Beware the Poisonous Newt

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

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

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

1. He isn’t a very good writer;

2. He is history’s deus ex machina;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Seeking Light in the Growing Darkness

                     Congregation Beth Israel, Colleyville, Texas

Without question, the explosive growth of anti-Semitism - both real and rhetorical - over the past several years, should have civilized people of all races and places extremely concerned . . . to say the least. Ghastly homicidal events have taken place at Jewish houses of worship in Europe and America, while anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi websites have become an increasing “fact of life” on social media and the “Dark Web.” Saturday’s scene at Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas was, thankfully, different; all four Jewish hostages escaped unharmed after a more than 10-hour stand-off. The combined actions of many law enforcement and anti-terrorism agencies - including the FBI and both local and Texas State police - did a textbook job of bringing a potentially tragic event to a successful conclusion.

Much has been written - and rightfully so - about the bravery, level-headedness and ultimately, the modesty, of Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker, who somehow held it all together and even garnered words of respect from the terrorist holding him and the three  congregants hostage.  It was the rabbi who granted Malik Faisal Akram entrance to the synagogue during Shabbat services, when the 44-year old British citizen explained that he was homeless, and looking for a place of shelter on a particularly cold North Texas morning.   Hearing his accent, Rabbi Charlie gave him a cup of tea. Once a mensch, always a mensch.  At one point Rabbi Charlie - at Akram’s request - called a well-known rabbi in New York City so that the suspect could talk about Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani with a PhD in neuroscience (ironically, from Brandeis University) who is currently serving an 86-year federal prison sentence in Fort Worth after being found guilty of attempted murder and other charges in an assault on US officers in Afghanistan. Akram told the rabbi in New York that Siddiqui was framed and was thus demanding her release.  

As I write this account, little additional information has been released, save that British authorities have  detained two teenagers in southern Manchester on Sunday evening who "remain in custody for questioning," according to a statement from the Greater Manchester Police. Multiple law enforcement sources in the U.S. told ABC News that the teens are the children of the alleged hostage-taker.

Both President Biden and British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss described the hostage-taking as an “act of terrorism,” Secretary Truss taking it a step further, adding that it was also “an act of anti-Semitism.” When Matthew DeSarno, the FBI Special Agent in Charge told reporters “the Texas synagogue hostage taker’s demands were specifically focused on issues not connected to the Jewish community,” it raised a storm of protest by Kenneth Marcus, the founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and former assistant U.S. secretary of education for civil rights in the Trump Administration. He disagreed wholeheartedly with DeSarno’s characterization, telling Fox News Digital that “. . . the FBI got it wrong.  Failure of the FBI to understand this is something of a pattern with law enforcement in the United States and frankly in Europe. It seems that time after time, we see law enforcement officials fail to understand when an anti-Semitic incident occurs, even when it’s entirely obvious, and sometimes the results of that are tragic. This time, fortunately, they have not been . . . , If the law enforcement community doesn’t understand what’s going on, they’re not going to be able to address the fallout from this,” he added. “This was not a mere slip-up. It is symptomatic of a widespread failure with law enforcement to understand the problems of antisemitism [sic] and anti-Zionism,” Marcus said.

According to one of the hostages, Akram went off on several anti-Jewish, anti-Israel diatribes, sounding more and more delusional as the hours wore on. So it would appear that the FBI’s DeSarno spoke before thoroughly debriefing the hostages.   

Besides the fact that everything turned out for the best in Colleyville, there are other bits of light that have received next to no coverage.  In the “thank our lucky stars” column, Rabbi Charlie credited security training that his suburban Ft. Worth congregation has received over the years for “getting him and the other three hostages through the ordeal.”  Then too, there is the very nature of the good people of North Texas.  In a op-ed piece in this morning’s Dallas Morning News entitled “What we can learn from Colleyville synagogue terror attack,” the editors urged its readers to “Remember Congregation Beth Israel’s welcoming courage versus the anger of the attacker.”  

The piece continues:

Moments like this give all of us so much to think about as the emotions settle, as we catch our breath and consider what was and what could have been, and as we think about why these sorts of terrible things ever happen.

There is an important contrast that it draws out. We are so quick today to make enemies of those with whom we differ politically. We see everywhere around us the belittlement and dehumanization of people who think differently, act differently, love differently, worship differently.

We should stop. We should take a moment like this to calculate the difference between something with which we strongly disagree and that which is truly horrible and terrible and deserves the name evil because it would steal innocent lives for its own ends.

The fact that a Jewish synagogue was targeted is a reminder of how an entire people have been scapegoated and demonized throughout history. It can happen again, and we must not let it.

Even as we think about these things, there is also an opportunity to reflect on what is good.

There were two kinds of people at Congregation Beth Israel. One was angry, ranting and threatening violence. The others had opened their arms and their hearts and called the stranger in from the cold.

I am sure there are  plenty of people who find the sentiment expressed in this op-ed to be overly treacly; like something out of an old Andy Hardy movie. “But the world’s still overflowing with anti-Semites and terrorists,” they say . . . and  of course, they are correct. But what they do not know is that people coming together despite their religious, political or ethnic differences can make a tremendous difference . . . and bring light to the gloom.  In the area where one finds Congregation Beth Israel, there exists a commitment - call it  a passion - for people to meet and treat one another as brothers and sisters.  Their religious leaders sit together in common council, seeking to provide their congregants . . . whether  Jewish or Muslim, Catholic or Protestant, Hindu  or  Bahai . . . with a sense of solidarity and respect.   

After all the murder and mayhem at synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway, anti-Semitic graffiti at a Tucson synagogue, desecration of synagogues in the Bronx in the spring, leaflets claiming that COVID is a conspiracy foist upon an unsuspecting Christian nation by a cabal of Jewish doctors and scientists — or worse, arson at an Austin, Texas, synagogue this fall, we Jews have to think twice before attending shul - frequently entering through a side door.  It has long been a tradition that when Jews travel abroad, even the most secular amongst us - we seek out a local synagogue - whether we be in Istanbul, Amsterdam, Lisbon or Lyons - just to spend a bit of time with our landsleit (Yiddish for, broadly speaking, “kinsmen”).  Nowadays, there is no need to ask for an address . . . all one need do is seek out an area where there are armed guards outside a building with a Star of David.  It’s gotten to that point; both abroad and in the United States.  Yes, anti-Semitism has gotten that bad.

An anti-Semitic Screed Circulated to the People of Greensboro, N.C.

So what can be done?  For one, here in the United States, the Senate can finally get around to confirming Dr. Deborah Lipstadt,  professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies at Emory University to become the State Department special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism abroad. Despite being nominated to this ambassadorial position by President Biden last July, it has been held up by Republican members of the Foreign Relations Committee.  Why?  According to the Committee’s ranking minority member, Idaho Republican James Risch, the nomination is being held up while committee members pour over Professor Lipstadt’s Tweets.  According to Committee Chair, New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez, “The minority has refused to grant her a hearing, apparently because there is some concern about her tweets calling out the use of anti-Semitic tropes. Let’s think about that [for] a minute. We don’t want the person nominated to advance our global efforts against anti-Semitism to call out anti-Semitism? I sincerely hope that’s not the position of the minority.”  (It should be noted that Committee members Marco Rubio (FL), Rand Paul (KY), Ted Cruz (TX) and Ron Johnson (WI) have all joined in on holding up Dr. Lipstadt’s nomination. Keeping that post empty is simply not in our national security interests. 

The Senate can and should also pass Nevada Senator Jackie Rosen’s bill which would increase the appropriation for the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism by 25% (currently, it is a paltry $5 million). 

These two simple acts - confirming Dr. Lipstadt’s ambassadorship and passing Senator Rosen’s heightened appropriation - could shed a tiny glimmer of light onto a situation which is becoming more and more sepulchral with every passing month. 

Bringing light where there is darkness is terribly difficult, but absolutely essential if we are to survive.

Do remember on the Martin Luthor King,  Jr., day of remembrance two of his most prophetic truths:

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”  

“But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough can you see the stars.”

Copyright©2020 Kurt F. Stone

Follow the Money

In the nearly 17 years this blog has existed (on February the fifth we begin our 18th year) more than a handful of the now 874 posts have dealt with the history, nature and psychological underpinnings of political conspiracies. Regardless of whether the conspiracy involved Masons or Jews, Communists, Socialists or the Hollywood film industry - to name but a few - they all seem to have found an audience prepared to believe that they were true, thus explaining that which was both frightening about contemporary political society or making understandable the otherwise deeply inexplicable.

Goodness knows, we are once again in the midst of “Conspiracy Land.”  To many of us, it seems like the wheels have become detached from the democratic wagon, becoming replaced by a kind of pilotless drone searching out the quickest path to autocracy.  In seemingly the wink of an eye, American politics have become obsessed with the “Big Lie” (AKA “Stop the Steal”); the danger of teaching “Critical Race Theory” to public school students (which they are not); the dire necessity of curbing voting rights in the name of keeping elections free of dishonesty (which demonstrably, they are not); and enacting laws which, if allowed to stand, will make a woman’s right to choose all but impossible in more than half the states of our now teetering Union.

The late conservative pundit/Harvard-trained psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer (whom I read regularly . . . and just as regularly disagreed with) once noted “In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit.”  In another place he wrote “Whenever you're faced with an explanation of what's going on in Washington, the choice between incompetence and conspiracy, always choose incompetence.”  These are likely the only 2 “Krauthammerisms” in which I ever found more than a soupçon of truth.  For when it comes to the various conspiratorial bits floating about these days, it’s really, truly difficult to imagine them being dreamed up and led by the MAGA crowd.  Look back on the people he surrounded himself with during his 4 years in office.  The only qualification  for appointment to the cabinet or his personal staff was loyalty . . . not experience, nor accomplishment nor vision nor even a scintilla of competence.  If experience, accomplishment, vision or competence were required, he never would have  made John D. McEntee ii (his onetime “body man” who carried his golf clubs and suitcase) the Director of Presidential Personnel, or Daniel Scavino (who was general manager of the Trump International Golf Club) Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications or Hope Hicks, (a former model of - and P.R. person for  First Daughter Ivanka Trump’s fashion line) his Director of Communications. 

As the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol continues to issue subpoenas and invitations, hold hearings and work alongside the Department of Justice, it seems only logical that they would follow the advice so succinctly stated by “Deep Throat,” as played by the late actor Hal  Holbrook in All the President’s Men: “FOLLOW THE MONEY.” For all we know, perhaps that is part of the Select Committee’s strategy; to determine where all the money for organizing the January 6th insurrection came from, as well  as  to determine who is underwriting all the various issues - CRT. library book banning, anti-vaxx demonstrations as well as state and municipal legislative efforts to give Botox injections to the American system of voting.  By following the money behind all these efforts, we exit the world of the incompetent and begin the journey to the land of the capable.  For all we know, perhaps the trail will lead abroad,  and one day the face of Vladimir Putin will  begin appearing in the mirror. 

Sound overly conspiratorial . . . too 1984ish?  Well, we do know with a degree of certainty that Putin and his cronies played a major role in the 2016 presidential election . . . putting their favorite "useful idiot” into office.  What’s to say they ever stopped? 

Dear Chairman Thompson and members of the Select Committee . . . do whatever you have to in order to get to the bottom of this ghastly insurrection and all that surrounds it.

And please, please, by all means, follow the money!

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Q: What Do Huckleberry Finn, Holden Caulfield and Harry Potter All Have in Common?

A: They have all been central characters in classic novels that were - or still are - banned from many school libraries . . . 

To many of us it seems well beyond the bounds of reason; what in the  world could be so objectionable about The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Catcher in the Rye, or the Harry Potter series as to be worthy of banishment from bookshelves . . . or even worse, being burnt?  Many of us remember the war on Catcher in the Rye back in our schooldays; how, for many teenagers, it’s banishment lead us directly to devouring J.D. Sallinger’s only novel-length work.  In the day, the guardians of literary mortality found it to be "obscene,” with an "excess of vulgar language, sexual scenes, and things concerning moral issues."  I for one found Holden to be one of the most real people in all literature.  To this day I can quote him:

• "All morons hate it when you call them a moron.”

• "I’m always saying ‘Glad to’ve met you’ to someone I’m not at all glad I met. If you want to stay alive, you have to say that stuff, though."

