Federalists, Dystopians, and Extreme Nausea

Truth to tell, Friday’s 5-4* Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case centered on a Mississippi law that bars most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, didn’t come as that much of a surprise. Movement conservatives, including the Christian Right, the Federalist Society and their billionaire backers, have been pumping time, effort, energy and endless shekels into reversing Roe v. Wade for more than 40 years. Friday’s ruling has automatically jump started so-called “trigger laws” in 13 states as well as putting fear, loathing and extreme nausea into the minds, hearts and kishkes of an overwhelming majority of the American public. (* It should be noted that Chief Justice John Roberts did not join the majority, writing in a concurring opinion that he would not have overturned Roe, but instead would have only uphold Mississippi's law banning abortions after 15 weeks.)  Despite writing that Roe had been fatally flawed when decided back in 1973, Justice Samuel Alito tried to paper over the decision by stating that it was not intended to ban all abortions in the United States; merely to put the decision back into the hands of the individual states.  Can you say “disingenuous?” 

“Trigger laws” would effectively ban abortions almost immediately after a decision from the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.  These states include Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Kentucky and Alabama.  There are an additional 9 states which have already banned abortions: Wisconsin, Michigan, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas.  In an interview on Face the Nation, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem defended her state’s trigger law, rationalizing that in cases of rape and/or incest she does not believe one tragedy is "a reason to have another tragedy occur."  Governor Noem said her state will now work to bolster resources for women who will now have to carry their pregnancies to term, including with more mental health counseling and family services.  "I would prefer that we continue to make sure we go forward and that we're putting resources in front of these women and walking alongside them, getting them the health care, the care, the mental health counseling and services that they should need to make sure that we can continue to support them and build stronger families far into the future as well," she said, adding, "The Supreme Court did its job: it fixed a wrong decision it made many years ago and returned this power back to the states, which is how the Constitution and our Founders intended it."  It should be noted that Governor Noem has made more than a handful of comments that she’s seriously considering making a White House bid in 2024. . .

For the first 15 years after Roe guaranteed women the legal right to control their own bodily destiny, Republicans were as likely as Democrats to support an absolute right to legal abortion, and sometimes even more so. But 2010 swept in a different breed of Republican, powered by Tea Party supporters, who locked in a new conservatism. Going into the 2010 midterm elections, Democrats controlled 27 state legislatures going in, and ended up with 16; Republicans started with 14 and ended up controlling 25. Republicans swept not only the South but Democratic strongholds in the Midwest, picking up more seats nationwide than either party had in four decades. By the time the votes had been counted, they held their biggest margin since the Great Depression. From that point on, Republican-controlled state legislatures began passing more and more restrictive laws which began the inexorable path toward the total dismantling of Roe v. Wade. Not that all the Republican state legislators were saturated with Biblical fervor. They did, in many cases, become increasingly more pro-life in order to grow their majorities and assure greater funding from well-heeled (and largely anonymous) billionaire backers.  This funding issue is crucial; were it not for the Court’s egregious 5-4 Citizens United v. FEC decision back in 2010, which eliminated the prohibition on PACS (“political action committees”) and corporations making unfettered independent expenditures, it is likely that Roe v. Wade would still be settled law today. 

Now mind you, Dobbs (the case which overturned Roe) wasn’t the only terrible ruling from the high court this past week.  Just the day before ruling that women no longer had any say in their bodily destinies, the court struck down a New York gun law enacted more than a century ago that restricts carrying a concealed handgun outside the home. The opinion changes the framework that lower courts will use to analyze other gun restrictions, which could include proposals currently before Congress if they eventually become law.  According to Justice Clarence Thomas, courts are required to "assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment's text and historical understanding,"   

For instance, Thomas wrote, if a gun law is addressing a societal problem that also existed in the 18th century, it is evidence that the modern law is unconstitutional if there was no similar regulation then. Likewise, he said, if that societal problem was historically addressed using a type of regulation different than the one now before a court, this is also evidence that the modern law is unconstitutional.

"When confronting such present-day firearm regulations, this historical inquiry that courts must conduct will often involve reasoning by analogy—a commonplace task for any lawyer or judge. Like all analogical reasoning, determining whether a historical regulation is a proper analogue for a distinctly modern firearm regulation requires a determination of whether the two regulations are 'relevantly similar,'" Thomas wrote.  Thursday's ruling means that for a court to find any type of gun law constitutional, it will have to be consistent with how firearms were regulated historically.  This means states and localities will run into legal trouble whenever they try to enact a gun law that does not have a historical parallel, particularly if the problem the law is trying to address is a problem that arguably has existed for generations.  

In other words, just as with the Dobbs decision, this one invites us to travel back into the past . . . to willfully ignore past decisions of the court.  To a huge extent, this is the work of the  Federalist Society, which wants nothing so much as to return to an America in which men rule over women, states have clear control of the law, black’s and other minorities legal rights take a backseat to those of White Christians, and the frontier is once again, just outside our front doors.

During times like these, my reading habits change.  To get away from all the angst, worry and bile, I tend read as much P.G. Wodehouse as time permits.  (For those not familiar with him, Pelham Grenville Wodehouse, KBE [1881-1975] was one of the funniest, most inane British writers of all time.  He is perhaps best known and most beloved for his series of novels starring Bertie Wooster (one of the dotty “idle rich”) and his sagacious valet Jeeves. My all-time favorite, by the way, is Ring For Jeeves). For more serious, mind-numbing fiction, I find myself turning (or returning) to such classic dystopian novels as:

• The Time Machine by H.G. Wells (1895)

• The Iron Heel by Jack London (1908)

• We by Yevgeny Zamyatin (1921)

• Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932)

• It Can’t Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis (1936)

• 1984 by George Orwell (1948)

• Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

• The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood (1984)

Dystopia is an imagined community or society that is dehumanizing and frightening. “Dystopia” is the bipolar opposite of a utopia, which is a perfect society. The novels I have been rereading, most notably Lewis’ It Can’t Happen Here, and Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, take us into an American society/political culture in which democratic freedoms have been wrenchingly upended by brutal autocrats and hideous dictators. What makes these novels so compelling is that no matter how long ago they were written or published, they all seem to be talking about today. The one drawback in most of them is that they offer no solutions to the problems they all predict . . . short of moving away to another country.

                          Wedding photo of Clarence and Ginni Lamp Thomas in 1987

Although by no means a novelist, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a world-class dystopian.  In his separate, concurring opinion in last Friday’s Dobbs decision, Thomas wrote that this was undoubtedly “an erroneous decision.”  Thomas went on to write that the Court should “reconsider” such previous rulings as those that protect contraception access (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965), same-sex relationships (Lawrence v. Texas. 2003) and same-sex marriages (Obergefell v. Hodges,  2015).  Not surprisingly, nowhere did Mr.  Justice Thomas mention the court’s unanimous 1967 decision (Loving v. Virginia) decision which made inter-racial marriages legal.  At best, Thomas’s omission could be considered a case of inconsistency; at worst, utter hypocrisy.  But then again, hypocrisy and inconsistency have long been key ingredients in both bare-knuckle politics and dystopian literature.  

