirling a curl or a side lock) permits the scholar to look both thoughtful and wise even when he/she doesn’t know the answer.

The vast majority of rabbinic literary works (commentaries on virtually anything and everything under the sun) come mostly in the form of debate and argumentation. Indeed, one terribly wise and long forgotten sage once compared these discursive meanderings as “intellectual arguments across the generations.” Occasionally, when one sage wished to insult a colleague without calling him an uneducated simpleton, he would quote the 12th/13th century Spanish thinker Nahmanides (known as “The Ramban”): והמשכיל יבין (v’ha-maskeel yavin -  meaning - “The educated person will understand”).

                        Nachmanides (1194-1270)

Let’s take a brief rhetorical respite before returning to The Ramban’s insightful bit of wisdom and how it ties in to this essay/sermon. The past several years have brought unutterable changes to our lives - and not just in terms of our physical health, the state of our economy, or the changes made in the way we live our lives all over the globe. Most of us have, at one time or another, spent days, weeks and even months cordoned off from family and friends. We have learned, due to dire necessity, how to shop on-line, work from home, and even attend school and religious services via Zoom or other cyber platforms. For Anna and I as well as our family, the changes have been relatively easy; we love and get along well with our constant cabin-mates, and are employed in fields (like teaching, law and medical ethics) which can easily be accomplished from home. At the same time, we - like you - miss getting together panim el panim (Hebrew for “face-to-face”) with our friends, “playmates” and people who don’t live in our homes. Everyone should be so lucky! But the changes go well beyond matters of lifestyle and communication. One of the most serious and even frightening changes deals with how many people respond to reality. One of the very worst things to emerge over the past several years is the inability on the part of many to believe others . . . of being mistrustful of professionals, the highly-educated or leaders of the so-called “opposition” or, conversely the poorly educated, stridently fearful or those suffering from any number of noxious phobias.  Again, COVID-19 provides a chilling example of this most dangerous new trend . . . mistrustfulness.  Here in the  United States alonge, nearly 650,000 have lost their lives to COVID-19; many more have had the pants scared off them by the very thought of testing negative and perhaps beginning a wrenching downward spiral. Then too, there are all those who refuse to believe that there is any such thing as a COVID-19 pandemic - that it is a conspiracy on the part of one political party to wrest power from the other party or to take away individual freedom and liberty (think masks). How many times have we heard that the vaccines which nearly 190 million Americans have already willingly taken contain tracking devices - put there by Communists, Socialists and assorted agents of maleficence for various evil purposes?"  Or that the real reason for healthcare workers going door-to-door isn’t to get citizens vaccinated, but to ultimately take away their guns and Bibles?  (Yes, there are quite a few people who have bought into this bilge). In short, there are many who have lost the ability to trust anyone in a position of knowledge or authority. These are the folks that Ramban (Nachmanides) spoke of so many centuries ago when, tongue in cheek, said oh so many centuries ago והמשכיל יבין - “The enlightened, the educated will understand what is נָכוֹן (true) and what is שְׁטוּיוֹת (uttrt B.S.).”   

Of late, we have learned about virulent “anti-vaxxers” who have fallen prey to COVID-19 and its Delta variant and then, shortly before death, have urged people to go out and get vaccinated, be sure to wear masks, wash their hands and keep a reasonable amount of social distance. While it is both good and meritorious for them to warn people before their death of the importance of of these things (masking, social distancing and getting vaccinated), one must wonder what got into their minds prior to falling ill. How could they have ever been so easily convinced that they were somehow immune to the gravest pandemic since 1918? And even more important, how could so many supposedly intelligent, well-educated people convince so many others that they should fall prey to such an obvious hoax?

והמשכיל יבין

As we turn our attention to the New Year (whether Jewish or not), we would do well to recognize that truth comes far more often from the lips of experts (no matter what their fields) than from the mouths of fools.  And that those who attempt to convince the masses that it is the fools who are the true experts, generally have an ulterior motive up their sleeve.

מאחלת לך שנה טובה ומתוקה  (Hebrew for “Wishing you a and happy, healthy and sweet New Year.”

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Afghanistan: "The Mother of Vicious Circles"

Afghanistan (originally called Qandahar) has long been known as either ‘The graveyard of empires” or “Where empires go to die.” Long before it was known as “Afghanistan,” Alexander the Great wrested the land from the Achaemenid (Ah-KEE-meh-ned) Persian Empire, only to lose it to the Seleucids who in turn were defeated by the Mauryans (from India) and eventually ended up under the control of the Greco-Bactrians. Jump to the early 13th century an history records that Genghis Kahn and his Mongols, were tossed aside by Tamerlane and the Mughal Empire. At various times Afghanistan has been invaded by the Sikhs (1837-38), Brits (1838-42 [First Anglo-Afghan War], 1878-1880 [Second Anglo-Afghan War] and 1919); the Soviet Union (1979-1989) and most recently, of course, The United States and NATO (“Operation Enduring Freedom” - 2001-2021). Somewhere along the line historians, noting that what all these invading empires had in common was that they had all been swept away into the dustbin of history . . . that there was a causal connection between Afghanistan and their demise; i.e. those Empires which attack, invade or take over Afghanistan are ultimately signing their own death warrants.