• "I don’t give a damn, except that I get bored sometimes when people tell me to act my age. Sometimes I act a lot older than I am - I really do."

• "What really knocks me out is a book that, when you’re all done reading it, you wish the author that wrote it was a terrific friend of yours and you could call him up on the phone whenever you felt like it."

My sister Erica (Riki) and I were among the fortunate ones of our generation; our parents didn’t put any restrictions on what we read.  There was a pretty large library in our home, and I/we got the benefit of becoming friends with Shakespeare, de Balzac, Mauldin, and Steinbeck if we so chose . . . all of whom were at one time or another banned. (I must admit that my “slightly older sister” wasn’t nearly as much of a reader as her younger brother . . . just a hell of a lot smarter, more sociable and far more well-rounded!)

From the first book banned in the American colonies (Thomas Morton’s three-volume work of history, natural history, satire, and poetry New English Canaan in 1637) through today, the number of famous and meritorious essays and novels banned by bigots and what used to be called “bluenoses” could easily fill a mid-size, small-town bookstore.  Among those found to be “irremediably evil” at worst,  “decadent” or salacious” at best, were such well-known works as:

• Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl, banned for passages that were considered "sexually offensive," as well as for the tragic nature of the book, which some readers felt was a "real downer."

• Kate Chopin’s The Awakening (1899), was criticized for being immoral and scandalous, and now is considered an important work in feminist literature. 

• Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932), was challenged in schools and libraries across the United States for being "centered around negative activity."

• Alice Walker’s The Color Purple, frequently challenged and banned for what has been termed "sexual and social explicitness."

• John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath'; banned and challenged for "vulgar" language.” Parents have also objected to "inappropriate sexual references."

• William Golding’s The Lord of the Flies; Despite the fact that "Lord of the Flies" was a bestseller, the novel has been banned and challenged — based on the "excessive violence and bad language."

• The Scarlett Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne (1850): censored on sexual grounds. The book has been challenged under claims that it is "pornographic and obscene."

• Ulysses by James Joyce (1918): a masterful novel with impenetrable prose, it was banned for obscenity. In the 1930s, the U.S. Postal Service burnt copies sent in the mail.

• To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee (1960); still banned in many school and local libraries, Harper Lee’s only novel has been frequently banned and challenged on sexual and social grounds. Not only does the novel discuss racial issues in the South, but the book involves a White attorney, Atticus Finch, defending a Black man against rape charges.

Banning - if not burning - questionable books from public school and municipal libraries is a hot-button issue which rears its ugly head every 2 or 4 years. Thanks to the politically maladroit comment of former Virginia Governor Terry McAulliffe (“I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.") and the fast-tracking of “Critical Race Theory” (CRT) as a central focus of many campaigns, state legislatures and local school boards have made education a central focus for the 2022 midterm elections. Already, several state legislatures - most notably Texas and Oklahoma - have enacted legislation which essentially gives any parent the power to petition for the removal of books they find objectionable.

In Texas, Matt Krause, a Republican in the state House of Representatives, recently went hunting in public-school libraries for any books that might generate “discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of [a student’s] race or sex.” He then distributed a watch list of 850 books. In parallel, Texas governor, Greg Abbott called for a criminal investigation into the availability of “pornographic” books in public schools. Then, a San Antonio school district pulled 414 books from its libraries in response to the ongoing pressure from Texas lawmakers and a vocal segment of angry parents to limit what children can choose to read.

Just the other day, Oklahoma state Senator Rob Standridge introduced a book-banning bill that would enable parents to challenge books in public schools, setting a $10,000 bounty to be collected by parents for each day a challenged book remains on library shelves.  If this sounds somewhat reminiscent of the recent Texas abortion bill (which is now headed for the U.S. Supreme Court), you are correct.  The idea of adding the $10,000 per diem bounty on each book makes it a matter of civil - rather than 1st Amendment - concern.  In his remarks before the Oklahoma Senate, Standridge justified his proposed legislation in a statement which read: “Our education system is not the place to teach moral lessons that should instead be left up to parents and families. Unfortunately, however, more and more schools are trying to indoctrinate students by exposing them to gender, sexual and racial identity curriculums [sic] and courses. My bills will ensure these types of lessons stay at home and out of the classroom.” 

Parents believing a book violates the bill may demand school officials remove it within 30 days. If the book is not removed during this time, the school employee tasked with getting rid of it will be terminated —subject to due process— and prohibited from working at another school for at least two years.  Parents may then seek “monetary damages,” according to the bill, including a minimum of $10,000 for each day the challenged book is not removed.

Under Standrige’s second bill, public universities in Oklahoma beginning next year would be prohibited from requiring students to enroll in courses “addressing any form of gender, sexual, or racial diversity, equality, or inclusion curriculum,” which fall outside course requirements for their major. 

Many of the books in question do include passages about sex, abortion, race, and sexuality. Some are nonfiction; others are novels. They span several decades in American publishing and include authors who have been awarded Pulitzer, Nobel and Booker Prizes, as well as McArthur “Genius Grants.”  In some cases, local school librarians weren’t even aware that the “nasty” books were on their shelves. As will happen when the “. . . censorious zeitgeist swallows up a novel” (in the words of The Guardian’s Luke Winkie), sales of those books goes through the ceiling.  It’s nothing new; in 1982, when the United States Supreme Court set the standard for banning books in Board of Education v. Pico, sales of such previously banned works as Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer, Theodore Dreiser’s The Genius and Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five experienced a merchandizing renaissance. 

Expect education - and the centrality of parents’ freedom to choose what their children are taught or assigned - to be a central MAGA-pushed issue in the upcoming midterm elections.  There is a sick irony at work here: adults, who are  repeatedly told that principals, librarians and individual teachers have no right or authority to create curricula for their children, are instead brainwashed into believing that they should heretofore cede that authority to politicians and their deep-pocketed benefactors . . . supposedly in the name of "personal freedom.”  Just because a state legislator or local schoolboard member declares that Jenny Nordberg’s The Underground Girls of Kabul: In Search of a Hidden Resistance in Afghanistan, or Jeffrey Eugenides’ Middlesex, or Phyllis Reynolds Naylor’s Reluctantly Alice (all 3 of which are on Texas’ ‘no-no’ list) must be removed from the shelves of public school libraries, doesn’t mean they are experts, authorities or trained literary critics.  The first question I would ask of them would be “Can you summarize the book in question?”  “Did you actually read it yourself, or are you just taking someone else’s word for it that it’s bad, or salacious or even worse?”

Keep your eyes and ears open in your city, county or state for attempts to muzzle what children can read.  And do remember the haunting words of the great German-Jewish poet Heinrich (Harry) Heine (1797-1856), whose haunting words adorn both the Yad va-Shem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: “Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people as well."    

Copyright2022 Kurt F. Stone

Riddle Me a Riddle

Stretching across the intellectual highways called “philosophy,” “theology,” and “cerebral gymnastics,” one finds riddles and intellectual imponderables aplenty, the contemplation of which can provide the best - and occasionally most frustrating - forms of mental, moral and ethical gymnastics. Two of my favorites - neither of which I have come even close to solving - are the following:

Question: if G-d is omnipotent, is it possible for Co* (a divine pronoun I invented 40+ years ago meaning “He/She) to create an object so large and heavy that Co cannot lift it?

Answer: Of course not.  If G-d could  create such an object, that would wipe out Co’s omnipotence, because there would be something beyond Co’s physical ability.

Question: But if the omnipotent G-d were incapable of creating such an object, wouldn’t that then mean that there is something beyond that very omnipotence . . . namely the inability to create something too large and heavy to lift? 

Answer: You’ve given me a migraine . . . better check back later . . . much, much later.

Then there’s imponderable #2, which comes from an early rabbinic work known as Pirke Avot . . . a  book of wisdom whose title is roughly translated as The  Ethics of the Fathers.   In Hebrew it goes:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                               הַכֹּל צָפוּי, וְהָרְשׁוּת נְתוּנָה,

(ha-kohl tza-fuey, v’ha-r’shoot n’tunah) Roughly translated this enigmatic bit of wisdom states “All things are foreseen, but nonetheless there is free will.”

There’s an obvious paradox at work here:   If G-d knows the future and every act we will do for the rest of our lives, do we truly have free will? Do we truly have a choice how we will behave? It is already known, so to speak, that I will sin at a particular time and place. And if so, there is no possible way I can avoid it! I am going to do it! G-d knows it already! There is no humanly possible way for me to alter my predetermined future! And so, isn’t my life merely a meaningless exercise — a futile performance of an already-written and predetermined script?

I have always been intrigued by this sentence (which is ascribed to the great Rabbi Akiba). I really love it, perhaps because it is an enigma to me, spiritual and intriguing. Every once in awhile the sentence pops up in my mind. And for the longest time, I said “Not yet, I still don’t understand its meaning.”

Talk about an imponderable riddle! Talk about yet another migraine!!

Annie asked me a question the other day that brought this omniscience- versus-free-will conundrum to mind. Annie, as many of you know, has taught for years at Broward College in the Ft. Lauderdale area. She teaches English as a Second Language (ESL) to adult immigrants, refugees and asylees. Her students come from places as diverse as Haiti, Cuba and the Caribbean to South and Central America and the Middle East. Many received next to no education prior to their arrival in the U.S.; some were college-educated doctors, accountants and engineers. The latter find it next to impossible to resume their professions; once skilled surgeons become registered nurses; engineers turn to  the building trades and accountants become bookkeepers.

Recently, the college offered a cash incentive ($250.00) for any and all students who agreed to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and another $250.00 for receiving a booster shot. Annie contacted each and every one of her students to make sure they were aware of this program and answer any questions they might have. Of necessity, she asked each student whether or not they had already been vaccinated and/or received a booster injection. Hauntingly, a fair number of her students - including the doctors and other professionals - had not, but refused to give a reason why.

“How’s it possible for a doctor to be against getting a COVID vaccine?” she asked.  Indeed, how is it possible for anyone (save those whose religion refuses medical attention or those with compromised immune systems) to willingly refuse a potentially life-saving vaccine?  Or fight tooth and nail against being compelled to wear a mask . . . or compare any mandate concerning COVID protection to the Nazis forcing Jews to wear a Yellow Star?  Do they have any brains?  Do they really, truly believe all the conspiracy theorists who likely have been vaccinated behind closed doors?  Amazingly, just the other day fringe factions of the right wing erupted in anger after both former POTUS Trump and former FAUX News commentator Bill O’Reilly urged people to get vaccinated and boosted.  Anti-vax conspiracy theorists  such as Alex Jones and Ali Alexander swiftly rebuked Trump over his pro-vaccine stance. Members of QAnon-linked Telegram channels said they felt betrayed after Trump said to get the shot.  Ultra-conservative millennial commentator Candace Owens hit back hard at Trump for telling the truth about vaccines, explaining to her growing legion of fans that he's "too old" to find the "obscure websites" where people do their own research on the vaccines. "People oftentimes forget that, like, how old Trump is," Owens said on an Instagram Live post last Thursday night. "He comes from a generation — I've seen other people that are older have the exact same perspective, like, they came from a time before TV, before internet, before being able to conduct their independent research."

(It should be noted that Trump, who famously had his own reality TV show, never lived in "a time before TV." Then again, he reportedly doesn't use a computer.)

In the Luddite-larded world of antivaxxers, one finds such utterly ludicrous beliefs as: urging - if not mandating - vaccinations, masks and rigorous hand-washing during a time of mutating pandemia is a “human rights” violation; that according to Fox commentator Tucker Carlson (who, after all, knows everything) the nation’s leading expert in infectious diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci created the Covid virus (and is making a fortune off of it); and that COVID-19 is a plot by big pharma to make a fortune.  And for those who haven’t been paying a lot of attention, one of the loudest anti-Fauci voices in the country is attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a mainstay in the vaccines-cause autism brigade whose newest book is entitled The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, which just about says it all. 

Truth to tell, some of those peddling these - and other ridiculous notions have stock holdings in  many  of the companies manufacturing the very vaccines which are  saving tens of millions of lives.  (One of these is loud-mouthed Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene who, in addition to recently saying on Steve Bannon’s podcast that "vaccine Nazis [are] "ruining our country," holds stock in AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson.)  In fact, according Business Insider’s “Conflicted Congress” project, at least 13 senators and 35 US representatives held shares in Johnson & Johnson, 11 senators and 34 representatives held shares in Pfizer, and two representatives or their spouses held shares of Moderna. 