For all those who have been so vociferously in favor of over-turning Roe v. Wade, one has to wonder whether they are going to do anything about assisting all these newborns (even those who are the product of rape and incest) with food, housing, medical care and education, or just leave them floating in the breeze.  And do all those ultra-conservative cretins who have hopped aboard the “Replacement Theory” bandwagon understand that by outlawing abortions - which will most directly affect non-whites and the poor - will greatly increase the minority population of the United States . . . thus making their supposedly “worst nightmare” a far greater reality?  Not only are they both inconsistent and hypocritical; they are immoral. 

As mentioned above, dystopian novels rarely provide suggestions for remediation . . .  short of emigration. Not being a dystopian writer, permit me to conclude with a  couple of suggestions:

1. Increase the number of Supreme Court Justices from 9 to 13 . . .  the number of Federal Judicial Circuits there are in the U.S.A.

2. Elect a staunchly Democratic Congress which will get rid of the filibuster and enact a bill which codifies abortion as a federal right.

3. Start the process of overturning the Citizens United  ruling. 

4. Make sure that Roe v. Wade is on every ballot in every state and district in 2022.

Never give up hope!  This land belongs to the majority . . . 

Copyright© 2022 Kurt F.  Stone

Random Thoughts on the 80th Birthday of Sir Paul McCartney

OK fellow Boomers, how’s this for a dash of ice-cold water in the face? Yesterday, when my (our) troubles seemed so far away, Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE, CH, turned 80. Can you believe it? 80! There are places I (we) remember some have gone and some remain. Without question, it’s been a Long and Winding Road since 4 Liverpudlian moptops reached these shores nearly 60 years ago . . . a time when many of us proclaimed “don’t trust anyone over the age of 30.” And yet, it was, by comparison to today, a pretty positive time where many believed that We Can Work it Out With a Little Help From My our) Friends.  As hippies (or “freaks,” as many of us called ourselves) we also believed that All you need is love, and that ultimately, we could Come Together. Looking to the future many wondered Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I’m 64.

Well, many of us are now more than 10 years past 64, and still finding both great meaning and memories in the words which Sir Paul and his long deceased (nearly 42 years) writing partner John Lennon created oh so long ago.  Many of us are now retired, no longer working Eight Days a Week and looking back realizing I Should Have Known Better.  There are days when many of us wish we could board Sir Paul’s Yellow Submarine, Get Back to where we once belonged, and once again Be Free as a Bird.  Of course, even though it’s not possible, we still have Sir Paul, the “cute Beatle.”  

On his birthday, Sir Paul - who is already selling tickets for his 2023 tour, received best wishes and glowing tributes from seemingly half the world.  Included in the greetings was one from the now nearly 90 year old Yoko Ono, which read: “Dear Paul, Happy 80th Birthday and many, many more! From a partner in Peace… love, yoko,”  He celebrated his birthday onstage at MetLife Stadium alongside the sprightly 72-year old Bruce Springsteen; 60,000 concert goers sang They Say It’s Your Birthday to their idol.  You’ve got to believe that the vast majority of them weren’t even born until long after the Beatles broke up . . . way back in September of 1969. 

Paul is not the only rock star to be knighted. The first was “Boomtown Rats” frontman and Live Aid organizer Bob Geldof. The singer and activist was knighted way back in 1986 because of his work on behalf of famine relief. The only catch is that he’s technically not “Sir Bob,” a title reserved for British citizens. As an Irishman, Geldof is allowed to follow his name with the initials KBE (Knight Commander of the British Empire).  Joining Sir Paul (who was knighted by his queen in 1997 for service to music, are the Beatles’  producer Sir George Martin who was knighted one year before Sir Paul, Sir Elton John (1998), Sir Mick Jagger (2003), Sir Paul David Hewson (Bono) of the Irish rock group U2 (2007), Sir Ivan (Van) Morrison (2016), Sir Rod Stewart (2016), Sir Ray Davies (“The Kinks”) 2017, Sir Barry Gibb, 2018, and Sir Richard Starkey (Ringo Starr) 2019.  It  should be  noted that In 2003, David Bowie rejected knighthood honors for his cultural contributions, saying, “I would never have any intention of accepting anything like that. It’s not what I spent my life working for.” In so doing, the late Bowie (1947-2016) joined a long list of people who had rejected becoming knighted, from T.E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”) and Rudyard Kipling to Albert Finney and Stephen Hawking.

As mind-numbing as it is that Sir Paul is 80 and still touring, that Sir Mick is still strutting, doing his rooster walk and is still 5’10”, 161 lbs. and sporting a 33 inch waist, the fact is that they are senior citizens.  The now 82-year old Grace Slick, lead singer of the Jefferson Airplane/Starship retired many years ago, proclaiming “All rock-and-rollers over the age of 50 look stupid and should retire. You can do jazz, classical, blues, opera, country until you’re 150, but rap and rock and roll are a way for young people to get that anger out. It’s silly to perform a song that has no relevance to the present or expresses feelings you no longer have.”  Just don’t tell that to Sir Paul, Sir Mick, Sir Elton or the rest of the band of knights.

My feeling about aging (I am now 2 months shy of turning 73) has always been: Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.  In other words, just because the bones are a bit more brittle, the hair thinning (or gone) the waist spreading and the hearing in need of a boost is pretty much a matter of genetics combined with one’s lifelong habits.  Growing stodgy, stolid, sedentary or mostly set in one’s ways are sure signs that philosophically or psychologically, one has become old; has begun losing a sense of wonderment and the need for new challenges.  But that is purely optional.  What’s to say that we can choose, regardless of age, to continue exploring Here, There and Everywhere; of awakening in the morning and uttering a small prayer in which we acknowledge Here Comes the Sun and say I Will to the new day?  

Growing old is pretty much the way of nature; growing up is, to my way of thinking an option.  For that bit of wisdom - if wisdom it be - we have the likes of Sir Paul, Sir Mick, Sir Ringo and the Nobel laureate Bob Dylan to thank.  

Happy Birthday Sir Paul. Keep on doing what you’ve been doing ever since the days of the Quarrymen some 65 years ago, and do continue on your Magical Mystery Tour.

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Guns, Guns, and More Guns

     Justus D. Barnes in  “The Great Train Robbery” (1903) . . . the first Western

Assigning attribution or “literary parentage” to a particularly well-known epigram rarely yields THE TRUTH. As a rule of thumb, the wittier the wheeze, the more parents there are. One of the greatest - and unquestionably snarkiest - epigrammatists of the past hundred years, Dorothy (Rothschild) Parker (“Men don’t make passes at girls who wear glasses”), best summed up literary attributions with a hilarious aphorism of her own: “If with the literate, I am/Impelled to try an epigram/I never seek to take the credit/We all assume that Oscar said it.”  The “Oscar,” to whom she refers is, of course, Oscar Wilde, generally considered, next to Shakespeare, to have been the most clever and skillful of all English-language scops.