This is not necessarily true: while the Persian, Maurya, Mongol, Mughali and Soviet Empires may no longer exist as such, the Iranians, Indians, Greeks, Turks and Russians still do. And while the United States is in the midst a host of difficult challenges – both external and internal - its power and prestige is far from marching off to history’s bone yard. And while many agree with the long-forgotten wag who originally gave Afghanistan the moniker “The graveyard of empires,” I greatly prefer the New York Time’s columnist Maureen Dowd’s epithet . . . “The mother of vicious circles.”    By this she means - and I agree - that going into Afghanistan and doing battle there is far, far easier than getting the hell out. This is what history teaches again and again.

We are, of course, in the midst of this vicious circle today. President Biden’s recent announcement that he would have the overwhelming majority of U.S. and Coalition troops out of Afghanistan by September 11, 2021 (the 20th anniversary of the single-worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil) has quickly made military “experts” out of mere opinion-makers and forgetful finger-pointers out of partisan politicians. The fact that the Taliban have taken back the entire country in just a matter of days has forced Afghani President Ashraf Ghani’s flight from his embattled country, and left millions of Afghanis running after jet planes taking off from the tarmac at Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport, hoping to escape the terror that has already begun. To many - myself included - it is incomprehensible that Afghani government forces (for whom the U.S. and her allies spent far more $90 billion training and even more equipping) has quickly fallen like a wash-line of damp clothes.

Leading politicians on both sides of the aisle have expressed disagreement with the administration’s plan:

• Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a moderate New Hampshire Democrat who backed the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq nearly two decades ago, recently criticized President Biden, arguing his decision could embolden the Taliban to further destabilize the country.  She was, of course, correct.

• Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the former third-ranking Republican in the House and the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, blasted the policy shift as a capitulation. “Wars don’t end when one side abandons the fight,” she said in a statement that echoed her father’s hawkish rhetoric in selling the wars at the start. “Withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan by Sept. 11 will only embolden the very jihadists who attacked our homeland on that day 20 years ago.”

• In an op-ed published on Fox News on Friday, Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.), said the situation in Afghanistan was “. . . heartbreaking and infuriating. The Taliban are barreling towards seizing control of the country and could very well take Kabul before the 20th anniversary of September 11th. In their wake, Al Qaeda is poised to come roaring back and attack America, once again,” Waltz wrote. (I rather doubt this last sentence; we have as much to fear from QAnon as from Al Qaeda.)

• Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a potential presidential candidate in 2024, attacked Biden on Friday over Afghanistan and critical race theory, a favorite issue of conservatives. “It’s clear President Biden and his Department of Defense have been more concerned with critical race theory and other woke policies than planning an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan,” Cotton tweeted.

It seems like many Republicans are secretly glad that the Taliban have quickly seized 24 of Afghanistan’s 36 provincial capitals, made their way to Kabul and forced President Ghani, his family and top aides to flee to Tajikistan. How could this be? Do they find joy in so much bloodshed? In seeing women and girls banned from attending school, driving cars, using cell phones or listening to music? Maybe yes, maybe no; one can never tell what any group’s most religious radicals will support. But aside from that - and all the murdering and raping going on - they find it heartwarming that they can pile on President Biden and the Democrats . . . scoring points with their “base” as they state their case for both the 2022 and 2024 elections. They seem to forget that not too long before the 2020 election, then President Donald Trump stunned the Pentagon by announcing that he would get all American troops out of Afghanistan before the end of the year:

Then too, few seem to remember that the Taliban first rose to power in Afghanistan in the 1990s; that it was formed by guerrilla fighters who drove out Soviet forces in the previous decade; that they had the help of both the CIA and Pakistani intelligence services.  In the fall of 1996, the Taliban seized Kabul and declared the country an Islamic emirate. Taliban rule was brutal and repressive. It instituted the most severe form of shariah law imaginable. Women had virtually no rights; they were barred from education and forced to wear clothing that completely covered them. Music and other forms of media were banned.

The Taliban’s ideology was similar to that of its counterpart al-Qaeda, though its interests were limited to ruling just Afghanistan. In exchange for help fighting groups aligned with the nation’s government, Taliban leaders harbored Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda members involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A U.S.-led coalition ousted the regime later that year. The Taliban quickly grew.  From whence their funding? For the most part, its funding came from a variety of sources: some money comes from the opium trade and drug dealing, or other crimes such as smuggling. The group taxes and extorts farms and other businesses. Militants are sometimes involved in kidnapping for ransom. The group also gets donations from a wide array of benefactors who support its cause or view it as a useful asset, experts say.

Many politicians, pundits and foreign policy/diplomatic experts are accusing the Biden Administration of conducting a rushed, poorly planned, and chaotic withdrawal. In the main, I agree with these critics. But then again, those who criticize have provided no answers as to what U.S. and Coalition forces should have done.  One must take into account that any administration, any arms, any invading force from Alexander the Great to George W. Bush would have suffered the same consequences. This is a tough, largely tribal part of the world that can withstand almost anything. It is, to say, in Maureen Dowd’s pity expression, the “Mother of the vicious circle.”