In their drive to monetize the COVID pandemic, hardcore right-wing conspirators who insist (and will sell you) that Ivermectin, herbal “cures,” tons of vitamin C and Hydroxychloroquine will cure what ails you are - either knowingly or not - are endangering the lives of the very people they need to “Make America Great Again.” According to a recent report on National Public  Radio, "Since May 2021, people living in counties that voted heavily for Donald Trump during the last presidential election have been nearly three times as likely to die from COVID-19 as those who live in areas that went for now-President Biden.”  Recent polling shows that partisanship is now this single strongest identifying predictor of whether someone is vaccinated. Polling also shows that mistrust in official sources of information and exposure to misinformation, about both COVID-19 and the vaccines, runs high among Republicans.  According to Liz Hamel, vice president of public opinion and survey research at the Kaiser Family Foundation, (a nonpartisan health policy think tank), "An unvaccinated person is three times as likely to lean Republican as they are to lean Democrat . . . . If I wanted to guess if somebody was vaccinated or not and I could only know one thing about them, I would probably ask what their party affiliation is." 

It would take a heartless fool to cheer on those Trump acolytes who are killing the future of their movement by potentially killing themselves. But it has gotten to a point where they won’t even listen to their leader, who now tells them that getting vaccinated and boosted is a good thing.

In the words of Puck, perhaps Shakespeare’s most endearing creation: “Lord, what fools these mortals be!”

Sorry to say, but when push comes to shove, I haven’t got an answer to Annie’s question about how in the world doctors and otherwise educated people - let alone those who are not - can bury their heads in the sand and their feet in concrete when it comes to saving their lives and the lives of their families and friends. It will have to remain an unsolvable riddle . . . perhaps even to the G-d who, despite being both omnipotent and omniscient, grants each of us free will . . .

Copyright©2021, Kurt F. Stone   

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

                                   Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY)

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

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

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

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

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

Whoa there!

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

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

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

Three cheers for Liz Cheney!

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

"The Darkness on the Edge of Town"

This past Thursday (December 9, 2021) the veteran journalist and news anchor Brian Williams signed off as host of MSNBC’s The 11th Hour, thus ending his 28-year run with NBC News. In his final 3 minutes and 51 seconds on-air, Williams delivered a highly reflective valedictory which, if it had had a musical backdrop, would undoubtedly have come from Paul Anka’s My Way, featuring the lyric Regrets, I’ve had a few/but then again, too few to mention/I did what I had to do/and saw it through without exemption . . . But more than that, he spoke out for his greatest fear: the future of America:

After 28 years of Peacock logos on much of what I own, it is my choice now to jump without a net into the great unknown,” he said. “As I do, for the first time in my 62 years, my biggest worry is for my country.

The truth is I am not a liberal or a conservative, I am an institutionalist. I believe in this place, and in my love of country I yield to no one. But the darkness on the edge of town has spread to the main roads and highways and neighborhoods. It is now at the local bar and the bowling alley, at the school board and the grocery store. And it must be acknowledged and answered for. Grown men and women, who swore an oath to our Constitution — elected by their constituents, possessing the kind of college degrees I could only dream of — have decided to join the mob and become something they are not, while hoping we somehow forget who they were. They’ve decided to burn it all down with us inside. That should scare you to no end.

Williams announced he would be leaving NBC News back on Nov. 9, bringing to an end a relationship that began in 1993 when he joined the network. Before moving to MSNBC, Williams served as chief anchor and managing editor of NBC’s Nightly News, succeeding the legendary Tom Brokaw in 2004. In 2015, he faced scandal and a six-month suspension over false claims about his helicopter being hit by a grenade in March 2003 while covering the Iraq War. He was later replaced by Lester Holt in the anchor role, and made his transition to the 24-hour cable network.

To Brian Williams’ detractors, the scandal and suspension represent the entirety of his nearly 3-decade career. Sadly, that’s the way things go in the modern world; one’s detractors make sure their audience never forgets the foibles of the fallible who happen to occupy the opposite side of the whatever aisle divides them, all the while turning both a deaf ear and a blind eye to the imperfections of those they support. A handful of mistruths from Brian Williams make him lower than Lenin in the minds of the Fox/News Max/OAN/Breitbart crowd, while the 30,000+ whoppers told by Boss Tweet matter neither whit nor farthing.

Like many on our/my side of the aisle, I found Brian Williams' valedictory to be terse, his words well crafted and his message scary as hell.  His message - and what today we increasingly refer to as “messaging” - hit the nail on the head.  “Messaging” is a fairly new concept, and means something like: the ideas or messages conveyed either explicitly or implicitly by a politician, advertising campaign, etc., or the way in which this is done.  Williams’ political messaging, in a nutshell, conveyed a great truth: We need more people WITH A PLATFORM to step up and say, “Hey folks, we’re on the ledge of losing our imperfect republic, our highly flawed but great democratic experiment. Open your eyes. We are hanging on by our freaking fingertips. 

Writing about Williams’ messaging in The Daily Kos, progressive Stella Ray noted “There will be those who say this is hyperbolic---but I now think those are the same sort who didn’t see Hitler coming, even after the Brown shirts had arrived. And make no mistake about it, the Brown shirts have arrived in the United States of America. They just go by different names these days. All sorts of  names, but most disturbing of all is this name: the Republican Party. There is no ‘both sides do it’ in this ultimate game, despite my opinion on the many imperfections of the Democratic Party.  I

I think there is no doubt this is who Williams was talking about.  Think about it: so much of what is driving Americans apart and democracy down is due to things such as:

• The promotion of anti-vaxxing, anti-masking lies in the name of “preserving individual freedom,”

• The passing of countless pieces of state and local legislation making voting terribly difficult - if not impossible - for the poor and people of color . . . and this in the name of safeguarding against electoral fraud;

• State-after-state enacting laws which make abortions next to impossible for all but women (or families) of means;

• The perpetuation of a solid slate of lies concerning the dangers posed by refugees, asylees and non-white immigrants;

• Perpetuating myths and lies about the teaching of Critical Race Theory; fostering bullying against children who are LGBTQ;

• Denying climate change;

• Spreading conspiracy theories about virtually everything in order to keep their base close at hand;

• Convincing a vast portion of America that anything they disagree with is the product of a Socialist/Communist revolution in the making.

Democrats have long been unsuited to repelling Republicanism. Hells bells: Democrats have long been unsuited to fighting fire with fire, to calling a spade a spade or showing anger. For too long, Democrats have strapped on lace gloves for any lethal Mixed Martial Arts battles they’ve entered. For the past couple of decades Democrats have held on to the canard that “working across the aisle” is the best way to survive, succeed and progress.  

It seems to me that if Democrats are going to succeed - to continue occupying the White House and leading both the House and Senate, they are going to have to shine one whole hell of a lot of cleansing megawattage on that “Darkness on the edge of town” of which Brian Williams spoke during his final segment of “The 11th Hour.”

Democrats are going to have to pump ungodly amounts of cash, courage and energy into races for POTUS, Congress, governorships, state legislatures, county commissions and boards of supervisors and education across the country. We are going have to flood airways with visuals and actualities of what such political miscreants as Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Matt Gaetz, Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley et al have been vomiting out for the past several years . . . mostly as an act of obeisance to their cult leader, Donald J. Trump. In addition to being the one party running on a platform of political possibilities, Democrats will have to point out their opponents’ lies, conspiracy theories and penchant for scaring the daylights out of the citizens of America. Anything less will spell not only loss at the polls, but the loss of democracy in cities, towns and farmlands of this once great nation.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

What's in a Name?

                                   Dad at Griffith Park, c. 1935

Our father Henry (1915-2002) spent the first 42 years of his life bearing the family name “Schimberg.” Rather late in life, he got a bee in his bonnet to contact another Henry Schimberg . . . the president and CEO of Coca Cola Enterprises, the largest bottler of Coca Cola on the planet. His purpose? To find out if perhaps this Schimberg was related; after all it’s not a terribly common last name. After convincing the corporate magnate’s secretary that his call was not for purposes of putting the bite on her enormously wealthy and charitable boss, Dad was eventually put through, and the two Henrys had a brief but pleasant chat. It turned out that not only was the head of Coca Cola not a דאַמסלאַנ (lahntsman); he wasn’t even Jewish. (It is likely that the only possible connection would be geographic: Schimberg is a tiny (11.3 sq. miles) municipality in the district of Eichsfeld in Thuringia, Germany.  And, so far as we know, our Schimbergs originally came from Germany.)   

Then there are last names which are so omnipresent - like Smith, Jones, Brown, White, and McCarthy -  that few would ever engage in a search to determine whether a person was a distant relation.  The last of these names - McCarthy - is appended to my brief list not because it is so all-fired commonplace, but because of two politicians - one active, the other deceased - who share a haunting number of political traits.  The first is the current House Minority Leader, California Republican Kevin O(liver) McCarthy, who wants nothing more than to become Speaker of the House; the second is the  late senator from Wisconsin, Joseph R(aymond) McCarthy, who at one time was likely the best-known and most feared politician in America.  Besides the obvious - sharing a last name - the two have other similarities:

• Both are/were more than willing to change their political position, interests and stances, to achieve their ultimate goals.

• Neither made so much as a blip of the legislative radar;

• Both, despite their seeming political bravado, were essentially cowards;

• Neither was particularly well-liked nor respected by their colleagues.

Joe McCarthy (1908-1957), whose first political nickname was “Tail-gunner Joe,” went from one issue to another before landing on his “The State Department is filled with Communists traitors” meme.  When it was proven that he had essentially lied about his war-time achievements, he switched his energies to fighting against the continuation of wartime price controls, especially on sugar. His advocacy in this area was associated by critics with a $20,000 personal loan McCarthy received from a Pepsi bottling executive, thus earning the Senator the derisive nickname "The Pepsi-Cola Kid." 

From there McCarthy lobbied for the commutation of death sentences given to a group of Waffen-SS soldiers convicted of war crimes for carrying out the 1944 Malmedy massacre of American prisoners of war. McCarthy was critical of the convictions because the German soldiers' confessions were allegedly obtained through torture during the interrogations. During this time, a poll of the Senate press corps voted McCarthy "the worst U.S. senator" currently in office. It is likely that McCarthy’s inherent anti-Semitism had much to do with taking this weird stance; McCarthy frequently used anti-Jewish slurs, received enthusiastic support from anti-Semitic politicians, and, according to friends, would frequently display his copy of Mein Kampf, stating, "That’s the way to do it.” Then too, many of his targets during the Communist Witch Hunt period of his career, were Jews.  Censured by the Senate, McCarthy would go through a brief downward spiral of extreme alcoholism and morphine addiction; he died at age 48. In the special election that followed, Wisconsin State Assembly member William Proxmire, who would remain a senator of prominence for the next 32 years took the seat. Proxmire (1915-2005) was best known for his monthly “Golden Fleece” awards. (Ironically, McCarthy was sandwiched in between two progressives of historic import: Senator Robert “Fighting Bob” LaFollette and the aforementioned Proxmire).

                   Rep. Kevin O. McCarthy and Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy

Like Joe McCarthy, who believed in precious little besides furthering his career, the current House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is a man who floats with the political breeze.  He is the epitome of an institutionalist; one who has spent virtually his entire professional career in politics; first as a longtime (1987-2002) aid to California Representative Bill Thomas, then as a three-term member of the California State Assembly (2002-06), where he was known as a moderate, and finally as a member of the House (2007-present).  He has, for the most part, been a down-the-line conservative (pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, anti healthcare etc.) who has rapidly made his way up the leadership ladder.   Like his earlier namesake, he has not been known as a legislative powerhouse.  He has gotten to where he is by carrying political water for those above him.  He is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and has, on occasion, been guilty of committing what is known as the “Kinsley gaffe,” (defined as when a politician accidentally tells the truth; it is also known as “the gift that keeps on giving”).   

McCarthy’s most notable gaffe occurred back in September 2015, when, in an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity,  McCarthy was asked what Republicans had accomplished in Congress. He replied by talking about the House special panel investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack (in which Islamic militants attacked the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya). Republicans said the purpose of the government-funded committee was purely to investigate the deaths of four Americans. But McCarthy told Hannity on nationwide television, "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable [sic]. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought." This comment was seen as an admission that the investigation was a partisan political undertaking rather than a substantive inquiry.  Oops!