Here in America, the four people who generally sit atop the “literary parentage” list are the aforementioned Parker, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Mark Twain. Parker generally comes in first, with Franklin second, Twain third and Jefferson fourth. My all-time favorite Parkerism is “You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.” One of Franklin’s best known quips is “A penny saved is a penny earned.” As for Twain, one his best was “A little lie can travel half way 'round the world while Truth is still lacing up her boots” But it is Jefferson who is awarded attribution for a statement that will undoubtedly be heard over and over in the coming days and weeks as we proceed with Congress’s attempt to pass some sort of gun safety legislation: “Half a loaf is better than none.” (n.b. It is likely that the real originator of this expression was the 16th century British writer John Heywood who had been famous for more than 35 years before the birth of the “Bard of Avon”).

When it comes to Congress trying to enact a bipartisan bill dealing with gun control (some prefer calling it “gun safety”) Jefferson (or unknowingly, John Heywood) are hitting the headlines of news articles and and being quoted in speeches and newscasts with great regularity.  Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson published a recent op-ed piece which just about says it all: We’ll get less than half a loaf on gun control. We should take it.  A few days after Robinson’s piece hit the streets, Senate negotiators announced that they had struck a bipartisan deal on a narrow set of gun safety measures with sufficient support to move through the evenly divided chamber.  The deal (the specifics of which we will look at in the next paragraph) included far, far less than gun control advocates and nearly all Congressional Democrats would have wanted. At a time in our political history when the walls of political partisanship are taller and and more impregnable than those which surrounded the Biblical Jericho, it nonetheless represented a significant step toward ending a years-long congressional impasse on the issue.  Or, in other words, half a loaf . . . or even less.  

The agreement, put forth by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats and endorsed by President Biden and top Democrats, includes enhanced background checks to give authorities time to check the juvenile and mental health records of any prospective gun buyer under the age of 21 and a provision that would, for the first time, extend to dating partners a prohibition on domestic abusers having guns. It would also provide funding for states to enact so-called red-flag laws that allow authorities to temporarily confiscate guns from people deemed to be dangerous, as well as money for mental health resources and to bolster safety and mental health services at schools.  What it does not include are a majority of things a clear majority of the American public support: a ban on assault weapons and universal background checks. At the same time, it is nowhere near as sweeping as a package of gun measures passed almost along party lines in the House last week, which would bar the sale of semiautomatic weapons to people under the age of 21, ban the sale of large-capacity magazines and enact a federal red-flag law, among other steps.

While Congress has not passed new gun-control restrictions in the wake of public mass shootings in recent years, hundreds of measures have passed in statehouse across the country during such moments. Since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, high-profile mass shootings have been followed by a jump in state gun-control laws in the next year or two years, according to a Washington Post analysis of data on state legislation compiled by RAND, a nonprofit policy research group.

As much as the idealist in me rebels at the thought that this is the best 10 senators can come up with, the political and historical realist in me understands that this is likely the “new reality”, where even less than half a loaf is about as good as it’s going to get . . . at least for the foreseeable future. Unless and until the N.R.A. suffers a fall which even financial bankruptcy cannot touch, they will continue holding conventions, selling goods and continue working as hucksters for the weapons’ industry. They will continue getting their followers to mouth their disingenuous bromide about the only thing capable of stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, warning how the government is about to take away all their weapons, and willy-nilly buying up politicians left and (overwhelmingly) right.

To end on a positive note: the outpouring of public outrage after the massacres in Buffalo and Uvalde has led to tens of thousands to take to the streets from coast-to-coast demanding that Congress - in the words of President Biden and so many others - “do something.” With this week’s announcement that the Senate might actually enact the “Half-a-Loaf” gun safety bill, perhaps it will light a spark which one day will see more fully realized measures passed into law - ones which finally resurrect the Assault Weapons Ban, rescind the legal immunity gun manufacturers currently enjoy (which makes it nearly impossible for them to be sued for crimes committed with the weapons or ammunition they sell), and put books and lesson plans back into the hands of the nation’s teachers instead of guns, guns, and more guns.

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

The Fatuous Five

Unless you live in Utah, Kansas, North Dakota, Indiana or Montana (or are a hardcore  political geek), it is highly unlikely that you’ve ever heard of Republican Senators Mike Lee (UT) Roger Marshall (KS), Kevin Cramer (ND), Mike Braun (IN) or Steve Daines (MT). You really should know who they are and where they stand on social/cultural issues, for they represent an extraordinarily weird and wacky wing of the Republican Party . . . a wing that is on the rise.  The “Fatuous Five,” as I choose to call them, are uniformly against any and all abortions (and mind you, Senator Marshall is an OB-GYN), same-sex marriage, any and all restrictions on guns, gays in the military, the separation of Church and State, and are positive that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump.  

While these political positions are hardly unusual for Republican members of the House and Senate, the Fatuous Five go even further down the path towards turning America into a blended theocratic/autocratic state. They are to the far-right what “The Squad” (the unofficial six-member [5 women, 1 man] progressive block in the House of Representatives are to the Congressional left. Unlike the Fatuous Five, which is made up exclusively of midwestern Anglo men, the Squad’s membership is exclusively made up of people of color; 2 are practicing Muslims.

Unlike Congressional Republicans, who tend to exile those who do not pay strict obeisance to their erstwhile leader to the political version of Elba . . . exempli gratia anyone who voted in favor of convicting Donald Trump at his second impeachment trial or publicly admitted that Joe Biden won the 2020 election . . . Democrats tend to work with most every member of their caucus even when or where they may disagree. Why is this so? Generally speaking, Democrats actually do believe that a party of inclusion is where it’s at, while Republicans tend to proclaim themselves to be a “Big Tent” while actually practicing behind a barricade of exclusion.  

Want further proof?

Last month, the “Fatuous Five” addressed a letter to the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board Chair Charles Rivkin. In their letter to Rivkin. who is also serves as CEO of the Motion Picture Association (MPA), the five outlined their reasons for trying to create a new rating for television shows that feature LGBTQ+ characters and topics.  In their letter, the Fatuous Five thanked Rivkin and the monitoring board “. . . for empowering parents through the provision of tools that enable them to identify television content that is not suitable for certain ages. In recent years, concerning topics of a sexual nature have become aggressively politicized and promoted in children’s programming, including irreversible and harmful experimental treatments for mental disorders like gender dysphoria. To this end, we strongly urge you to update the TV Parental Guidelines and ensure they are up-to-date on best practices that help inform parents on this disturbing content.”

For a party so hellbent on complaining about “cancel culture”, the GQP (“Grand QAnon Party”) seems to be really obsessed with cancel culture.