I truly wish I had an answer and a bushel-basket full of suggestions as to how to eliminate the Taliban and restore Afghanistan to the sort of place it was before Tamerlane or Genghis Kahn. But I cannot . . . nor can anyone in Foggy Bottom, the Pentagon, at NATO headquarters,  or on Capitol Hill.

Knowing and understanding history may be a start. Understanding what, at base, the goals of the Taliban are, may be useful. But, it seems to me, turning on one another and using our failures (or lack of long-term success) as political tools for the next election is the worst thing one can do when facing the most vicious of all historic circles.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

What Does Tucker Carlson See in Viktor Orban?

Let’s assume that most, if not all of you reading this piece know who Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson is. For the few who don’t, Tucker (1969- ), is the son of Richard “Dick” Warner Carlson, a former “gonzo” journalist who eventually became the director of the Voice of America, president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the U.S. ambassador to the Seychelles. When Tucker was nearly 10, his father married Patricia Swanson, an heiress to the Swanson Food Enterprises fortune. Tucker is a Paleoconservative news commentator for Fox News. As of the beginning of 2021, he is the most-watched, most popular commentator on cable television. Estimates of his salary at Fox range from $6-25 million a year. The ultimate preppy who received his undergraduate education at St. George’s School in Rhode Island (where he chaired the “Dan White Society” [an apparent reference to the American political assassin who murdered San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk] and married the headmaster’s daughter Susan), Carlson has long been a vocal opponent of progressivism, a critic of immigration, and has been described as a racist, misogynistic, ultra-nationalist. He is also a first-class pain in the ass, who while on camera interviewing someone he disagrees with, is well-known for maintaining a look of puzzlement; at times variously frowning and raising an eyebrow in supposed consternation. 

This past week, Tucker Carlson broadcast live from Budapest, where he spent a good deal of time interviewing and exchanging grins with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who heads an authoritarian government bent on targeting liberal institutions, including universities, the judiciary and the media. While in Hungary, Carlson took a helicopter to inspect a border fence designed to keep out migrants. Yes, in addition to all his other political phobias, P.M. Orban is also a xenophobe. Carlson’s visit bolsters Mr. Orban’s mission to establish Budapest as an ideological center for what he sees as an international conservative movement. 

Orban (1960- ) who refers to his governing philosophy as “illiberal” democracy, has, over the past twenty years, been compared to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, France’s Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump . . . which tells you just about all you need to know about the corrupt Hungarian autocrat. To Tucker Carlson and a growing number of American paleoconservatives, Orban is a shining star; a guidepost on the path to a new America built for – and run by – white Christian men who bar the gates to most of the world’s “struggling masses yearning to breathe free,” and use whatever conspiracies they might concoct in order to keep their camp followers scared witless.

In his first nightly newscast from Budapest, Carlson praised Hungary as a “small country with a lot of lessons for the rest of us,” and held up Hungary’s hardline policy on rejecting asylum seekers as a model for an American immigration system that he believes is too lenient and has weakened the power of native-born citizens, an argument that Carlson’s critics say overlaps with white supremacist ideology. Carlson also praised Hungarian Prime Minister Orban for not allowing "this nation of 10 million people to be changed forever by people we didn't invite in and who are coming here illegally.” To make sure his US viewers understood his message, he contrasted Mr Orban's policies with those of President Biden:

"Because the lessons are so obvious, and such a clear refutation to the policies we currently have, and the people who instituted those policies, Hungary and its government have been ruthlessly attacked and unfairly attacked: 'It's authoritarian, they're fascists…' There are many lies being told right now, that may be the greatest of all."

Unbelievably, Carlson has gone so far off the rails as to claim that Hungary is “freer than America.” In Orban’s Hungary, the ultimate preppie told his fellow travelers, their leader refers to white Christians as “the original inhabitants” of the country. Carlson treats this vision of national identity as fundamental to Hungary’s “success.” As Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent recently noted: According to Carlson, here [in America] . . . you’ll be silenced by Silicon Valley or hounded from your job if you dare criticize the “orthodoxy” of liberal internationalism and social liberalism — that is, if you yearn for association with a national identity that is culturally insulated and unsullied by socially liberal threats (like “transgender athletes”) to traditional conservative values. Who’s freer? If you’re an American, the answer is painful to admit.

It would be a pleasure to say that Tucker Carlson is a lone voice in this disgraceful, despotic forest. But alas, he is not; far from it. As the Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum noted in an essay which came out just the other day, The aggrieved Americans who now find their way to Orbán or Vladimir Putin also dislike their own country, albeit for different reasons. They cannot abide its racial diversity, its modern culture, its free press. Those who dream of a white-tribalist alternative—one that also puts pressure on gay people and uses anti-Semitic tropes in its propaganda—believe they have found this nirvana at dinners and think-tank events in Budapest. What American paleoconservatives fail - or even worse, refuse - to recognize is the irony that under a nationalist autocrat like Orban, it’s impossible for a Hungarian equivalent of Carlson—a loud television pundit, critical of the government, watched by millions of people—to exist. In Hungary, the ruling party doesn’t merely influence the press. It owns the bulk of the press, and not metaphorically.