Kevin McCarthy was an early and steadfast supporter of Donald Trump. As part of the Republican leadership team in the House, it fell to him to keep his colleagues unified and supporting virtually everything the president said or did. In September 2015, Speaker John Boehner announced that he was handing in his gavel . . . immediately. McCarthy announced his candidacy for the position but soon came to understand that he would not have the 218 votes required to win. Why? Likely his “Kinsley gaffe” about Benghazi played a role. Then too, he was accused of having an affair with North Carolina Representative Renee Ellmers. Despite the fact that both publicly denying the charges, word got around the Republican Caucus that “any candidates for a leadership position with misdeeds should withdraw from the race.” Paul Ryan wound up becoming Speaker and McCarthy his chief deputy.

Not surprisingly, McCarthy wholeheartedly backed President Donald Trump’s ludicrous claim that the 2020 election had been stolen from him by the Democrats. Following the January 6, 2021 insurrection, he said that ". . . as a nation, we all have some responsibility for the event.” A week later he said that Trump "bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters, and that “He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.” Nonetheless, McCarthy did not vote to impeach Trump for a second time, instead calling for a censure resolution against Trump for his role in the attack. Shortly thereafter, McCarthy went to visit the former POTUS at his Mar-a-Lago residence and recanted. Officially, the topic was said to be "regaining the lost votes in the midterm elections of 2022", but it was widely reported as an attempt to mend fences with Trump and lessen tensions in the Republican Party.

Since that meeting, McCarthy has been carrying Trump’s water, kept silent about the anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and other pro-violence comments and videos of his party’s lunatic wing - Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert, and the latest, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who tweeted a Christmas photo of his family this past Saturday in which they’re all holding automatic weapons and smiling in front of a Christmas tree, with the caption: “Merry Christmas! ps. Santa, please bring ammo,” days after a mass shooting at a Michigan high school.

Most recently, the Minority Leader gave a lengthy, rambling speech on the House floor, holding up passage of the historic “Build Back Better Act” by nearly nine hours. (The House, unlike the Senate, does not permit filibusters. What it does have is the so-called “magic minute,” wherein House leaders are generally allowed to take as long as they want when recognized for one minute of floor time.) Speaking on everything from Socialism and the Southern Wall to Covid-19, masks and climate change (none of which he believes is real) McCarthy gave what MSNBC’s Hayes Brown called “both a masterful summation of the state of his caucus and a fitting distillation of his leadership style.”

When all is said and done, McCarthy’s true aim was not to kill the Democrat’s massive public works bill - passage of which was a foregone conclusion- but rather to prove to his caucus that he was “Trumpy” enough to warrant becoming the next Speaker of the House.

                    Kevin McCarthy (1914-2010)

If ever there was a reason to keep House leadership out of the hands of the Republicans, it would have to be Kevin McCarthy. While perhaps not as manaical as Joseph R., Kevin O. is even more dangerous, for unlike the Republicans of the fifties who did have a few dozen with guts and an ability to separate lunatic fiction from legal fact, today’s crew has nary a one . . . and seems more than capable of driving America off the cliff.

If we must have another Kevin McCarthy, might I suggest exhuming the remains of that grand actor who graced the Broadway Boards and the Hollywood screen for more than 70 years.  (Most notably, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Best Man and Big Hand for a Little Lady on screen and Two for the Seesaw, Advise and Consent and Give ‘em Hell Harry!” on Broadway.  For not only was he a highly literate  and charismatic progressive, he was the brother of a great writer (Mary McCarthy, author, most notably of The Group), and cousin of Senator Eugene “Clean for Gene” McCarthy.   

About the only thing these two McCarthys have in common is a great head of grey hair . . . 

Copyright© Kurt F. Stone

Judah and His Brothers

                     Judah Maccabee stirring the people to battle . . .

I swear, if I hear one more person ask me “Isn’t Chanukah quite early this year?” I’m going to throw a boiling-hot just-out-the-fryer latke at them. The answer is a resounding “NO!” Chanukah always begins on the same date as per the Jewish calendar: the 25th of Kislev. This year, it’s Christmas that’s late, again as per the Jewish calendar. When using the Gregorian (January-December) calendar, Christmas is right on time. Now that we’ve got that calendric tidbit straightened out, let’s spend a bit of time dealing with Chanukah, the “Festival of Lights.” Truth to tell, it is a rather minor Jewish holiday which isn’t anywhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible; instead, it can be found as two books within the Hebrew Apocrypha (the so-called “hidden” or “forbidden” collection of post-Biblical works). 

Chanukah also receives short shrift in the Jewish siddur (prayer book).  It is relegated to but a single paragraph and - mostly for the purpose of indicating the timing of the festival and mentioning the names of the major players in the event which led to its creation. These “major players,” known collectively as “the Maccabees,” consisted of a family of the Jewish priestly caste (cohanim) led by a father (Mattathias [Matityahu]) and his five sons: (Judah [Y’hudah], John [Yochanan], Simon [She-mohn], Eliezer [Elazar] and Jonathan [Yo-natahn']).  In Sunday or Hebrew school, students were taught that the name Maccabee (מכבי/מקבי) is related either to the word makav (Hebrew for “hammer”) or mekabeh (Hebrew for “extinguisher”), either because the Maccabee leader, Judah pounded the enemy into submission like a hammer, or endeavored to snuff out the fire of the Greco-Assyrians, which spread death and desolation throughout the land of Israel. Another, more likely explanation is that Maccabee is an acronym for Mi kamocha ba’eilim Hashem (מי כמוך באילים י׳), namely, “Who is like You among the mighty, O G‑d?” which is  found in the Biblical Book of Exodus (15:11)

Many readers will remember a Chanukah song taught to youngsters whose refrain went: “Who can retell the things that befell us, who can count them? In every age, a hero or sage came to our aid.”  It became part of a nightly celebration including the lighting of the hanukkiah (mistakenly referred to by most as a menorah; remember, every hanukkiah is a menorah; not every menorah is a hanukkiah). Besides the nightly candelabra lighting (with its accompanying prayers), playing games of chance (as a remembrance of our ancestors gambling with their very survival) and eating either fried potato latkes (for those from a European background) or sufgani’yot (fried sugary donut holes filled with jam for those from a Middle Eastern background) there’s the old story about the “miracle of the oil”; of how a single cruse of oil, which was supposed to last but a single day at the time of the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem, miraculously burned for a full 8 days.

It’s all very nice; a mythic fiction made for children of all ages which is nonetheless based on gut-wrenching facts . . . facts which ultimately turned heroic icons into humans with oversized feet of clay.  

                          Antiochus Epiphanes (215 BCE- 164 B.C.E.)

Factually, the events which undergird Chanukah go back to the middle-to-late 2nd century B.C.E, a time when the Seleucid Empire took over Jerusalem.  The leader of these Greco-Assyrians, Antiochus IV (215-164 B.C.E.) carried the regnal name Epiphanies (Ἐπιφανής), Greek for "G-d made manifest.”  As the name implies, he thought himself to be a divine - right up there with other inhabitants of Olympus such as  Zeus, Apollo, Ares and perhaps even Dionysus for all we know.  History records that he was, above all, a mad, autocratic narcissist.  Indeed, behind his back, many of his subjects, employing a sly play on words, gave him the epithet Epimanes (Ἐπιμανή), Greek for “the mad one.”  He ruled his empire with an iron fist from 175 B.C.E. until his death in 164 B.C.E.  His hatred for the Jews was so strong that his henchmen sacked the Holy Temple in  Jerusalem, turning it into a stygian stable.  His warriors and guardsmen - likely the first professional army in the world - proscribed any form of religious worship that was not directed at him. 

Some Jews became Hellenized and thus found favor with Antiochus; many, many others sought to make war against him as a response to the many cruelties he subjected to the people of  Judea.  Led by aforementioned Judah and his brothers, Jews from across Judea went to battle, thus becoming the first people in human history to fight not for property, physical resources or anything entirely tangible, but rather for a principle: the right of religious liberty.  The odds against them were enormous; a band of farmers, artisans, scholars and religious scholars making war against a vast army of professional soldiers.  What they had on their side was a patriotic fervor for their ancestral land, a far greater knowledge for its topography, and fortuitously, a  utter lack of knowledge of the rules of warfare.  As such, of necessity, they essentially created an early form of “guerrilla warfare,”  dropping out of trees, attacking and slaughtering the marching Greco-Assyrian troops; dashing boiling oil on them from above, and leading them into what today would be called "choke-points.” (This was not the first known use of this strategy; it was likely first used in the late 5th century B.C.E. Battle of Thermopylae, when Ancient Greek city-states, led by King Leonidas I of Sparta, went to war against the greatly superior Persian Empire of Xerxes I.)

Eventually, the victorious Jews managed to retake the Temple Mount, cleansed and repaired it for religious worship, and celebrated its restoration on the 25th of the month Kislev in the year 164 B.C.E.  Unfortunately, things started going downhill shortly thereafter. Following the re-dedication of The Temple, the supporters of the Maccabees became divided over the question of whether or not to continue fighting. When the revolt began under the leadership of Mattathias and his son Judah, it was seen as a war for religious freedom by ending the oppression of the Seleucids. However, as the Maccabees realized how successful they had been, many wanted to continue the revolt and conquer other lands with Jewish populations or to convert their peoples. This policy exacerbated the divide between the various Jewish groups including the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes under later Hasmonean monarchs such as Alexander Jannaeus and those who followed him. Those who sought the continuation of the war were led by Judah Maccabee.

On his death in battle in 160 BCE, Judah Maccabee was succeeded as army commander by his younger brother, Jonathan, who was already the Jewish High Priest. Jonathan made treaties with various foreign states, causing further dissent between those who merely desired religious freedom and those who sought greater power. As successful as they were in battle, the Hasmoneans made rather incompetent and corrupt leaders. They also tended to infuriate the Jewish public because, as members of the priestly caste, they were forbidden to be kings . . . which they utterly ignored. The Jewish state began to falter spiritually, politically and economically.

Eventually - and perhaps not too surprisingly - a civil war broke out in the land of Judah. In order to bolster their chances of continuing to rule, the latter Hasmoneans invited the upstart Romans to assist them maintain their Jewish state. This assistance quickly became a military alliance and within a century, independent Hasmonean rule had begun to evaporate; it became a fait accompli when the Roman general Pompeius (“Pompey the Great”) intervened in the Hasmonean civil war. The Hasmonean dynasty ended in 37 BCE when the Idumean Herod the Great became king of Israel, designated "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate, thus effectively transforming the Hasmonean Kingdom into the Herodian Kingdom – a client kingdom of Rome.  In  essence, the Hasmoneans had planted the seeds of their nation’s destruction.  Needless to say, this left a bitter, bitter taste in the mouths  of future generations.

It’s this final stage - the post Jewish revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes - which Jews remembered for centuries thereafter. And that is largely why Chanukah received little mention in the rabbinic discourses of the Talmud or the Jewish prayer book. It is bitterly ironic that this holiday, which has its roots in a revolution against assimilation and suppression of the Jewish religion, has become the most assimilated, secular holiday on our calendar. Yes, the candles are beautiful; the latkes and sufgani’yot delicious, and the songs and dreidels (the spinning tops we gamble with) are lots of fun. But the true lesson of Chanukah, remains on view for all who wish to look.

To wit, that winning battles or campaigns in the name of freedom - whether it be of a political, religious or economic nature - is, when all is said and done, easier than exercising wise, intelligent, compassionate and far-sighted leadership in times of relative peace and prosperity.  Then too, it reminds us that seeking to force others to convert to your religion is the Devil’s own work.  After the example set by Judah and his brothers, forced conversion to Judaism was outlawed for all time.

In any event, there was and is a miracle associated with Chanukah.  Not the miracle of the single cruse of oil which lasted for eight days, but rather the miracle of a relatively small band defeating a grand army in the name of freedom.  (The 8 days, by the way are made up of 1 day for the Temple’s original service of dedication and 7 for the Festival of Succot – the autumn harvest festival  - which could not be observed during the war.) The candles should serve to remind us that miracles can be within the realm of possibility only when people work together with clear eyes, willing hearts and pure souls.  Goodness knows we are all in need of miracles these days.