In its own way, this is nothing new. Back in the early 1920s after the film industry went through a series of tragedies which gave the public a shocking look behind the virginal curtain of Hollywood (the morphine overdose of the “All-American” actor Wallace Reid, the murder of starlet Virginia Rappé at the hands of everyone’s favorite funnyman Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, and the murder of the urbane director William Desmond Taylor), Hollywood moguls hired President Warren G. Harding’s Postmaster General (At a salary $150k per annum (which is more than $2.5 million in 2022 dollars) to become the industry’s “moral’s czar.”  It was his responsibility to make sure that all actors, directors and producers toe the moral line.  Then, in 1934, a new code (called “The Breen Code”) came into effect which forced all gay actors to enter into “lavender marriages” (marriages arranged by Hollywood studios between gay, lesbian or bisexual people such as Rock Hudson and Phyllis Gates; Rudolph Valentino and Natasha Rambova; Charles Laughton and Elsa Lanchester; Judy Garland and Vincent Minelli; Janet Gaynor and costume designer Adrian, etc.), as well as creating a list of words which could not be said (“raspberries!” “So's your old man,” “nuts!” Damn!” and others, as well as such no-nos as:

• If a married couple were shown in the bedroom, they had to be sleeping in separate beds;

• No kiss could last longer than 3 seconds;

•  Miscegenation (interracial relationships) were not allowed;

• Scenes of childbirth were never to be shown;

• Illegal drug usage could not be presented;

• Words like "God," "Lord," "Jesus," "Christ," "hell," and "damn" could not be used unless it was in connection with religious ceremonies.

The Production Code came into desuetude by the end of the 1960s, when the “X-Rated” movie, “Midnight Cowboy” won the Academy Award for Best Picture.  Since then, movie ratings (”G,” “PG,” and “M”) have meant next to nothing.  But now they may be reemerging, thanks to folks like the Fatuous Five.  What they are most concerned about are cartoons and Disney pictures which have “ . . . dialogue [which] often involves the promotion of irreversible experimental treatments that involve surgical and otherwise invasive cosmetic procedures that are detrimental and life-altering, and do not evidence medical necessity. The motivations of hypersexualized entertainment producers striving to push this content on young audiences are suspect at best and predatory at worst.”  The senators added that “To the detriment of children, gender dysphoria has become sensationalized in the popular media and television with radical activists and entertainment companies. This radical and sexual sensation not only harms children, but also destabilizes and damages parental rights.”

What the Fatuous Five are  asking for are warning labels [⚠️] for the country's television ratings system to warn parents about "sexual orientation and gender identity content" on children's TV shows. As one of my dear, long, longtime (more than 40 years) friends, the supreme political activist Marc Kallick recently wrote me in an email, “This will obviously then lead to a prohibition of openly LGBTQ+ spokespersons, such as when TV programming has any LGBTQ+ content., teachers and the illumination of any openly LGBTQ+ spokespeople in our contemporary American society.”

Mark also noted, “ . . . one of these five regressive Senators, the reprehensible and repugnant Senator Braun of Indiana, has just announced that individual states should have the legal right to prohibit interracial marriages… overthrowing the established judicial precedent from the 1967 Supreme Court decision, Loving V. the State of Virginia, which legalized interracial marriages. In order to stuff our American societies’ genie back into the bottle, will painfully require, taking a sharp knife to the genie… severely cutting away huge hunks of societal flesh, in order to stuff the genie back through the bottle’s narrow neck. This narrow minded approach, for the future of the world’s most open and leading democracy, will prove to be… bloody, painful and profoundly detrimental!!”

As what we would hope and pray is a free and open society, many of our leaders - and we, their constituents - have put our blood, sweat, tears and donations into protecting women’s reproductive rights, equality for minorities of all stripes and colors, and making healthcare available to all. Now, in what seems like the wink of an eye, many of these rights - and more - are slowly and inexorably being attacked and slipping through our fingers. We’ve gone from Indiana Senator Braun, suggesting the reversing of federal recognition, of interracial marriages to quickly following on the heels of the Fatuous Five demanding labeling for LGBTQ+ television content.

Until recently, I have never considered the “slippery slope” argument (“Today the government takes away our right to having unfettered access to guns or any sort, and tomorrow they’ll come to take all our guns away”) to be much more than the product of paranoid minds possessing little - if any - regard for history or reality.  Of late, however, I have observed the slope becoming increasingly steeper and slipperier. I have studied history well, and know that in the 1930s Nazis required labeling Homosexuals with a pink triangle to be worn on their/our clothing (while lesbians were required to be forcibly impregnated for the continuation of the, so-called, Aryan Race). Jewish Homosexuals were required to wear a pink triangle with an overlapping yellow triangle . . . thus forming the identifying Homosexual/Jewish Star.  

The explosive growth of homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism and religious intolerance, coupled with highly-armed bigots who will believe next to anything just so long as it is broadcast by people who call themselves “patriots”  - makes me uncomfortably nauseous and deeply troubled.  

Is there an answer to what ails us short of taking a super strong emetic? Perhaps remembering the words of Dr. Benjamin Franklin will give a suggestive clue. The story is told that as Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, someone shouted out, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?”

To which Franklin supposedly responded, with a rejoinder at once witty and ominous: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

I wonder if the Fatuous Five and their priggish followers have the slightest idea of what the good doctor was speaking about . . . 

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Betwixt Optimism and Pessimism There Lies . . .

(Permit me to begin with a word of thanks to Rodger and Madeline Gobel, my friends and congregants who, without knowing it at the time, put a big smile on my face by providing me with an actuality which provided me with the germ from whence this essay evolved.)

Question: when was the last time reading page-one headlines or watching a cable TV news crawler was anything less than a task filled with angst or dread?  (Yes, I know, “angst or dread” is an overly-repetitive redundancy . . . so sue me!)  For those whose answer is something like “I honestly can’t remember” or “Seems like forever-and-a-day,” you are undoubtedly correct.  It’s all too understandable. I mean, consider the menu of malevolence which confronts us on a daily basis: Putin’s maniacal war against Ukraine; teenagers mowing down shoppers and students with AK-47s in Buffalo and Uvalde (which, by the way, has already  passed muster with “spell-check”); the damage done to American politics as a result of the “Big Lie”; our quondam POTUS and retrogressive SCOTUS; the dilatory nature of Congress; the daily gaffs and linguistic lunacies of such Luddites as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis; conspiracy theorists whose every off-the-wall inanity is as acceptable as Sinaitic truth by a growing minority of “true believers”;  higher and higher gas prices coupled with growing inflation;  and on and on and on . . .

 As one who has posted more than 900 mostly political essays over the past 17+ years, there are weeks when it is neigh on impossible to put another 1,000-1,500 words up on the screen.  Complaining, criticizing – even satirizing – becomes sheer drudgery.  And yet, going back to the very first essay (February 4, 2005 - when the blog was called “Beating the  Bushes”), I wrote that its overarching purpose would be “to hold up an honest mirror of the times in which we live, regardless of how complex, maddening or incomprehensible those times might be.”  The past several weeks have been far more complex, maddening, and incomprehensible than many, many others.

And so, this week I will resort to reportage of a more  hopeful sort.  Remember, the subtitle of this blog is “. . . & a Whole Lot More.”   

                      Airbnb’s Joe Gebbia: self-made billionaire and philanthropist

This past Wednesday, May 25, 2022, the senior class at Brookwood High School in Snellville, Georgia, held their graduation ceremony.  Rodger and Madeline were in attendance, kvelling their hearts out; their grandson was one of the graduates.  The commencement address was given by Joe Gebbia, one of the three cofounders of Airbnb,  and a 2000 graduate of Brookwood.  (Gebbia is now chief product officer of Airbnb, the company’s in-house design studio, Samara, and is chairman of Airbnb.org, the company’s nonprofit arm.) His address contained the expected flourishes about following their dreams and never giving up.  The now 40-year old self-made multi-billionaire confided to the graduates that he wasn’t the  most serious of students while attending Brookwood, and admitted “I definitely don’t remember the advice I was given at my graduation. And I don’t expect you to, either.” 