My dear “Pal Al” Blake - the nicest Yankee fan I know – sent me an email the other day asking whether it might work for people to start boycotting Tucker Carlson’s advertisers on Fox.  Well, I looked it up, and to my amazement discovered that at his peak the likes of Disney, T-Mobile and the brokerage firm Ameritrade were among those who paid big bucks to keep him on the air. Of late, most have left the fold. In the second quarter of 2021, Tucker Carlson Tonight had as its most prolific sponsors “Fox News Channel” (17 airings), “My Pillow” (13 airings), “Balance of Nature” (9 airings) and “Rejuvenate Muscle Health” (5 airings.) Could it be that the preppie who has been at the forefront of pushing anti-vaccine theories, called the Joint Chiefs of Staff head “a pig” and continually talked up replacement theory is now on a downward spiral? Well, in the words of Elliott Ness, “Follow the money.”

To give the paleoconservative Carlson the benefit of the doubt (why, I do not know . . . but I guess that’s the rabbi in me), that he truly doesn’t believe much more than a soupçon of the bilge he broadcasts on Fox, his cynicism about America is so profound, and his nihilism so overpowering, that he simply does not care. If he can make people angry, he achieves his most important goal. Sound like anyone who served as POTUS from 2017-2021?

This is all very, very dangerous stuff.  People like Tucker Carlson, Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Green, Paul Gosar and Matt Gaetz as well as Governors Ron De Santis  and Greg Abbott (and let’s not forget the terrorists of January 6), American Democracy stands atop a desperate precipice.  

If anyone had told me back in the 1960s that a half-century later I would consider myself and fellow “freaks” more patriotic than the “straights,” I would have asked them what in the hell they were smoking. But this is no more the case.  As we used to say back in the days of the Free Speech Movement and People’s Park . . . “let your freak flag fly” . . .

Don’t give in, and above all, don’t give up: America is not and never shall be Hungary . . . or Russia or Brazil.  We are the land of the free and the home of everyone . . . 

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Way Down East in the Land of Lobsters

Audio Block

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

Maine, the easternmost state in the nation is tiny. According to the most recent census, it is home to a mere 1.344 million people (42nd smallest in the nation). In 2018, HealthIQ.com named Maine the nation’s 3rd most vegan state; in 2010, a study found Maine to be the least religious state in the United States; in 2018, Bon Appetit magazine name Portland, the state’s most populous city (population c. 67,000) “Restaurant City of the Year.” By far, the most famous people to hail from Maine have been Nelson A. Rockefeller, Dorothea Dix, film director John Ford (to my way of thinking the greatest of them all), as well as writers Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Edna St. Vincent Millay, E.B. White, and Stephen King.

Maine is also known for its pristine parks and waters, and for producing more lobster, crabs and kelp (seaweed) than any other state in the nation. These have long provided a steady flow of jobs and income for the state whose motto Dirigo (Latin for “I lead” or “I direct”) has long set a striding point for the people of this physically beautiful, utterly delightful state. (Springtide Seaweed, the nation’s largest organic seaweed farm, can also be found on the shores of Frenchman Bay, located in a onetime cannery.)

But much of this is now in jeopardy, and cries out for our help . . . no matter whether we live in Maine, Florida, Ohio or Washington State.   

So what is the challenge?   

According to a troubling, fact-filled article published in the July 23rd, 2021 edition of the Boston Globe Magazine, there is a move afoot on the part of a firm larded with Norwegian investors called American Aquafarms to build the world’s largest “closed cage” ocean-based salmon farm — 30 circular pens, each 150 feet in diameter — on two sites covering 120 acres in the heart of Frenchman Bay (shown in photo). According to Globe writer Ellen Rupell Shell, “At full capacity, the annual yield of the [proposed] farm is projected to be 66 million pounds [of salmon], three times the total production of the state’s only other large salmon farming operation.”  And here’s both the rub and the challenge: not only would the “aqua farm” cause Maine’s lobster industry (which represents a substantial percentage of the state’s annual income) to plummet by as much as 62% and likely cause the nation’s largest kelp/seaweed business to collapse; it would cost thousands upon thousands of jobs, and destroy one of the most Edenic places in the United States. . . Frenchman Bay.

A brief word about Frenchman Bay (called by some “Maine’s most dramatic bay”): Likely named for Samuel de Champlain, the French explorer who visited the area in 1604, it was an important staging point for French warships preparing to fight the English during “King William’s War” (1689-97).  Located in Hancock County, the bay is bounded on the east by the Schoodic Peninsula, and on the west by Mount Desert Island; parts of both are in Acadia National Park. The area has long been the summer home of rich easterners (including several generations of Bushes whose compound, “Walker Point Estate” has been in the family for more than 100 years) and provided the state with a significant financial base. 

Frenchman Bay also has a highly fragile and vulnerable ecosystem; because it is served by no large rivers, the bay’s ability to flush out waste is rather limited.  And this presents yet another glaring problem with American Aquafarm’s proposed “closed cage” salmon farm. It would likely force the remaining lobsters (already beginning to suffer from the effects of global warming) to move north (thus decimating an entire industry) and turn a historically untarnished biome into an ecological trash heap.  And to what end?  Profit my friend . . . tons and tons of profit for shareholders who will never have to witness precisely what their investment hath wrought.