Chanukah (no matter how you spell it) isn’t early this year; it’s right on time. 

Wishing all our Jewish friends a Chanukah s’maycha, a Happy Chanukah!

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Coach

Yesterday I received a two-sentence message from an elementary school chum that my oldest friend, Larry Chase, had passed away. As of the moment, there is no further information as to what took his life. The shock and sadness is more than palpable; I cannot imagine a world without him.

                                         Chief Rocky and Pep Duffy

Larry and I met on our first day of kindergarten in September 1954. We were what used to be called “playmates,” played Little League baseball together - although on opposing teams - and were members of the “Sundown” tribe of the Woodcraft Rangers . . . sort of like the Cub Scouts, although only to be found in California. I long remember the four “paths” or “flames” we were taught by our tribal leader Harold “Pep” Duffy: “truth,” “beauty, “fortitude” and “service.”  Back in the 1950s we had a well-known Indian Dance troupe which would travel from place to place arrayed in feathers, bonnets and breastplates - all made and supplied by Wynn Fairchild, who was the major supplier of Indian costumes and regalia for Hollywood westerns.  (That’s me when I was the tribal chief back in 1958, standing next to Pep. So far as I can recall, every “Sundown” mother had a crush on Pep, my mom and Ace’s mom Sally included).

Larry was one of shortest and smallest of the gang. At one point Pep taught us all the art of boxing. When we had our first public bout, he gave Larry the privilege - due to his relative tiny stature - to select who he wanted to go up against. He surprised us all when he chose yours truly - the tallest of the tribe - to be his opponent. He flattened me in the first round . . . and then apologized.

Besides my slightly older sister Erica (Riki), Larry was one of the last people who knew me before the family “got Stoned” back in October 1956. How’s that? As per a ditty our mother wrote and sent out at the time:

“We take this means to verify, the Schimberg’s decision to simplify;
We’ll henceforth be known by the surname of “Stone,”
It’s easy, it’s short, we changed it in court.”

When Larry found out what my new last name was, he immediately dubbed me “Rocky.” Up until yesterday, there were only two people who called me that name: Larry and Erica. Today, I’m sad to say, that number has been cut in half. Ironically, the only one who ever calls me “Schimberg” is my wife Annie.

Larry and I were over the moon when we learned that we were getting a Major League baseball team in Los Angeles; the Dodgers were moving from Brooklyn to L.A! Baseball was a huge part of our lives. As I mentioned above, we played on opposing teams in Little League. I was a member of the “Seven-Up Dodgers,” he the Union-Made Bakery Braves.” Everyone wanted to be on the Braves for the simple reason that their sponsor provided free cake and cookies every time they won a game. It was a great inducement; Ace’s Braves were the best team in the league by a long-shot. Our Dodgers, on the other hand, were at the bottom of the pile; seems that none of us were all that motivated by the offer of a free Seven-Up for every victory. I well remember a game we played against one another; with two outs in the bottom of the seventh inning (the limit in little league), the bases were loaded and it was my turn to bat. Just as I began pawing at the dirt (like my favorite player, Duke Snider), Larry sat down right next to second base proclaiming: “It’s only Rocky; he won’t get a hit. We win!” And of course, I wound up striking out. I actually found Larry’s gesture to me wonderfully funny . . . it did nothing to harm our love for one another.

Ace, by the way, was the one who made me into a right-handed thrower. Being born a lefty (which is great for writing Hebrew and miserable for English), my father naturally bought me a southpaw’s glove. Larry found that to be bizarre, and seeing that I really could throw with little agility, lent me his right-hander’s glove . . . and voila! I became a right-hander. To this day, I can throw much further with my right arm, but far more accurately with my left. Once I started throwing righty, my manager moved me from first base to center field where I would cap off my so-so little league career by throwing out a runner at the plate. Thanks Ace!

                                         Coach and daughter Mere

The Chase family eventually moved from Debby Street to Costello where at the end of the street, mirabile dictu, sat an establishment called “Don Drysdale’s Dugout.”  We naturally assumed it to be a restaurant owned by our favorite Dodger pitcher. Of course we didn’t know it was really a saloon, and just thought it was a place where anyone could go in and see Dodger great Don at table and eating.  And so, we  decided that one day we would go in and get his autograph.  Little did we know that not only was it a bar, but that Don probably never showed up . . . that he had merely leant it his name for purposes of publicity.  Well, going against our parents’ wishes, we did go in . . . only to find out that it contained nothing but a couple of mid-afternoon drunks . . . and no 6’6” Dodger right-hander. To say the least, we were depressed as all get-out. We quickly changed our allegiance from the right-handed Drysdale (who, it turned out, was an alcoholic) to the Jewish leftie Sandy Koufax . . .

Larry was by far the smartest brave in the tribe, and would go on to become a full professor of communications theory at Sacramento State University . . . where he picked up the nickname “Coach.” He was much beloved by his students who found him to be profoundly wise and preternaturally youthful . . . until yesterday.  According to his older brother Richard (“Dickie”) who is professor emeritus at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business, Coach had been suffering from some heart problems of late, and passed away without notice. . . leaving all of us without a chance for uttering final words of love and admiration.  He is survived by his daughter Mere . . . his beloved wife Terry Jean having passed away several years ago.  

What we have left, of course, are our memories of a shortish Brainiac with a twinkle in his eye and a perpetual smile on his face. I myself will long remember our days as members of the Sundown tribe, that single punch which sent me to the canvas, the many Dodger games we attended together - both at the Los Angeles War Memorial Coliseum and then at Chavez Ravine, hearing the name “Rocky” and having a dear, dear friend who knew us before we all got “Stoned” more than 65 years ago.

Rest in peace Ace, say high to your mom and dad, Pep. Don Drysdale, Gil Hodges, Junior Gilliam and of course, Duke Snider

And please know, you made the world a much much better place . . .

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. “Rocky” Stone

Without Truth, Democracy Corrodes

                                      Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I for one could not agree more.

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

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

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Words

The great and revered Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948) - Indian lawyer, anti-colonialist nationalist and sage - was a man of words, great deeds and even greater character. Indeed, in one of his many, many aphorisms, he wrote: Keep yourself positive, because your thoughts become YOUR WORDS.
Keep your words positive, because your words become YOUR BEHAVIOR.
Keep your behavior positive, because your behavior becomes YOUR HABITS.
Keep your habits positive, because your habits become YOUR VALUES.
Keep your values positive, because your values become YOUR DESTINY. 

I’ve always been fascinated by etymology - the study of the origins and history of words.  Take as but one tiny example, the word lens - the glass that regulates light and vision in eyeglasses. It comes from the Latin lenticula, which is a lentil . . . which has roughly the same shape as the glass (or plastic) gizmo the oculist cuts and installs into our glasses.  (gizmo, BTW, is a slang term of unknown origin).  In Hebrew, the word for lentil is עֲדָשָׁה (ah-dah-shah), which is also the word for lens. 

In creating a word for lens in the here-to-for dead language, Hebrew scholars searched various languages to see how they had arrived at a word for their tongue.  So what did the Hebrew scholars do?  They simply followed the etymological trail left by Latin-to-English.  (Hebrew, by the  way, which is one of the world’s most ancient tongues, spent untold centuries being a so-called “dead language.”  It was given new life starting in the mid-1880s by a Polish Jewish lexicographer named Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, who all but single-handedly took it - Hebrew - out of the linguistic burial ground and breathed new life into it.  Today, it is the one of the official languages of Israel, and the "Academy of the Hebrew Language” is still adding new words to its vocabulary on a regular basis.   

New words are also being created and recognized here in the United States on an almost weekly basis by the good folks Merriam-Webster. In some cases, words - like ginormous and luciferase - are brand-new and already passing muster on anyone’s computer spell check. Then too, there are old words being recognized as having new, additional meanings. Take the word “victim.” Sure, everyone knows what it means: A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. But according to the October 27, 2021 edition of the Merriam-Webster words-of-the-week website, it now has an additional meaning.

The other day, a judge ruled that prosecutors in a high-profile case could not use the word “victim” in reference to people who had been shot by someone else.  The men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse in August 2020 can potentially be referred to at his trial as “rioters” or “looters,” but not “victims,” Wisconsin Judge Bruce Schroeder declared that using that word to describe the men who died would be “loaded with prejudice.”   

Score one for the morons . . . for as one anonymous wag once noted:

"Be careful of the words you say,
Keep them short and sweet.
You never know, from day to day,
Which ones you'll have to eat."

“Eating words” is a quaint expression from yesteryear. It does not carry the same warning power as it once did . . . thanks to the internet and social media. For realistically, once something is posted on the internet (either in print or voice), it’s next to impossible to delete it. In an apparent contradiction in terms, if you happen to delete something in your control (like a document or a file), it’s next to impossible to get it back. But the internet . . . that’s a different kettle of fish. Take Representatives Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who have enmired themselves so deeply in the quicksand of the internet, that no amount of backtracking will ever save them. (BTW: speaking of a “contradiction in terms,” quicksand is a fascinating word; sinking in quicksand [a mixture of sand or clay and salt that has become waterlogged] is anything but quick; it is a slow and agonizing process).

Within the past several days:

• Paul Gosar has posted a truly sick video on Twitter (he has 177.1K followers) that depicts anime characters killing other characters with the faces of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and President Biden.  It is still up for all to see . . . and as of this morning, has been viewed more than 1 million times. Outraged by this lunacy, people across the country have begun questioning whether the DOJ, Speaker Pelosi or House Minority Leader McCarthy are going to do anything about it . . . like arrest, censure or forced resignation . . . 1st Amendment be damned.

• Marjorie Taylor Greene conducted a poll on her Twitter feed (she has 456K followers) asking them if they feel America should divide into two different nations based on red and blue states.  She also discussed this possibility on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, with the now-subpoenaed former Trump guru vehemently disagreeing.  Nonetheless, nearly 50% of those responding to her poll agreed that America should be divided into 2 countries based on whether they poll majority Democrat or majority Republican.

• Senator Cruz, was captured on a live podcast being interviewed by extreme anti-vaxxer Joe Rogan mulling over whether Texas should secede from the union, declaring “. . . if there comes a point where it’s hopeless, then I think we take NASA, we take the military, we take the oil.” (BTW: the movement to secede already has a name: “Texit” Furthermore, Senator Cruz has gone so far as to suggest that were secession to succeed, he just might consider Rogan for President).

One wonders if these words and visual images - none of which can ever be totally deleted - will ever begin to repulse or sicken so-called “patriotic” Americans; to make them awaken from their lethargy and ask "What hath we wrought?” I for one would urge Democrats to undergo some kind of political kyphoplasty (spinal stenting), in order to grow a backbone, and use the various words and visuals against our well-armed modern-day insurrectionists. These rebels are as potentially lethal to the  future of our country as were the secessionists of the 19th century.  Like their ancestors, these mouthy internet insurrectionists are threatening to destroy a country in order to “save” it. 

The question is: do we, who form the modern Union, have the courage, the skill, the will and the words to defeat them? What words, behavior, habits, and values, shall we employ to secure our destiny? Perhaps the words of the greatest of all American, thinkers, leaders and doers, Abraham Lincoln will give us some powerful motivation:

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves,” and

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the [people] who pervert the Constitution.”

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Creating Solutions to Problems That Don't Really Exist: A Toxic Political Strategy

By the time you get around to reading this blog, Virginians will likely have gone to the polls to elect a new governor. Looking into my frequently unreliable crystal ball, I see 3 possible outcomes:

1) Former Governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, who served as the Commonwealth’s 64th governor from 2014-2018 would be returned to office by a nose;

2) Republican businessman and Republican donor Glenn Allen Youngkin, a Trumpian clone, would defeat McAuliffe in a squeaker, or that

3) Younkin would lose in a particularly close race and then claim that McAuliffe stole the election from him.

Sound familiar?

McAuliffe, a seasoned poll and self-made millionaire, chaired the Democratic National Committee from 2001-2005 and then the National Governors Association in 2016-2017. He has long been close to the Clintons, and campaigned largely on his economic record from his single term as governor (Virginia only permits non-consecutive terms), supporting infrastructure improvements, voting rights, and President Biden's current “American Rescue Plan." McAuliffe has also managed to get in a few words about Donald Trump, letting it be known that his opponent is very much in Trump’s thrall and, like the former POTUS (who endorsed Youngkin no less than ten times during the campaign, is a multi-centimillionaire making his first run for office.