And while few of the 890 graduates are likely to remember what Gebbia said, they will long remember what he did.  Towards the end of his address he said:  “I would like to give you a piece of my dream to help inspire yours and let you know that it is possible.”  He then went on  to inform them that each and every one of the graduates would be getting 22 (for 2022) shares of Airbnb, which works out  to about $2,400 worth of stock per graduate, based on that day’s closing price of $110.40 a share. Altogether it was a gift worth nearly $2.2 million.   

Turns out this gift was by no means Joe Gebbia’s first.  Last year he pledged $700,000 to help boost his school’s arts department and cross country team, both activities he participated in when he was a student. In 2020, he donated $25 million to two organizations in San Francisco (where he and his family live) combating homelessness. Gebbia and his two Airbnb cofounders, Brian Chesky and Nathan Blecharczyk, joined the Giving Pledge in 2016—long before Airbnb went public—promising to donate at least half their wealth to charitable causes.  

Though billionaires often donate to educational institutions, it’s becoming increasingly common for the wealthy to help students directly, especially if a billionaire is chosen as a school’s commencement speaker. Earlier this year, Snapchat founder Evan Spiegel paid off the student loans for graduates of the Los Angeles-based Otis College of Art and Design, a gift of more than $10 million. Telecom billionaire Robert Hale Jr. gifted each graduating student at Quincy College in Massachusetts $1,000 each last year. The largest donation to graduating college students, though, comes from private equity tycoon Robert Smith, the richest Black person in America. He spent $34 million in 2019 to pay off the student debt for the entire graduating class of Morehouse College. Smith also gave 15,000 shares of stock from Vista Equity Partners’ portfolio companies to nearly 2,900 students, teachers and staff at Eagle Academies for Young Men, an all-boys school in New York City.

There are now more than 231 billionaires from 28 countries ranging in age from 31 to 98 who have pledged to give away more than 50% of their vast fortunes to charitable causes. Most of this pledging and giving has been done with far, far less fanfare or publicity than those who step on their tongues on an almost daily basis or shoot up schools, synagogues, supermarkets or gay bars. (Just the other day, as an example, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene garnered worldwide attention when she went off the rails, telling her supporters to beware of Bill Gates, who is planning to monitor their eating habits and “zap” them until they eat fake meat grown in a “peach tree dish.” (This is the same woman who, in accusing the Biden Administration of adopting Nazi tactics, accused him of employing “Gazpacho police-to monitor American’s bowel-going habits.

Is it any wonder that a pall of pessimism has enveloped so many otherwise hopeful people? The fact that the utter lunacy of a Marjorie Taylor Greene can garner or an ūber, over-the-top gun supporter like Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks so much more publicity than the generosity of a Joe Gebbia speaks volumes for where we’ve come as a society which is far more often glued to the lunacy of the brainless than the generosity of the accomplished.

Most are familiar with the expression “The pessimist sees the glass as being half empty, the optimist as being half full.” I have long believed that there’s got to be a third option: of being content with the fact that so long as there’s something in the glass that’s a good start. But what do we call these sorts of people (of whom I am proudly one)? I have long believed that laying somewhere betwixt the rosy-hued optimist and the dire, head-for-the-hills pessimist is the possibilist, a term first coined by the late writer/political philosopher/neo-liberal; Max Lerner. For possibilism is far, far better for the stomach than dire pessimism, and far less frustrating to the soul than rosy-hued optimism. And while both optimism and pessimism exist largely in the realm of  weltanschauung - “world view” - which is largely reactive It is the balance of which we speak - possibilism is energizing -  requiring action.  My slightly-older-sister Erica (Riki) just posted a marvelous photo of a heroic looking American Eagle stating what for me is the  possibilist’s creed:

  We are no longer accepting things we cannot change.  It is now time to change the things we cannot accept. 

Three  . . . or four or five . . . cheers for the Joe Gebbias, Brian Cheskys and Nathan Blecharczyks of the world . . . as well as the largely unknown, unsung possibilists of the planet.

Do remember that betwixt pessimism - which always sees the glass as being half empty - and optimism - which sees the glass as being half full - is possibilism - which avers that so long as there’s something in the glass we can throw a party . . . 

 Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Don't Find Fault; Find a Remedy

The late Senator/Vice President Hubert Horatio Humphrey (1911-1978) was, in many ways, his generation’s version of Joe Biden; accomplished, mostly - though not universally - well-liked and respected, decent . . . and not overly quotable. About the only quip he is remembered for in a public career spanning nearly 35 years is: To err is human. To blame somebody else is politics.  Sadly, Humphrey’s bon mot carries even more weight and truth in 2022 than it did back in the early 1960s when he first uttered it. 

Although finger-pointing has long played a noxious role in politics, it has never been as much a replacement for action as it has become in the past several years. In the same way, hardcore, steel-encased partisanship was never as much an absolute roadblock to passing legislation of any kind as it has become in the era of Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy. For most of American political history, certain Congressional measures were invariably guaranteed of passage: federal judgeships, names of courthouses, ambassadorships and resolutions of praise or condemnation, to name but a few.  Sadly, this is not so much the case today, when an historic nomination to the Supreme Court barely passes, a resolution condemning anti-Semitism or praising cops for saving the Capitol on January 6, 2021 finds naysayers or H.R. 7990, Connecticut Representative Rosa DeLauro’s Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act cannot attract more than 9 republicans voting in its favor.  (Please note that Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney, who has become a bit of a fan-favorite amongst Democrats, actually voted against passage of the bill, which provides $28 million to address infant formula shortages.) 

Why ultra-partisanship should stand in the way of even the simplest actions being approved is not all that easy to limn, for their are a lot of disparate factors at play here. But to my way of thinking, one of the most obvious can be summed up in three words first used by Henry E. Peterson, an Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division at a 1974 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing: “Follow the money.” (For film aficionados, the creator of the term would be novelist/screenwriter William Goldman, who put the three words into the mouth of “Deep Throat” [as played by actor Hal Holbrook] in the 1976 blockbuster film “All the President’s Men.”)

So let’s follow the money. . . . Ever since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision, Citizen’s United V Federal Elections Commission, which gave the green light to mega-wealthy citizens and corporations to flood American politics with unlimited $$$, politics has become a matter of doing what is best for the donor class. Doing their bidding has become far more important than doing what is right. Money has become the most impregnable roadblock in public life. That one judicial decision has had an immense impact on everything from the failure to pass gun safety laws and the successful banning of books in public school libraries, and from the inability to enact meaningful climate change legislation, to the emasculation of voting rights laws and the vast growth of self-financed, civically illiterate candidates for public offices ranging from local school boards and state legislatures to the very halls of Congress. Citizens United, which gave lucre protected speech status  under terms of the First Amendment and turned corporations into people, has also made it possible for political money to become both invisible and anonymous through the creation of hundreds of PACs - “Political Action Committees.”  These committees have the ability to bypass federal election laws, and contribute hundreds of  millions - even billions - of dollars to “causes” . . . which is a euphemism for both political candidates and corporate dreams.