From Norway, American Aquafarm’s vice president Eirik Jors (founder and former CEO of a Nordic securities firm), insists that what he calls his company’s “cutting-edge” closed-pen technology — built around a cavernous fabric bag tucked around the pen to collect debris and ward off pests — will prioritize fish health and “on average” capture 90 percent of solid waste, thus minimizing ocean pollution and deadly algae blooms.

One should note, however, that the cited technologies have not as yet, to the best of my knowledge, been tested under Maine conditions, making their potential for ecological impairment unknown.  Then too, Norway, the world’s standard-setter in commercial fish farming, has extremely strict environmental regulations that include — among other things — limiting the size and density of aquafarming operations. The salmon farm that American Aquafarms has proposed for Maine will have 20 to 60 percent higher density of fish than would be permitted in Norwegian waters.  How does American Aquafarms expect to accomplish this “miracle” in the face of a lot of lots and lots of devoted Mainers who fervently oppose the salmon farm?  One way might be for American Aquafarms to spread tons of $$$ to members of state government and convince them that it will be in everyone’s best interest to give the project the go-ahead. 

Sound familiar?

Don’t get me wrong: I am by no means against capitalism; we Stones are still beneficiaries of our father’s career as a stock broker. Nonetheless, I’ve never been sanguine with those whose drive for profit all but blinds them to the rest of reality. I mean, what good is yet another fortune if in so doing it ultimately destroys the ecological balance?  Can more millions shield anyone from increased global warming, a decimated environment or the utter destruction of the brilliant balance the Good Lord constructed during the six days of creation?  I for one find it utterly stupefying.  If a lobbyist temps a stakeholder with a treasure, what will that treasure avail him/her if it ultimately adds to the destruction of other living creatures?  Let’s just hope that there are far more people out there who love the lobsters of Frenchman Bay than pots of gold. 

We Americans are a most resilient people.  Born of revolutionary fervor and nurtured by the concept of e pluribus unum (Latin for “out of many, one”) we have the unique ability to band together as Davidic warriors when it comes to going up against the Goliaths who attack us. This is precisely what is going on up in Maine.  I urge readers to check out the website of the Frenchman Bay United Organization – a group of brothers and sisters who have banded together to stop the raping of their beloved corner of the ecosphere.    I am in personal contact with many of them, offering what little advice I can for their campaign against those who would trade in their lobster/kelp culture for the big business of salmon farming.  They are good people who deserve both our praise and assistance . . . regardless of where we live.  

The good people of Frenchman Bay United Organization are of course striving to keep the issue before state leaders from Maine Governor Janet T. Mills (who just announced she is running for reelection) on down to members of the state legislature and local municipal leaders.  Precisely how much lobbyist money is going to ultimately flow around the state (on the part of the pro-fish farming gang) is as yet uncertain.  What is known is that the folks of Frenchman Bay, Acadia National Park and beyond possess something the deep-pocketed investors and lobbyists do not: people power. 

Although I don’t personally indulge in lobsters, clams, oysters or other treyf delicacies (keeping kosher will do that), I nonetheless whole-heartedly applaud and support the efforts of both the people and the shellfish who love Frenchman Bay.

Check out their website and see if you can lend a hand . . .

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

We Alone Can Fix It

In their riveting, best-seller on the final year of Donald Trump’s presidency (Only I Can Fix It) crack Washington Post writers Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker have thrown open the doors and windows of an Oval Office and an administration which perpetually put personal gain and political triumph well above the needs, interests and future of the people of the United States, and thus the world. Far from being a partisan political screed, Leonnig’s and Rucker’s book is a day-by-day, moment-by-moment account of what history will likely remember as being the most misguided presidency in this nation’s history - ever since the day George Washington took the oath of office in New York. Speaking of our country’s first President, Trump actually had the delusional chutzpah to claim “I think it would be hard if George Washington came back from the dead, and he chose Abraham Lincoln as his vice president, I think it would have been very hard for them to beat me.”

In their painstakingly-documented work, Leonnig and Rucker dispassionately show Trump’s growing inability to respond to the Covid pandemic, thus separating the nation’s health from his own political needs - most specifically, of wiping up the electoral floor with former Vice President Joseph Biden in the November election 2020. Most of us well remember reading about Trump’s personal encounter with Covid-19; of his brief hospitalization at Walter Reed, and his sudden return to the White House. Upon reading that he had been treated with a pharmaceutical cocktail of Dexamethasone (a steroid commonly used to treat asthma and rheumatoid arthritis), the experimental drug Remdesivir, (a monoclonal antibody cocktail, also called REGN-COV2), Zinc, Vitamin D, famotidine (Pepsid, to treat ulcers), Melatonin (commonly used to treat insomnia) and aspirin, I thought it to be a rather bizarre medical package with many potential side effects. Particularly the first, Dexamethasone, whose known side effects include paranoia, delirium and hallucinations. From this point on (October 2020) Trump seemed to get weirder and weirder . . .