During the campaign, whatever support Youngkin showed for Trump was more tacit than obvious; the name T-R-U-M-P barely passed his lips even once. And one can be reasonably certain that he prayed that the de facto head of the G.O.P would not come into the Commonwealth to campaign on his behalf. So what were Youngkin’s main issues? At first, he avoided any discussions of divisive social issues in favor of praising of free markets and job creators, lower taxes, and balanced budgets (an historically typical Republican smorgasbord) and conservative activists actually knew very little about him other than the fact that he has a degree from Harvard Business School, a long and lucrative career in private equity, devout religious convictions and even a family love of horses . . . making him more similar to Utah Senator Mitt Romney than former POTUS Donald Trump.

Then, in the election’s final two weeks, he made a sharp right-hand turn and began promoting causes which animate and energize the conservative Republican base (read: Trump); now he began hammering away at the “danger and peril” of teaching of “Critical  Race Theory” in schools as well as transgender children. In other words, Youngkin no longer ran against Terry McAuliffe; now his targets were school bathrooms and sports teams to the Pulitzer and Nobel Prize winning writer, poet and essayist, Toni Morrison. What all these - and many other - “dog whistle” issues have in common (besides being “dog whistles”) is that they are arguing for “solutions” to “problems” which really do not exist.  Nakedly, they combine to make a political campaign strategy which is both toxic and represents a clear and present danger to the future of “small-d” democracy.

Candidate Youngkin has quickly made the banning of Critical Race Theory (“I’ll do this on the first day I’m in office”) the number one issue for his campaign. According to Fox News it has pushed him to a 54%-46% lead in various polls. (I for one take polls run on Fox, News Max or OAN with a dollop of salt). He wants to protect Virginia’s children from having to be “indoctrinated” with “. . . left, liberal, socialist notions that America is a racist nation . . . and will make our children into a bunch of Californians.” The fact of the matter is that Critical Race Theory is not part of the state-wide curriculum in Virginia . . . or Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Arizona or any of the other states which have either banned it as a matter of law or are in the process of doing so. It is a toxic solution to a problem that does not really exist.

Here in Florida the State Board of Education unanimously approved an amendment to its rules this past June. The amendment instructs public school staff to teach topics around race "efficiently and faithfully," using materials that meet "the highest standards of professionalism and historical accuracy." It bans the teaching of Critical Race Theory, which the legislation describes as "the theory that racism is not merely the product of prejudice, but that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons." It has the full-throated approval of Governor Rick DeSantis.

Why has Fox News mentioned “Critical Race Theory” more than 1,300 times in less than 4 months? What is causing state legislatures, governors, and candidates for school board across the country to be so adamantly opposed to something which exists far more in theory than in reality? What is it about the late Toni Morrison and her best-known, most widely read novel — Beloved - to so rile up the right? And by the way: how many have actually read it? (Watching the 1998 movie starring Oprah Winfrey and Danny Glover doesn’t count).

For those who have neither read nor watched Morrison’s Beloved, it is a graphic, violent and harrowing novel, sort of a Sophie’s Choice transferred back to America’s post-slavery era.  It won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 1986.  In brief, the novel is based on the true story of a Black slave woman, Margaret Garner, who in 1856 escaped from a Kentucky plantation with her husband, Robert, and their children. They sought refuge in Ohio, but their owner and law officers soon caught up with the family. Before their recapture, Margaret killed her young daughter to prevent her return to slavery. In the novel, Sethe is also a passionately devoted mother, who flees with her children from an abusive owner known as “schoolteacher.” They are caught, and, in an act of supreme love and sacrifice, she too tries to kill her children to keep them from slavery. Only her two-year-old daughter dies, and the schoolteacher, believing that Sethe is crazy, decides not to take her back. Sethe later has “Beloved” inscribed on her daughter’s tombstone. Although she had intended for it to read “Dearly Beloved,” she did not have the energy to “pay” for two words (each word cost her 10 minutes of sex with the engraver).

These events are revealed in flashbacks, as the novel opens in 1873, with Sethe and her teenage daughter, Denver, living in Ohio, where their house at 124 Bluestone Road is haunted by the angry ghost of the child Sethe killed. The hauntings are alleviated by the arrival of Paul D, a man so ravaged by his slave past that he keeps his feelings in the “tobacco bin” of his heart. He worked on the same plantation as Sethe, and the two begin a relationship. A brief period of relative calm ends with the appearance of a young woman who says that her name is Beloved. She knows things that suggest she is the reincarnation of Sethe’s lost daughter. Sethe is obsessed with assuaging her guilt and tries to placate the increasingly demanding and manipulative Beloved. At one point, Beloved seduces Paul D. After learning that Sethe killed her daughter, he leaves.

The situation at 124 Bluestone worsens, as Sethe loses her job and becomes completely fixated on Beloved, who is soon revealed to be pregnant. While the lonely and largely housebound Denver initially befriends Beloved, she begins to grow concerned. She finally dares to venture outside in order to ask the community for help, and she is given food and a job. As the local women attempt to stage an exorcism, Denver’s employer arrives to take her to work, and Sethe mistakes him for “schoolteacher” and tries to attack him with an ice pick. The other women restrain her, and during the commotion Beloved disappears. Paul D later returns to the grieving Sethe, promising to care for her, and Denver continues to thrive in the outside world.

Admittedly, Beloved is not everyone’s cup of tea; Morrison’s writing style is both unique and difficult to plumb for the casual reader of fiction. Nonetheless, for those who have read it in its entirety, it is a novel that remains forever. From listening to and reading the remarks of those anti Critical Race Theory automatons who go on and on about how dangerous this book is and how it should be outlawed in public schools and universities, I get the impression that they have never read it. True, it is not an easy read. True, it shines a brightly uncomfortable light on a part of American history that many would care to avoid . . . or even believe never happened. But it is not meant to teach students to hate being white or turn them into anti-patriots. This is all stuff and nonsense dreamed up by those who believe banning books is a sure-fire way to solve problems which simply do not exist.

This is, of course, nothing new. American politicians began blaming immigrants for the nation’s economic woes as far back as the “Panic” (recession) of 1837. American “masters of morality” have urged the banning of books they considered harmful for well over a century (who remembers the folderol over Norman Mailer’s The Naked and the Dead” ]which contained ‘that word’] and J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye [which dealt with such “immoral” issues as teen angst, alienation and the superficiality of modern society?]). The, of course, there was the Hollywood “Black List.” which accused innumerable actors, directors, screenwriters and even hair stylists of being “Fellow Travelers, “premature anti-Fascists” and “rotten Commies.” All these - and oh so many more - presented so-called “solutions” to problems that truly did not exist.

Some things never change.

So what is to be done about the stench of pro-gun-racist-white-power-anti-immigrant-Critical-Racial-Theory? Trying to talk sense to these social misfits and miscreants is a fool’s errand, tantamount to taming a rabid rhino. People who listen intently to the malicious, hateful cadences of the Marjorie Taylor Greenes, Madison Cawthorns, Tucker Carlsons and Joe Pags of the world aren’t going to be disabused of what they hear or see through rational discourse. That is why so many still fully believe that the Clintons are pedophiles, Barack Obama is an African-born Muslim, that the Democrats are going to take guns away from all “real Americans,” ban the Bible and turn control of the country over to George Soros. Yes, it is sheer twaddle, but there’s plenty of it out there.

Political revolutions are just as frequently created from the bottom up than from the top down. Our attention must be even more laser-focused on school boards, town councils and county commissions as on state legislatures, governor’s mansions, Congress and the White House. I urge readers to attend school board meetings . . . not to outshout, but to listen and to learn and to grasp. I urge you to volunteer to register voters, to join campaigns and to never, ever except toxic political strategies where elbow grease is needed.

 We close with a thought from Toni Morrison which says it all: "There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal."

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone 

Enough!

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

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

The latest recruit to the Big Tent? Tax cheats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Heller

True story, Word of Honor:

Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer

now dead,

and I were at a party given by a billionaire

on Shelter Island.

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

to know that our host only yesterday

may have made more money

than your novel ‘Catch-22’

has earned in its entire history?”

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

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

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

Not bad! Rest in peace!”

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

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

What a world!

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

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

ENOUGH!

Copyright2021, Kurt F. Stone 

Texas: The Lone Tzar State

Ask the average non-Texan what the state’s official slogan or motto is and you’ll likely here the words “The Lone Star State” . . . and they’d be wrong. Actually, in 1930, the state legislature made “Friendship” its official motto, According to state historians and southwestern etymologists. "Texas" or "Tejas" is a Spanish pronunciation of a name for the native Indian Caddo tribe and their land.  The Caddo's (or Tejas') name for allies or friendship is taysha. The Spanish in this way, adopted a derivation of taysha as a descriptive name for the friendly tribes in what is today Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. In this way the Texas motto "friendship" may be intended to symbolize a hopeful fertile fusion of Western and Native American culture.

(It should be noted that Howard Hughes [1905-1976] one of Texas’ most famous and eccentric native sons, named his film production company “The Caddo Company.”  Under that name, Hughes produced such classic films as “Scarface,” “Hell’s Angels” “The Front Page,” and “Two Arabian Knights,” which won the first - and only - Academy Award for Best Comedy in 1927).

As a kid growing up in the ‘50s, the two things I knew about Texas were Davy Crocket (starring Fess Parker) and Gene Autry singing Deep in the Heart of Texas (which he also wrote). I was also aware that Lyndon Johnson was a senator who went by the initials L.B.J., and had quite a drawl.  What I did not realize was that "The Friendship State” was also the home to some of the weirdest, most right-wing nuts imaginable.  In terms of politics, Texas was about as Deep South as one could get; Democrat to the core.  Until LBJ became  an accidental president in 1963 and then rammed through both the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Medicare (1965), about the only progressive who ever came out of the state was the late Senator Ralph Yarborough.  Since then Texas has developed some progressive pockets, sending the likes of Barbara Jordan, Sheila Jackson Lee, Al Green and Juaquin Castro to the House of Representatives and electing Ann Richards Governor of the state. 

Today, Texas has the reputation for electing some of the farthest right, most autocratic members of the “loony tunes brigade” such as Senator Ted “Cancun” Cruz, Rep. Louie Gohmert and current Governor Greg Abbott.  Texas, like many states, has some of the strangest laws on the books:

• In Texas, it is illegal to milk another person’s cow;

• Criminals must give their victims 24-hour notice before committing a crime, either orally or in writing;

• It's against the law to sell Limburger cheese on Sundays in Houston;

• It's illegal to emit obnoxious odors while on an elevator in Port Arthur;

• Any person who sits on a sidewalk in Galveston may be fined up to $500.

(OK, you can also find crazy laws in just about any city or state if you know where to look . . .)

• Between Governor Abbott, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, Attorney General Ken Paxton and the state legislature, Texas has become the nation’s leader in oppressive, partisan political action - a “Lone Tzar State” if you will.  Not only do the folks of this state fry everything they eat and pack guns in public places, their leaders have enacted laws and executive actions which:

• Makes abortion all but illegal for anyone (except those with the financial means to travel out of state);

• Have gerrymandered the state’s Congressional Districts to make the election of minority candidates (read: black, brown and non-Christian) near impossible;

• Drastically changed election laws thereby aiding GOP incumbents and decreasing minority representation;

• Outlawed virtually any and every mask mandate in the state;

• Passed Texas law HB3979, which seeks to restrict discussion of race and history in schools.  Ostensibly, this law was enacted in order to make the teaching of Critical Race Theory (which in matter of fact isn’t part of any school district’s curriculum), thereby scoring points with their ultra-conservative, largely fundamentalist political base.  The law, among other things, mandates that social studies teachers can't "require" or include in their courses, the concept that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex" or the concept that "an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously."   (please do note how poorly written this section is!)

The act, which Governor Abbot signed into law on September 1, 2021, notes that "a teacher may not be compelled to discuss a particular current event or widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs." Teachers, according to the bill, can't require or give extra credit for a student's political activism.  The craziest part of the bill makes it mandatory that if a teacher does engage in such a discussion, the teacher is required to "explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective."  It would seem that no one in the Lone Tzar State paid attention to where this bill might lead — like teaching an “opposing view” with regards to the Holocaust.