Although we are only in the month of May, we are nonetheless up to our necks in midterm primaries; November 2022 is just around the corner. This means that as slow and relatively ineffectual as the current Congress (the 117th) has been, its going to become even slower and less effectual. Minority leaders McConnell and McCarthy are going to do everything in their power to bring all Congressional action to a virtual standstill. The Democrats are legislatively stymied; about all they can accomplish in the last months of this Congress is holding Republican feet to the fire by forcing them to go on the record through a series of votes and televising hearings of the January 6 Committee in the hope that the American public gets some notion of just how dangerously close we have come to losing our hold on Democracy.

In the upcoming midterm elections, the Democrats will run on a platform of issues and actions they seek to accomplish in the future. As for the Republicans, they have already admitted that they will not have a platform . . . outside of returning the Democrats to the minority by repeatedly harping on how the ultra-Left has caused historically high inflation and souring gas prices, as well as accusing them of being Socialists and Communists; of seeking to increase the flood of illegal immigrants in order to take away American job,s and then quickly giving them citizenship rights so that they may vote for Democrats.

Not much of a platform, is it?

And should they be restored to the majority, Republicans will no doubt hold hearings as a way of getting back at the likes of Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin and the gang for the actions of the January 6 committee.

In other words, they’re going to be doing the bidding of their well-heeled right-wing masters.  

Follow the money!

In the months leading up to the midterm elections, it will be the Democrats’ responsibility to get across the fact that although inflation is at a 40 year high, corporate profits are a 50 year high. Then too, whenever House and Senate candidates face each other in public debates (that is assuming that Republicans will agree to it in the first place), they must ask simple questions, such as:

“The price of gas is set by several factors:

• the price of crude oil and its availability

• refining costs

• the cost to distribute

• state and federal taxes

• the oil companies desire for profit

“Tell me: since none of these factors are controlled by the President of the United States, what are you going to propose that Congress do about it?   

What it all is going to boil down to in November is precisely whom the two parties’ candidates seek to serve: their donors or the voting public?  And what will they see as their most important challenge: to find fault or to  seek remedies?  

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Replacement Theory: Eugenics Refitted in 21st Century Rags

Of all the professional pursuits I have engaged in over the past half-century (Oy!), none has been more challenging or rewarding than the field of Medical Ethics. (Yes, I can hear the quip “Isn’t that a bit of an oxymoron?” for the thousandth time . . . and no, it is decidedly NOT). Medical ethics is the one field in which I truly feel I am making a difference in this world. At the same time, each day, each week, requires a tremendous amount of study, and a lot of learning. One of the things that takes up quite a bit of learning time is cramming tons of medical acronyms (such as ARDS, BPD, DVT or PML, to name but a teeny-tiny handful) and then translating them into understandable lay English for the masses. Please know that for purposes of this essay, we won’t  get into even a small sampling, lest you, dear reader, fear that any of the abbreviations or terms will become part of some final exam.

G-d forbid! 

Whether or not one knows the difference between “PK” (Pharmacokinetics) and PD (Pharmacodynamics) is not terribly important; it can easily be solved by asking a question or two from an expert.  However, in the world of modern politics, there are tons of terms (which may or may not have their own acronyms) which are terribly important . . . such as “CRT” (Critical Race Theory), “Let’s Go Brandon,” (a right-wing code for “F*ck Joe Biden,”) and one of the newest, “Replacement Theory,” which has come back onto center-stage as a result of this week’s massacre at a Buffalo-area supermarket which took the lives of more than a dozen African-Americans.

“Replacement Theory” (often prefaced by “The Great”), first came to public attention in July, 2017, when bands of White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis, attending a “Unite the Right” rally, marched through the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia, brandishing tiki torches and chanting “Jews will not replace us!” and “You will not replace us!” Nearly two years later, two consecutive mass shootings occurred in a terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. The attacks were carried out by a lone gunman who entered both mosques during Friday prayer; 51 people were killed and 40 injured. Prior to going on his murderous rampage, the shooter, who was eventually sentenced to 51 life terms without the possibility of parole, issued a 74-page manifesto entitled The Great Replacement. In it, he expressed several anti-immigrant sentiments, including hate speech against migrants, white supremacist rhetoric, and calls for all non-European immigrants in Europe - who he claimed to be "invading his land" - to be removed.

In last week’s mass murder up in Buffalo, the eighteen-year old terrorist, like his counterpart in the Christchurch terrorist tragedy, posted a manifesto in which he accused “Jews, Democrats and Communists” of doing everything in their power to bring about “white genocide” - of “replacing” white people with “illegal immigrants, blacks, browns and Asians” who would then vote a straight Democratic ticket with an eye to eliminating “White Christians.” Somewhat lost in the shuffle was a murderous terror attack on a Taiwanese Presbyterian church in Laguna Woods, a community in Southern California’s Orange County.  Once again, the shooter - who was hogtied by members of the congregation with an extension cord - killed because he was a racist who wanted to get rid of as many “aliens” as possible.  (The one person killed in the attack was John Chen, a 52-year old doctor of Sports Medicine in nearby Aliso Viejo.  If not for the heroic Dr. Chen, more congregants would have been murdered. Hauntingly, he was one of my niece Julie’s physicians some years back.)

“Replacement Theory,” got its name from a 2010 work (Le Grand Remplacement) by the French writer Renaud Camus. In his book, Camus depicted a population replacement said to occur in a short time lapse of one or two generations. The French migrant crisis was particularly conducive to the spread of Camus's ideas, while the terrorist attacks accelerated the construction of immigrants as an existential threat among those who shared such a worldview. It didn’t take too long for his worldview to turn into a conspiracy theory and find fertile ground in the rest of Europe and the United States. When all is said and done, Camus’ theory is not all that dissimilar to the 19th-century atrocity known as “Eugenics” - a set of beliefs and practices which aimed to improve the genetic quality of a human population, historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior. The Nazis - particularly Dr. Josef Mengele (Der Todesengel, the “Angel of Death”) comes to mind. From Eugenics to Replacement Theory isn’t that great a leap.

Lest we sneer at “The Great Replacement” as the special provenance of political crazies, lovers of loony conspiracy theories, fans of Tucker Carlson and garden variety Neo-Nazis and racists, consider a few horrifying facts:

• About 1 in 3 U.S. adults believes an effort is underway to replace U.S.-born Americans with immigrants for electoral gains;

• About 3 in 10 also worry that more immigration is causing U.S.-born Americans to lose their economic, political and cultural influence. (Republicans are more likely than Democrats to fear a loss of influence because of immigration, 36% to 27%.)