Trump’s political modus operandi was all about down-playing the seriousness of the Covid-19 virus, and proclaiming - against all available medical evidence - that warm weather (or hydroxychloroquine or internally administered bleach) were just what the doctor ordered — precisely which docs he never got around to telling us. Those who remember his presidential press gatherings will no doubt recall the severely pained, looking down at their shoes responses of such MDs as Deborah Birx (the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator) and Anthony Fauci (the then long, longtime Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and today, President Biden’s Chief Medical Advisor).

Then there was the issue of wearing masks, maintaining social distance and keeping public crowds to an absolute minimum. With all these issues, Trump and his closest advisors came out on the wrong - the strictly political - side of the challenge.  As early as October 2020, Trump told his team that he would not wear a mask in public because he thought it would “make me look weak” in the eyes of his supporters.  In one rambling comment, Trump told a reporter: I just don’t want to be doing — I don’t know, somehow sitting in the Oval Office behind that beautiful Resolute Desk, the great Resolute Desk. I think wearing a face mask as I greet presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings, queens — I don’t know, somehow I don’t see it for myself. I just, I just don’t.”  Truth to tell, there were any number of high-ranking members of the  administration who paid close attention to what the medical folks were advising. But for many, their tight-lipped approval wound up being a one-way ticket back to the private sector.

As time went on, the Trump version of Covid-19, masking and what its true dangers might be, seeped into the very marrow of his political base . . .  including those who were and are most comfortable with conspiracy theories. They decided that if their leader wouldn’t wear a mask, neither would they;  if their local leaders told them that vaccines were more dangerous than the virus itself, they surely would never submit to a vaccination which included electronic tracking devices . . . and on and on.  

Eventually, Trump and his team came up with their version of FDR’s Manhattan Project: they called it Operation Warp Speed; the name was derived from Star Trek’s imaginary USS Enterprise’s ability to travel at a speed faster than light. Trump’s greatest priority was creating a vaccine (a “cure”) by early November 2020 - just before America went to the polls.  Turns out that the British pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca came through with a vaccine that was highly effective in blocking transmission of the virus first.  Jared Kusher, the president’s son-in-law quickly brokered a $1.2 billion deal to purchase 300 million of the first one billion doses the  company planned to produce. When told this, his father-in-law “sounded deflated” in Leonnig and Rucker’s words.  “I’m going to get killed,” the president said.  “Oh, this is terrible news.  (British P.M.) Boris Johnson is going to  have a field day with this. . . . I don’t want any press on this” Trump told Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar (the former CEO of Eli Lilly & Co. “Don’t do any press on this.  Let’s wait.” 

And so they had to wait until January 21, 2021 - the first day of the Biden administration - to make “Operation Warp Speed” completely functional.

As we head into August, 2021, America and the world are entering a new phase in the COVID19 pandemic. In the past month alone, cases of COVID-19 have tripled, and hospitalizations and deaths are rising among unvaccinated people. While the rates are still sharply down from their January highs, officials are concerned by the reversing trendlines and what they consider needless illness and death. Where at the beginning of June the CDC advised that those who were vaccinated were pretty much out of the woods and that schools, businesses and sporting venues could pretty much resume as before, by the end of July President Biden, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Wilensky and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the president’s chief medical advisor, are urging that due to the Delta mutation and the fact that so many, many Americans are refusing to be vaccinated, we are likely going to see the return of masks, social distancing and a massive campaign to get people immunized.   “Look,” the POTUS said just the other day, “the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated.”

Indeed, there are now approximately 90 million Americans who have yet to get shots. Just four states with low vaccination rates made up 40% of new cases last week, and nearly half of them came from Florida alone. Those of us living here in Florida are well aware of how Governor Ron DeSantis (a.k.a. “Donald Trump’s ‘Mini Me’”) has placed economy over health and actually threatened to fine any business, school or cruise line for mandating people to show proof of having been vaccinated against COVID-19. And, it is strictly against the law here in the “Sunshine State” to mandate the wearing of masks.  According to statistics provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation, states, and individual Congressional Districts that voted for Donald Trump in 2020 had a significantly lower percentage of adults receiving COVID19 vaccinations than states and districts that gave their votes to Joe Biden.  Not only does the rate of the vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated show a partisan political divide, so too does educational level (the lower the amount of schooling, the smaller the percentage of those receiving vaccines) and then there’s  urban-versus rural.  

According to Dr. Fauci, the U.S. is in an “unnecessary predicament . . . . We’re going in the wrong direction.”  And just as the number of those entering hospitals is on the rise, so too are conspiracy theories which keep people from seeking prophylactic measures.  Case in point: when the president suggested that healthcare volunteers go “door'-to-door” talking to people about the importance of getting themselves vaccinated, Representative Madison Cawthorn (R.-NC) warned “Now they’re talking about going door-to-door to take vaccines to the people . . . . Then think about what those mechanisms could be used for,” Cawthorn darkly warned. “They could then go door-to-door to take your guns. They could then go door-to-door to take your Bibles.” 

Although I am a firm supporter of the Constitution’s 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech, this is going too far; it is akin  to violating Justice Holmes’ dictum from the 1919 Schenck v. United States case about "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."  Those who spread these kinds of vile lies via the internet, blogs or the so-called “dark net/dark web” should be fined and be held accountable.  Period.  This is playing with people’s lives, and from what I can see or tell, for purely political reasons.