How’s that you say?

Just the other day NBC News revealed a leaked audio clip in which a top administrator with Southlake Texas’s Carroll Independent School District advised teachers that if they have books on the Holocaust in the classroom, they should also include “opposing” viewpoints on it.  The school district’s executive director of curriculum and instruction was quoted as saying “Just try to remember the concepts of [House Bill] 3979 […] And make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust, that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives.”

“How do you oppose the Holocaust?” one teacher can be overheard saying in response.

“Believe me. That’s come up,” Peddy responded.

The release of the audio recording resulted in widespread controversy. The school district released a statement saying the comments in the recording “were in no way to convey that the Holocaust was anything less than a terrible event in history. Additionally, we recognize there are not two sides of the Holocaust.”

Holocaust denial is spreading with every passing year.  According to Deborah Lipstadt, author of the seminal 1993 work Denying the  Holocaust and President Biden’s nominee to become the United States Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combatting anti-Semitism, "When you learn the history of the Holocaust, you are not simply learning about the past. These lessons remain relevant today in order to understand not only anti-Semitism but also all the other 'isms' of society. There is real danger to letting them fade."  

It seems that with every passing week, Texas and its lone Tzar Governor are enacting bills and issuing executive orders which capture the imaginations of autocratic wannabes around the country. These acts and pronouncements - whether they deal with what they insist are “election integrity,” or gerrymandering, the outlawing of mandates and restrictions, or the banning of critical thinking within our schools, all stand a good chance of falling prey to what the seminal sociologist Robert K. Merton (Meyer Robert Schkolnick) referred to as the “law of unintended consequences.” I rather doubt Tzar Greg had given enough thought in signing HB3979 to realize that it could actually lead to putting a positive spin on der Führer. Then again, the purpose of the law was the rewriting of American history . . . at least in terms of race relations. Talk about unintended consequences!

Other unintended consequences - and not just in the Lone Tzar State, but across the entire country - deal with the twin issues of “Stopping the Steal” and the enforcement of anti-masking, anti-vaxxing legislation.  Both issues are meant to stimulate stronger support from core Trumpeters; both can, in reality, lead  to the diminution of their numbers at the ballot box - either because they don’t trust those who count votes so why even show up, and/or there are fewer anti-vaxxers out there because they have died. 

I can live with the former; they (the anti-mask, anti-vax crowd) I regret to say, cannot live with the latter.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

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

                   Harvey Korman as Hedley Lamarr in “Blazing Saddles”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

One Person's Religious Exemption is Another's Civic Mandate

According to most modern-day Republicans, America’s Founders were, for the most part, a bunch of pro-life, Christian fundamentalists who would have little or no argument with today’s right wing office holders. Not only is their knowledge of America’s Founders deeply flawed; it reveals an astounding lack of understanding of what makes America truly great.

Consider that among America’s most important founders, and early presidents, Washington, Madison and Monroe were Episcopalians; the Adamses,  both pere et fils were Unitarian; Jefferson (who like John Adams and James Madison could read and translate the Old Testament from Hebrew to Latin and from Greek to English)  and Benjamin Franklin non-denominational Deists. None - we repeat none - would have understood - let alone accepted - the hard-core “born-again” Christianity of their modern successors. They really, truly believed in the separation of Church and State, and would have found the incursion of one upon the other to be both noxious and deeply dangerous. Yes, they certainly did believe in the G-d of creation; nonetheless, they also had a deep and abiding faith in both human reason and the discoveries of science. 

Today, those who argue that the federal government oversteps both its rights as well as its licit moral and legal boundaries by mandating COVID-19 vaccines ought to learn from history; had it not been for General Washington mandating Small Pox vaccinations for all his troops before going into battle, this essay would have been composed in the Southern-most colony of the British Empire. According to the U.S. Library of Congress's Science, Technology, and Business Division, the smallpox inoculations for all of Washington's forces who came through the then-capital of Philadelphia and then through Morristown, New Jersey, following the Battle of Princeton, began Jan. 6, 1777.  As noted above, had not Washington done so, this week’s essay would have been composed in the Southern-most colony of the United Kingdom . . .

But alas, not that many citizens in early 21st century America know jack about our early history; about how George Washington mandated that all his troops be vaccinated against Small Pox, thus saving a revolution. Today, a small but garrulous minority - aided largely by the conspiracy theorists predominating a right-wing social media blitz - argues that mandating vaccinations against COVID-19 is a flat-out abridgement of individual rights and freedoms. (As opposed to not smoking on airplanes, wearing seatbelts or vaccinating children before they can attend public school.)  As we have seen, such utter נאַרישקייט (nareshkeit - that’s Yiddish for “lunacy”) has led to thousands upon thousands of needless deaths. Unlike G. Washington and his loyal troops, these modern Americans find no truth coming from the ivy-covered halls of science. Their preference is following a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, all the while praying for recovery from the immediate agency of the Divine. Of course in reality, this approach has far more to do with partisan politics and the winning of elections than with religion versus science. Although the number of so-called hard core anti-vaxxers is getting smaller all the time (thank G-d), there are still those who steadfastly proclaim that  they have every right to receive a religious exemption from said vaccines. In fact, for every law which has been enacted at some level, there is a group that demands its religious values permit them to abrogate the law or clause in question. As Washington Post contributing columnist Kate Cohen wrote in a recent piece: “A person can claim a religious exemption to the equal opportunity clause that’s required in all federal contracts; to the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act; and, in some states, to the requirement that a child be immunized to attend public school.”  We’ve all read about bakers refusing to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples because they believe that to do so would be going against the word of G-d.  Where does it end? This seems crazy. Obviously not everyone agrees with every law, but that’s the bummer and the challenge about living in civil society. In a democracy, if you feel strongly enough, you can set about finding like-minded people and then try to change the law. Or, if that doesn’t work, and you truly believe it’s a sin to, say, fill contraceptive prescriptions, then (a) don’t be a pharmacist or (b) risk getting fired. Wouldn’t G-d appreciate the gesture? For now, let’s return to the issue of vaccines and masks. By keeping an angry, largely unlettered minority believing that scientists, progressives and Democrats (frequently referred to as “Socialists”) are purposefully injecting vaccines and salad dressings with GPS trackers and various poisons, keeps that minority within the Republican fold . . . thus keeping Republicans in charge of the three branches of government.  

So let’s get this straight: according to these משוגעים (m’shugoyim - that’s Yiddish/Hebrew for “screwballs”), it is both good and perfectly legal to keep government from imposing on individual liberty and freedom when it comes to the wearing of masks, getting vaccines and mandating social distancing, but not so when it comes to a woman’s right to choose whether or not to get an abortion . . . under any circumstance, whether it be rape, incest or the health of the mother? And then, adding even further insult to injury, legislating precisely when life begins? According to the Texas Legislature (and soon the legislatures of George, Mississippi and Florida), a viable life begins at precisely 6 weeks . . . a time when a vast majority of women have yet to discover that they are pregnant. According to Texas, after six weeks, abortions are illegal, and anyone who assists a woman in any way, shape or form to terminate a “viable fetus,” can be arrested, tried and sentenced. (And whosoever notifies the authorities about these “assisters” may receive a reward of up to $10,000.)

In other words, what Texas has done in passing this onerous legislation is to, essentially, incinerate Roe v. Wade. Publicly, those legislators (the majority of whom are men) who vote in favor of such draconian laws, say they are doing so with G-d’s blessing . . . that abortion - regardless of the circumstance - is  murder.

These are the folks who self identify as “Pro-Life.”  I have never understood this.  How can it be that the vast majority of “Pro-Life” legislators consistently vote against such things as food stamps, funding for healthcare and universal pre-K education, cannot and will not lift  a finger to fund clean air, clean water or dozens of other things which are necessary for life?  By their actions it would seem that they are of a belief that although life begins at conception (if not even before - like the moment one considers engaging in sexual congress), it ends with birth.  If so, let’s call a spade a spade: they are not “Pro-Life” - - - they are stridently “Pro-Birth” and nothing more.

Recognizing that many readers of this blog are “MOT” (“Members of the Tribe”), permit me a few words about the beginning of life from a Jewish legal perspective. Jewish law (halacha) has a nuanced view of abortion. While it is true that many פרומע יידין (frume Yidd’n - Yiddish for “pious Jews”) have not been overly worried by these and other efforts to curtail legal abortion, in America, the pro-life narrative is largely articulated by the Christian right; there are important differences between how Judaism and Christianity view the span of time between conception and birth.

Jewish law does not consider the fetus to be a being with a soul until it is born. It does not have personhood. Furthermore, before 40 days, some poskim, (deciders of Jewish law), have a low bar for allowing an abortion. The Talmud, in Yevamos 69b, cites the view of a rabbi named Rav Hisda that “until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being.” Moreover, if there is a threat to a woman’s life, the safety of the mother takes precedence over continuing the pregnancy at any stage. Many sources illustrate this graphically and rather unambiguously, and all modern poskim, or religious deciders, agree on this. In fact, in certain circumstances, a fetus that endangers the life of the mother is legally considered a “murderer” in active pursuit.  Jewish law prohibits killing in all cases — except if one person is trying to murder another. If an individual is trying to end someone’s life, killing that person is actually a requirement. How much more so, a fetus (not yet a full person) who threatens the mother’s life may be aborted.

In his Mishneh Torah, Maimonides (one of the greatest physicians of his day) writes: “The sages ruled that when complications arise and a pregnant woman cannot give birth, it is permitted to abort the fetus in her womb, whether with a knife or drugs, for the fetus is considered a רודף (rodef - a murderer in pursuit]) of its mother … If the head of the fetus emerges, it should not be touched, because one life should not be sacrificed for another. Although the mother may die, this is the nature of the world.”

In other words, when a fetus endangers the life of the mother, unless it is in the process of being born, abortion is a halachic (Jewish legal) requirement.  How very different from that of the fundamentalist Christian perspective . . .

One of the biggest differences is that Jewish law has never, and will never, be decided on the basis of contemporary political needs.  Although there are centuries-old disputes within the world of Jewish law on how various laws and enactments should be interpreted and/or adjudicated.

Whether it comes to vaccines, climate change or choice, there is a lot to be learned from ancient texts. One of the most insightful comes from an ancient sage known as Rabbi Tarfon:

“It is not up to you to finish the task, but you are not free to avoid it”.

Sounds like something the Founders might have said . . .

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Not Every Ivy League Grad Sits Atop the Progressive Heap

                                                     Harvard College: 1650

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You wanna bet?

                           Gov. Ron DeSantis and Dr. Joseph Ladapo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

In the Majestic Words of JFK (Or Ted Sorensen, or Winston Churchill or George St. John)

Without question, one of the most majestic and awe-inspiring of all presidential inaugural addresses was the one delivered by the then 43-year old John Fitzgerald Kennedy on January 20, 1961. It was also one of the shortest - a mere 14 minutes. That speech contained such gems as:

• 'Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.'

• 'If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.'

• 'Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.' and perhaps the most magical of all presidential phrases:

• 'And so, my fellow Americans - ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'

The inauguration of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917-1963) represented a seismic change in American politics.  He was, after all, more than a generation younger than his predecessor, President Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969).  He was also the first president born in the 20th century and brought to the White House, a dash and flair, an energetic youthfulness and élan unlike anything America and the world had ever seen before. JFK and his picture-perfect family had it all: wealth and movie-star good looks; sophistication, 50-mile hikes and above all, breathtaking charisma.  He only lived a brief 46 years; unbelievably, he has now been dead for nearly 60. 

Kennedy’s image is that of a fire-breathing progressive.  In truth, he was anything but.  Rather, he was a slightly right-of-center moderate Democrat whose greatest accomplishments - Medicare, the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts - were mostly completed by his successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was likely American political history’s most masterful legislative prestidigitators.  What Kennedy had in spades over Johnson - and most all of our presidents before or since - was the ability to motivate people of all ages to get off their backsides and give something back to “The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.”  The motivation of which we speak was of course wrapped up in the ultimate sentence of JFK’s  inaugural address: to "Ask not what your country can do for you, [but rather] ask what you can do for your country.”  Ironically, those words for which he is best remembered may well have not come from his pen . . . or that of Ted Sorensen, his brilliantly poetic 33-year old speechwriter.  According to Chris Matthews, the former press spokesman for Speaker Tip O’Neil,  chief speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter and former MSNBC news host, that phrase likely came from either from one of Winston Churchill’s war-time speeches or George St. John, who was JFK’s headmaster at Choate  in the early 1930s.  In his 2011 book Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero,  Matthews, who interviewed many of Kennedy’s Choate classmates, notes that they frequently heard headmaster St. John tell his students precisely the same thing.