• Replacement Theory has moved from the fringes into the mainstream among Congressional Republicans. With the exception of Representatives Liz Cheney (R-Wyo) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) who ripped their colleagues for not speaking out against White Supremacy which lay just beneath the Buffalo massacre (for which they have been roundly condemned) not a single member of the Republican caucus has said word one. Indeed, the number 3 member of the House Republican caucus (Elise Stefanik) chose to attack Democrats in general, and President Joe Biden in particular for the massacre: “Democrats desperately want wide open borders and mass amnesty for illegals allowing them to vote. Like the vast majority of Americans, Republicans want to secure our borders and protect election integrity.

Has the whole world gone crazy?  Why oh why do so many people get their news and views from conspiracy-mongers who neither believe nor give a rat’s rump about so-called “White Genocide?  Anyone who could come up with an answer to that question would be in the running for the Nobel Prize in either peace or medicine.  As to what we can do to stifle the voices, the violence and the virulence of these monsters is a bit less confusing, but a hell of a lot more cumbersome.  It is up to us, the masses of ordinary citizens - those who seek a saner and safer society in which to live, love and learn - we MUST banish the bigots, the lovers of totalitarianism, those who are more concerned with the freedom to own weapons of mass destruction than to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and live up to the nation’s slogan e pluribus unum - “Out of many, one.”

I can see no reason why we, the masses of the ordinary, cannot band together and send the haters of humanity back to their humdrum lives . . . far, far away from seats of power.   Put up lawn signs; go knocking on doors, drive neighbors to the polls, and always, always remember the words of Churchill:

“NEVER GIVE UP. NEVER GIVE UP! NEVER GIVE UP!! NEVER, NEVER, NEVER,NEVER NEVER-NEVER-NEVER-NEVER!!!”

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

If Men Could Get Pregnant, Abortion Would be a Sacrament

There seems to be little question that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is on the verge of replacing the late Chief Justice Roger B. Taney as the most notorious (odious?) federal jurist in all American history. Taney (1777-1864), of course, wrote the majority opinion in the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied Blacks citizenship under the Constitution and helped pave the way for the bloodiest war in American history. With the leaking of a draft opinion in the Mississippi abortion case,  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Alito is likely to earn either the eternal prayers of thanks or eternal howls of damnation from future court historians and citizens everywhere.

According to Alito’s draft, the court - likely by a vote of 6-3 - will overturn Roe v. Wade’s holding of a federal constitutional right to an abortion . . . which, just as importantly, protected a woman’s right to both privacy and the ability to have ultimate control over her own body. The draft opinion, which will undoubtedly lead to Roe’s dismemberment, would be the most consequential abortion decision in decades and transform the landscape of women’s reproductive health in America. Additionally, when the Court announces its final decision in either late June or early July, it will represent the first time in American history that a protected right has been taken away from more than half of all citizens of the United States.

Is it any wonder that Sam Alito’s name and reputation will place him right next to Roger B. Taney in all future histories of SCOTUS?

For nearly a half-century, Roe v. Wade has not only ensured that abortions are both safe and legal; it has guaranteed women the right to have control over their own bodily destiny.  At the same time, however,  the very existence of Roe v Wade has been a casus belli for a steadily growing and increasingly powerful conservative movement in America.  Adroit - mostly, though not entirely - Republican politicians  have ceaselessly (and cynically) used and played the abortion card as a means of getting religiously inclined people to go to the polls; prior to Roe, true believers took their cue from the Gospel of St. Matthew, as well as St. Mark and St. Luke: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s. In short, outside of paying taxes to the government, a majority of religious conservatives stayed the hell away from politics. As mentioned above, with the confirmation of Roe v. Wade in 1973, God began being increasingly used as a lynchpin for bringing religious issues into the so-called “culture wars” being acted out in the public square.

Unquestionably, there is a large measure of hypocrisy in the fact that so many of those who have made it their political raison d'être to overturn Roe - the self-proclaimed “Pro-Lifers” - tend to be against such life-affirming programs as SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program), Aid to Families With Dependent Children, Universal Preschool and Family Tax Credits. . . to name but a few. That is why I have long referred to the two sides of the abortion issue as “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Birth,” with the latter seeming to lose all interest once the so-called “unborn” leave the mother’s womb. Sometimes, the hypocrisy even leaves an obvious trail . . .

Case in point:

Back in 2018, Dave Barnhart, a pastor at Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama posted the following sermonette on Facebook . . . it soon went viral:

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”

For the past several years, states with Republican-controlled legislatures have been passing - and their Republican governors signing - legislative fiats which severely delimit the ability of women to receive abortions . . . even if their pregnancies are the result of rape, incest, sex-trafficking or would endanger their very lives. In some cases, the limitations involved a matter of time: that if an abortion were to take place, it must be before the 15th, 12th or even 6th week of gestation. In some cases these bills required pregnant women to wait a certain number of days or weeks after first discovering that they are pregnant; in others, family planning centers must be within a certain number of miles from a state-approved hospital. There are even bills - notably in Texas, Mississippi and Florida - which would permit anyone to blow the whistle on anyone who has anything to do with an abortion . . . up to and including an Uber driver who provides transportation for a woman to reach a center across state lines. Reading through these laws, it is obvious that they are aimed primarily at the poor or women of color. As a result of this, there are already some states that have but a single place for women to go in order to undergo an abortion.  Then too, many states have enacted so-called “Trigger Laws,” which hold that the very moment Roe v Wade is overturned, their state laws will go into effect.

Once SCOTUS puts an end to Roe v. Wade and returns the issue to the various states, America will join a worldwide “Hall of Shame” . . . the countries in which abortion for any reason is illegal. The two-dozen members of that infamous “Hall” are:

Andorra, Aruba, Congo, Curaçao, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Jamaica, Laos, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Palau, Philippines, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tonga, the West Bank & Gaza Strip.

Quite an exclusive club, one must admit.

One would think that after so many years of politicking, campaigning and running on the issue of overturning Roe v. Wade, Republican members of the House and Senate would be overjoyed; would be giving themselves high-fives and pats on the back for the sake of their voting base. But interestingly, such is not the case . . . far from it.  Within the past several days we have noted a profound silence among leaders of the GOP.  Despite having been fighting for decades to overturn Roe, they are now loathe to take a victory lap while on the campaign trail.   Just the other day, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), advised Republican candidates to downplay and soft-pedal the prospects of anti-abortion legislation . . . both at the state and national level.  Why?  Because he and his colleagues can read poll numbers.  They understand that more than 60% of the voting public is against an outright repeal of Roe v. Wade. Then too, they recognize that if they gloat and run a victory lap, it will be pitting men against women . . . and women, they know, vote in higher numbers than men.

Instead, they are more concerned with trying to figure out precisely who was responsible for leaking the Alito draft to the press.  Texas Senator Ted Cruz proclaimed that it was “a liberal clerk on the court” who was undoubtedly responsible for the dastardly deed . . . as if he had even a scintilla of inside information.  In another piece of barely concealed racist inventive, Newsmax host Grant Stinchfield suggested — again, without evidence or logic — that future Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson may be responsible for the leak. (It should be noted that as a Justice-in-waiting who has not yet taken the oath of office, she has neither been privy to the Alito draft, nor had the ability to appoint any clerks who might have access to the 90+ page document).  But hey: racism is racism.