So obviously, Donald Trump’s claim about “Only I Can Fix It” contained a massive dose of what Grandma used to refer to as “canal water.”  I would like to amend this and state  that  when it comes to the current grave challenge, “Only we can fix it.”  And despite the rapid rise in new cases of COVID-19 and the Delta variant; despite the even greater levels of anger, fear and brainlessness which adhere to imbecilic anti-vaxxers,  there are some challenges which we may well be able to fix.  Increasingly over the past few weeks, there are a greater number of people both great and small, beginning to emerge from the anti-vaxxer’s closet.  Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Louisianan Steve Scalise, number two in House Republican leadership  and Alabama Governor Kay Ivey are admitting to having been vaccinated and urging their constituents to do likewise.  Conservative radio and television celebs like talker Phil  Valentine and Fox News’ Sean Hannity are talking up the necessity of being vaccinated.  (Egad . . . for the first time in my life Sean Hannity and I actually agree on something!)

Locally, teachers,  preachers, sports icons and just plain folks are standing up, helping people change their minds . . . coming to the understand that getting a shot and wearing a mask is not  the end of personal freedom . . . but can actually save lives.  I’ve come to believe that where once  these  Republicans used the weapon of fear in order to score  points and win votes, it’s now come too close to home; the time to act like responsible, empathic leaders is now.

I wish I could tell you that having a heart-to-heart conversation with a staunchly anti-vaxx neighbor, friend or family member just might help them change their tune - but I cannot.  Debating people who  choose not to think for themselves is akin to banging one’s head against a brick wall; all you gain is a concussion or a migraine.  And so, unless you are in love with cerebral pain, leave the convincing to those occupying the same original space as the naysayers.

These are difficult times.  However, I do believe that a healthier future is within our grasp - if only we recognize that together, we can fix it. 

Masks on!

Copyright2021 Kurt F. Stone

Ty

       Ty Redler and his Fiancée, the soon-to-be-doctor Kira Dubester 

At this point in my life I’ve been an ordained rabbi for more than 40 years (41 to be precise). In all that time I’ve never considered it a job or profession . . . as normally understood. No, to me, it’s always been somewhere between a passion and an art form. I did spend many years serving various congregations in Ohio and mostly Florida, but eventually discovered that as much as I loved the art form, I really, truly did not like the job; too many bosses exercising far too much authority over a single human being and his family. As a rabbi, I’ve officiated at easily more than 500 weddings, trained at least 1,000 b’nai, b’not mitzvah (bar/bat mitzvah students) and presided at well over 3,000 funerals.  “How in the world,” people have long asked, “can you maintain emotional stability when you’re around so much death and dying?”  A good question indeed.  If there is an answer, it comes from my mentor, the late Rabbi Emanuel "Manny”  Schenck (1909-1991). 

Upon arriving in South Florida in July of 1982, Manny sort of attached himself to me and I to him. He would grill me on texts, watch me give sermons and offer advice . . . whether or not I asked for it.  Manny was a no-nonsense kind of rabbi; heck, he spent WWII as a chaplain with the 4th Armored Division, a part of Gen. George S. Patton's famed Third Army.  He was even the presiding rabbi  when U.S. troops liberated the Nazis' Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany at war’s end.  I well remember him  telling me one day how to emotionally survive as a rabbi: “At day’s end, open the bottom drawer of  your desk, stare into it, and then slam it shut.” I have followed his advice ever since. 

As mentioned above, I’ve officiated at thousands of funerals.  Many died of what we Stones call “terminal longevity.” Others succumbed to long-term illness;  some died at birth or in accidents; some were murdered or committed suicide; many died of AIDS or sudden cardiac events.  I have buried thousands I never knew as well as my own parents, grandparents, mother-in-law and close friends.  The most difficult task of all, is officiating at the service of a current or former student. 

Today . . . and tomorrow . . . and for a  long time into the future, I/we (including my wife Annie) mourn the passing of one of our all-time favorite students, Ty Redler.  So long as we may live, we  will always have vivid memories of Ty sitting at our kitchen table, our Chocolate Lab Ginger Rogers Stone (the dog with the “Shabbos pearls”) at his feet, chanting his haftara in preparation for becoming a bar mitzvah.  Ty and I would spend tons of time discussing the one thing we had most in common: Crohn’s Disease.  By the time I met Ty, he was in the very early stages of diagnoses; I, on the other hand, had first been diagnosed back in the late 1960s when it was still called “Terminal Ileitis.”  I had already gone through 5 surgeries tons of medications, and bouts of being fed nothing but T.P.N. (Total Parenteral Nutrition) through what is called a “Hickman Catheter.”  The whole contraption is attached to a large bag containing a solution of water (30 to 40mL), energy (30 to 45kcal), amino acids, essential fatty acids (1 to 2kg), vitamins and minerals.  It is then carried around in a canvas should bag.  When speaking of whether or not some day he would have to go around wearing a TPN bag, he asked me “what does it taste like?”  Smiling, I asked him if he remembered studying about the manna G-d provided the Israelites throughout their 40 years in the wilderness.  “And do you remember how the rabbis answered your question?” I asked him.  “Oh yes,” Ty said, brightening; “whatever food they thought about while eating the manna, that’s what it would taste like!”  “Precisely,” I told him . . . “another miracle!”