I well remember listening to JKF’s inaugural address on the radio in Miss Cook’s class that January afternoon in 1961.  (The next day would be our father’s 45th birthday).  The new president sounded so young; his Boston accent was like something we only heard in movies; hearing Robert Frost read the poem The Gift Outright was especially rewarding . . . I was terribly smitten by great poets, thanks largely to “Granny Annie,” my mother’s mother. (Actually, Frost had written a brand new poem for the event entitled Dedication.” He approached the microphone, but blinded by the sun's glare on the snow-covered Capitol grounds, Frost was unable to read it. Thinking quickly, he instead recited "The Gift Outright," a poem he had written in 1942.)

I also well remember wanting desperately to join the Peace Corps and go out on a 50-mile hike. Alas, one needed a minimum of a B.A. in order to join the former, and their parents’ permission to participate in the latter. (I was but 11 at the time and possessed neither the degree nor parental permission.) Nonetheless, JFK inoculated in many of us a desire to be active, to give something of ourselves back to the country of our birth. JFK would be the reason why many of my generation became involved in what used to be known as “causes.” It’s something woefully lacking in today’s world . . .

        Post-war: able to get back into tailored clothing!

As a child, I well remember going to either the Union (train) Station in downtown Los Angeles or what was then known as the Los Angeles Airport (where parking was still both unpaved and free). In my recollection, both places were filled with uniformed soldiers, sailors, and marines rushing to make connections. In our neighborhood, there were many men who still bore the scars and halting gait of men who had been injured in the war. Unbeknownst to us - children living lives of relative privilege, many of our parents were actually in the 91%-92% income tax bracket and yet never tried to start a revolution. They were children of the Great Depression who survived a gruesome war and helped rebuild both a nation and a world. For some, it was a matter of noblesse oblige; for most, it was part of the obligation of being a patriotic citizen.

Where have those times gone?

I for one firmly desire to see Congress and the Biden administration institute something akin to “National Service; a series of programs and policies meant for the masses to join, thereby repairing our country while answering JFK’s challenge to “ask what we can do for our country.” In one of the very few conversations I ever had with my father about his 6 years of service during WWII, I remember him telling me that perhaps the best part of being in the service (outside of winning the war and coming back alive) was working alongside and getting to know people he otherwise would never have met. “I learned so much about people who were vastly different from myself . . . and they about me. Imagine: I was the first Jew many of these lads had ever met . . .”

Let’s face it: for quite some time, Americans have been growing further and further apart, whether the dividing lines be race, religion, politics, ethnicity economics or a combination of any or all these things. We frequently take sides, “knowing” that our problems or shortcomings are due to others with whom we have next to no contact with - let alone or knowledge of. This is a loss for all of us. If there were some way for people to work together for the common good, perhaps we could revive the dream of JFK: to ask what we can do for our country. I for one couldn’t care less whether the words come directly from JFK, Ted Sorensen, Winston Churchill or George St. John or Bob Dylan. If America is to survive, we must all find a way to work together.

Interestingly, the one person in the Biden Administration who has spoken most about reviving a national service program is Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. He is all all in favor of expanding the Peace Corps (which still exists), as well as Vista and other such programs. Ironically Elaine Chao, Secretary Pete’s immediate predecessor at DOT (she is the wife Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell) served as the head of the Peace Corps during the first Bush Administration. Perhaps Buttigieg and Chao should get together with President Biden and his Chief of Staff Ron Klain in order to begin the process of creating a new National Service agenda for all of America.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Pride and Privilege, Paranoia and Prejudice

The late Alan King - one of the greatest of all Jewish comedians - once quipped “Here’s a brief summary of every Jewish holiday: ‘They tried to kill us, we won, let's eat!’”  

Mathematician/topical song writer Tom Lehrer wrote a well-known satiric piece called “National Brotherhood Week,” the opening lyrics of which go: “Oh the Protestants hate the Catholics, and the Catholics hate the Protestants, and the Hindus hate the Moslems, and everybody hates the Jews.”

In 1923, the Welsh-born, sober-sided David Lloyd George, who served as British Prime Minister from 1916-1922, noted: Of all the extreme fanaticism which plays havoc in man’s nature, there is not one as irrational as anti-Semitism. … If the Jews are rich [these fanatics] are victims of theft. If they are poor, they are victims of ridicule. If they take sides in a war, it is because they wish to take advantage from the spilling of non-Jewish blood. If they espouse peace, it is because they are scared by their natures or traitors. If the Jew dwells in a foreign land he is persecuted and expelled. If he wishes to return to his own land, he is prevented from doing so.”  Then too, there was an anonymous wit who once proclaimed “I don’t know which came first: the Jews or the anti-Semites.  It  seems to me that if G-d hadn’t, in his great wisdom created the ‘Chosen People,’ anti-Semites would have, in order to have an eternal target for their deranged animosity.”  

To my mind, the best of all quotes about the Jews comes from the pen of Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens): "If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race.  It suggests a nebulous puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way.  Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of.  He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.

His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine and abstruse learning are also very out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers.  He has made a marvelous fight in this world in all ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself and be excused for it.  The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greeks and Romans followed and made a vast noise, and they were gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, and have vanished.

The Jew saw them all, survived them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmaties, of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert but aggressive mind.  All things are mortal but the Jews; all other forces pass, but he remains.  What is the secret of his immortality?”

Between the humor of comedian King and the wit of satirist Lehrer one gets an insider’s grasp of the irrepressible, self-deprecating wit of the Children of Abraham and Sarah.  Likewise, the brilliant insights of two non-Jews - Lloyd George and Mark Twain shine a blinding white light on the historic enigma of this people who are about to enter the year 5782 with prayers of hope and forgiveness, as well as historic pride and tearful remembrance.    

Without question, there are tons and tons of things to be proud of when it comes to the accomplishments of Jewish people.  Hell’s bells, a brief ramble through the pages of movie history, broken down into producers, directors, screenwriters, composers and stars is enough to make one’s chest puff up to the point of exploding.  Then too, the number of Jewish brothers and sisters involved in medical research, physics, chemistry, biology and various sciences we cannot even pronounce is legion. In the world of politics, the Senate Majority Leader (New York’s Chuck Schumer) and the floor leaders of both Trump impeachment trials (California’s Adam Schiff and Maryland’s Jaimie Raskin) are all "MOT” (members of the tribe).  Within the  Biden Administration we can identify far more than a minyan occupying important posts:

Ron Klain: Chief of Staff

Janet Yellin Secretary of Treasury

Alejandro Mayorkas: Secretary of Homeland Security

Tony Blinken Secretary of State

Merrick Brian Garland: Attorney General

Jared Bernstein: Council of Economic Advisers

Rochelle Walensky: Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Wendy Sherman: Deputy Secretary of State

Anne Neuberger Deputy National Security Adviser for Cybersecurity

Jeffrey Zients: COVID-19 Response Coordinator

David Kessler: Co-chair of the COVID-19 Advisory Board and Head of Operation Warp Speed

David Cohen: CIA Deputy Director

Rachel Levine: Deputy Health Secretary

Jennifer Klein: Co-chair Council on Gender Policy

Jessica Rosenworcel: Chair of the Federal Communications Commission

Stephanie Pollack: Deputy Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration

Polly Trottenberg: Deputy Secretary of Transportation

Mira Resnick: State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security

Roberta Jacobson: National Security Council “border czar”

Gary Gensler: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman*

Genine Macks Fidler: National Council on the Humanities

Chanan Weissman: Director for Technology and Democracy at National Security Council

Thomas Nides U.S. Ambassador to Israel [to be confirmed]

Eric Garcetti U.S. Ambassador to India [to be confirmed]

David Cohen: U.S. Ambassador to Canada [to be confirmed]

Mark Gitenstein: U.S. Ambassador to the European Union [to be confirmed]

Deborah Lipstadt: Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism [to be confirmed]

Jonathan Kaplan: U.S. Ambassador to Singapore [to be confirmed]

Marc Stanley: U.S. Ambassador to Argentina [to be confirmed]

Rahm Emanuel U.S. Ambassador to Japan [to be confirmed]

Sharon Kleinbaum: Commissioner of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom  

Thankfully, to date, there has been precious little chatter from cyber anti-Semites about the overwhelming number of Jewish men and women serving the country in top-line posts.  Historically, those who hate Jews need little reason for their conspiratorial animosity.  Historically, the reasons why people hate Jews falls into roughly six categories:

1. Economic -- "We hate Jews because they possess too much wealth and power."

2. Chosen People -- "We hate Jews because they arrogantly claim that they are the chosen people."

3. Scapegoat -- "Jews are a convenient group to single out and blame for our troubles."

4. Deicide -- "We hate Jews because they killed Jesus."

5. Outsiders -- "We hate Jews because they are different than us." (The dislike of the unlike.)

6. Racial Theory -- "We hate Jews because they are an inferior race."

Every other hated group is hated for a relatively defined reason. We Jews, however, are hated in paradoxes: Jews are hated for being a lazy and inferior race - but also for dominating the economy and taking over the world. We are hated for stubbornly maintaining our separateness - and, when we do assimilate - for posing a threat to racial purity through intermarriages. We are seen as pacifists and as warmongers; as capitalist exploiters and as revolutionary communists; possessed of a Chosen-People mentality, as well as of an inferiority complex. It seems that we just can't win.

Over the past year or so, there has been an obvious rise in the number of anti-Semitic events in both the United States and Europe, as well as throughout much of the rest of the world. Much of it has been focused on Israel and the spread of COVID-19. In a sense, history is repeating itself; much of Europe blamed the Jew for the spread of the so-called “Black Death” of the early Middle Ages. And yet, if there are any bright spots on the horizon when it comes to COVID-19 and its Delta variant, they emanate from Jewish scientists, immunologists and infectious disease specialists in America, Europe and Israel. As Jews, we can be proud, knowing that our sons and daughters have been largely at the forefront of containing the worst, most lethal pandemic of the past century. But at the same time, we are both puzzled and frightened by the response of professional Jew-haters who tell their followers that we are largely responsible for its spread.

It is one of the great ironies of human history that virtually every powerful culture or civilization which sought to eliminate the Jews from the face of time are now extinct . . . to be found mostly in museums or libraries.  It is even more ironic that the great and literate histories of their growth, decline and fall, have been written primarily by Jewish historians.  Perhaps. when all is  said and done, the underlying truth of being  part of the “Chosen People” is precisely this: that we have been “chosen” to exist throughout time . . . to continue adding to human history regardless of what our enemies - both ancient and more contemporary - might have wished.    
I for one am more than amazed that few professional anti-Semites have yet to figure out that the vast majority of the people serving in the current administration are either Jewish or Catholic. If they had, the level of finger pointing and ethno-religious animosity would be far, more virulent than it already is.

We are by no means a people without flaws. Like any people, we have our historic and contemporary embarrassments. From the phony “Messiah” Rabbi Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676) and the man who continued Zevi’s cult, Jacob Frank (1726-1791) and from such psychopathic American gangsters as Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegal (1906-1941) Mickey Cohen (1913-1976) and America’s greatest/worst fraudster Bernard “Bernie” Madoff (1938-2021) Jews have plenty of MOT (“Members of the Tribe”) to be embarrassed by.  Then too, we have provided the world with more medical discoveries, scientific breakthroughs, Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winners as well as Emmy, Oscar and Tony winners and MacArthur Fellowship (“Genius Grant”) recipients than any other tiny family on the face of the earth.   

As we enter this New Year, we have much to be proud of . . . and much to worry about. Those who hate despise and dream up noxious conspiracies about the children of Abraham and Sarah not about to disappear from the human equation. Then again, their pernicious derangement isn’t about to stop us from doing everything in our power to make the world a better, saner, more healthy place. It’s just part of the price we pay for being “chosen.” Pride comes with privilege; paranoia always runs alongside prejudice.

So be it.

Copyright ©2021 Kurt F. Stone