The one thing I tried to get across to my young student was that in the long run, attitude was as important - if not more so - than medicine, surgery or prayer. “Just remember,” I would tell him over and over, “You are a healthy person who, it so happens, has a serious condition; you are not sick. That attitude can and will add so much to your life.” For me, that attitude has served as the motivation for entering the world of medical ethics and pouring over tens of dozens of clinical trials dealing with gastroenterological deficits. For Ty, it led him to earning a B.S. in Molecular Biology, co-authoring research papers on the development of the intestinal ecosystem, and eventually going to work for the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America.

Despite his Crohn’s and Achalasia (an aftereffect - or sequela - of Crohn’s), despite being fed via TPN and eventually submitting to an Esophagectomy (a surgical procedure to remove some or all of the swallowing tube between your mouth and stomach [esophagus] and then reconstructing it using part of another organ), Ty kept up a solid and seemingly endless social life. Indeed, he was a healthy man with a serious condition. He even fell in love with a medical student, Kira, whom I understand is going to make pediatric gastroenterology her medical specialty.

Ty’s passing hits so very close to home. That he should have left this world in his latter 20s, while I, his rabbi, teacher and friend should continue soldiering on into his 72nd year, makes no sense whatsoever. To his parents Sandi and Artie, his brother Gage, Kira, whom I have never met, and Rusty, his beloved service dog, all I can say - beyond the usual words of sympathy and condolence - is that in his all too brief life, Ty managed to accomplish something very few ever do: make the world a better place. Both his memory and his accomplishments are eternal. In Ty’s memory, please consider making a contribution to either the Humane Society of North Florida or the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America . . . the first for Rusty, his four-legged “Partner in Crime,” and the second, for a young healthy man who, most regrettably, was saddled with a serious condition.

May Ty rest in peace . . . and may his memory be a blessing for us all.

Be healthy . . . regardless of whatever condition G-d may have saddled you with.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Want to Join Us for High Holidays 5782?

Within the Jewish world, it is most commonplace to hear people say either “Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur (the Jewish High Holidays) are really early this year,” or “Gee, the Holidays are really late this year.” Truth to tell, this is impossible: Rosh Hashana (the Jewish New Year) always begins on the first day of the Jewish month of Tishri; Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement) always falls on the 10th day of Tishri . . . come rain or shine. What does come either early or late are the corresponding dates on the Gregorian Calendar. This year - 5782 on the Jewish calendar - falls, as ever, on the 1st day of Tishri, which corresponds to Monday, September 6, 2021 on the Gregorian; Yom Kippur begins as the sun goes down on the 10th of Tishri, which corresponds to Wednesday evening, September 15. Precisely why or how the Jewish calendar is about to enter year 5782 is a horse of a different color. But don’t worry: I’m not going to go into it at this point, and besides, it won’t be showing up on your final exam . . . whether your are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jain. Suffice it to say that official setting of the Jewish calendar vis-à-vis years (which goes according to the sun) is attributed to a an early rabbinic work entitled Seder ha-Olam Rabbah (“The Great Order of the World”) by the 2nd century (C.E.) rabbi Jose (pronounced Yossi in Hebrew) ben Halafta, the fifth most frequently mentioned tannah (sage) in the Mishnah, occasionally referred to as “The best Jewish you’ve never read.”

Once again, we, the men, women and children of the North Broward Chavurah are holding High Holiday services via Zoom.  We held them (along with a bit of trepidation) last year, and things worked out beyond our wildest expectations.  We had people joining us in our sanctuary (actually, the Stone family dining room) from as far away as Germany, France and Israel, as well as California, Massachusetts and Wisconsin.  And believe it or not there were any number of non-Jewish folks joining us for prayers, fellowship, stories, singing and a whole lot of contemplative moments.  For while at root, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are deeply Jewish observances, they are also eminently international in scope.  In other words, even if you are not Jewish you are more than welcome . . .

Below, are the dates and times (all Eastern Daylight Time) for services:

Erev (Eve of )Rosh Hashanah, Monday, Sept. 6, 7:30 PM

1st Day Rosh Hashanah, Tuesday, Sept. 7, 10:00 AM

2nd Day Rosh Hashanah, Wednesday, Sept. 8, 10:00 AM

Kol Nidre (Eve of the Day of Atonement), Wednesday, Sept. 15, 6:30 PM

Yom Kippur, Thursday, Sept. 16, 9:30 AM

_______________________________________________________________

For those interested in finding out more about services, please email me/us at: highholidays@kurtfstone.com 

Ask any and all questions you wish . . . and don’t be put off by the cyber technicality of attending services via Zoom.  We will be happy to send you simple instructions on how to sign up and fully participate, as well as a link for you to download a beautiful (free) high holiday prayer book (machzor).

Although services are held in a combination of Hebrew, English and just a touch of Aramaic, don’t worry . . . as with everything I do, I’m teaching and explaining every step of the way.

L’shalom,

Rabbi Kurt F. Stone, D.D.

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