Is there any logic to be found in making sure that 12 or 14-year old girls cannot be ordered - as a matter of law - to wear masks at school, and then turn around and ordain that if these same girls become pregnant as a result of rape, incest or sex-trafficking they must - again, as a matter of law - go full term and give birth?  The only bit of logic I can find is that the vast majority of legislators and political leaders who lead the charge in this gross inconsistency are . . . you got it: MEN.  Writer and activist Gloria Steinem was snarkily correct in giving voice to the words which serve as the title of this week’s blog.

Will the Supreme Court’s impending dismemberment of Roe v Wade bring even more women out to the polls in the coming months in order to express their fear and utter displeasure? Will Alito’s assertion that since the U.S. Constitution nowhere mentions a legal right to privacy, lead to the evisceration of such additional rights as gay marriage and the acquisition and use birth control? Will the court’s ruling effectively drive a further wedge between a “Red State” and a “Blue State” America? Will this one day lead to a second Civil War?

Only time . . . and the actions of an energized voting public will tell.

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Oh When Will We Ever Learn?

On April 5, 1945, U.S. Army troops entered Ohrdruf, part of the Buchenwald concentration camp system. One week later, April 12, 1945 (8 days before what would have been Adolph Hitler’s 56th birthday), Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower flew to Ohrdruf to meet American generals George S. Patton and Omar Bradley. The camp was still filled with the bodies of prisoners who had been murdered just before the SS guards fled. The stench of death filled the camp. That which they saw was beyond human comprehension; the stuff which causes the most gruesome of all possible nightmares . . . the sort that never go away.

General Eisenhower quickly cabled U.S. Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall, declaring that everything that had appeared in the press about these sites was “an understatement." He requested: 

If you would see any advantage in asking about a dozen leaders of Congress and a dozen prominent editors to make a short visit to this theater in a couple of C-54s, I will arrange to have them conducted to one of these places where the evidence of bestiality and cruelty is so overpowering as to leave no doubt in their minds about the normal practices of the Germans in these camps. I am hopeful that some British individuals in similar categories will visit the northern area to witness similar evidence of atrocity.

Eisenhower, a man often underestimated for the depth of his knowledge and foresightedness, understood that it was of extreme importance that everything the conquering Allied Forces saw, smelled or felt be committed to film - both cinematic and still. His reason? He understood that the day would likely come - whether it be in a year, a decade or even more - that people would forget the Holocaust; would declare that it never had happened . . . that it was all a myth perpetrated by the very people “claiming” to have been its victims.  

   Hebrew translation: “The Israeli connection to the Twin Towers terrorist attack.”

Eisenhower’s prescience was and still is, sadly, a marvel to behold. For the number of “Holocaust Deniers” is continually growing. Indeed, it is an essential part of the bedrock that underlies the philosophical feculence called QAnon. As noted in a recent ADL report on the frightening growth of anti-Semitism in both America and around the world: Today, the most popular QAnon influencer, GhostEzra [recently outed as Robert Randall Smart of Boca Raton, FL], is an open Nazi who praises Hitler, admires the Third Reich, and decries the supposedly treacherous nature of Jews. 

 It is estimated that the ironically-named “Smart,” has a minimum of 300,000 followers on the so-called “Deep Web,” best described as “the parts of the web not indexed (searchable) by search engines.  His followers are conspiracy theorists of the highest (or deepest) water; they are fervent Holocaust deniers who find George Soros’ fingerprints (as well  as his billions) on virtually everything from Democratic pedophilia and COVID-19 vaccines to the “stealing” of the 2020 presidential election.  They are loony, dangerous, very, very well-armed, and more than willing to kill in order to “save” America and the White Western World from the Great Satan. Believe it or not, there are even QAnon followers in Israel!

As recent as the mid-1980s (when he would have been in his nineties) there were people the world over who, at the drop of a hat, would proclaim that Hitler was alive and well, and living in Argentina (or Bolivia or Peru). Similarly, there are inane conspiracists today who fervently believe that  J.F.K. Jr. is still alive, well, and about to reappear in the public square in order to announce that he is going to be Donald Trump’s running mate in the 2024 election.  Shakespeare hit the nail on the head when he put into the mouth of Puck “Lord, what fools these mortals be” (A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream, Act 3, Scene 2).   

Of course, it’s not just QAnon and their unlettered fellows who are unfurling and raising aloft the flag of anti-Semitism. Hatred of Jews, Jewish ideas, ideals, and accomplishments, have long earned the obloquy of the frightened, the fearful and the utterly feckless.  A Holocaust-era chestnut told the tale of an anti-Semite who asked  a fellow he knew: "Who is to blame for our economy going to hell in a hand bucket and everything else falling into the trashcan?” His friend told him: "It’s simple: it’s the fault of two groups: the bicycle-riders and the Jews.”  “What in the world do the bicycle-riders have to do with our problems?” the man asked.  “Beats the daylights out of me,” his friend responded.  “What in the hell do the Jews have to do with our problems?” 

And so it goes . . .

Late last week, The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) released a report showing that, in 2021, there were more anti-Semitic incidents in America than in any year since the group started keeping track over 40 years ago. The rapid growth of Jew hatred isn’t limited to the United States. According to a new report from the Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel Aviv University, anti-Semitic incidents were up last year in countries including Australia, Britain, Canada, France and Germany. Comparisons to 2020 might be misleadingFeducated because pandemic lockdowns likely reduced the numbers of anti-Semitic assaults and in-person harassment. But in several countries, including the United States, there were more anti-Semitic incidents in 2021 than in the prepandemic year 2019.

As the New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg noted in a trenchant op-ed piece, “. . . something has obviously gone wrong. The question is, what? Some, she notes, blame the left for being anti-Zionist . . . as if finding fault with the Israeli government (which I do from time to time) is really anti-Semitism cloaked in a kippah (a Jewish skullcap, often called a yarmulke, which I myself wear). An extension of this observation would then have it that anyone who does not support everything the Israeli government says or does is really an anti-Semite. To me, this is stuff and nonsense; they should study the centuries-old arguments of the rabbis of the past, who made careers of disagreeing with one another. These were not haters of Jews; they were seekers of truth.

Just yesterday, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with California Representative Adam Schiff and 9 other Democratic members of Congress met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in war-torn Kyiv (which had been bombed just hours before their secret arrival), Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov caused an absolute furor when he told an Italian interviewer that Russia’s purpose in invading Ukraine was to ““denazify” the country - a justification which Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly used for months.  When the Italian interviewer mentioned that President Zelenskyy was himself Jewish and had lost family members in the Holocaust, Lavrov responded “. . . when they say ‘How can Nazification exist if we’re Jewish?’ In my opinion, Hitler also had Jewish origins, so it doesn’t mean absolutely anything. For some time we have heard from the Jewish people that the biggest antisemites [sic] were Jewish,"  One can only imagine how well that comment is being received by anti-Semites around the world.  Once again, the victims are being accused of having been the perpetrators. . .

The reason - or reasons - for the stunning rise in anti-Semitic incidents both in the United States and worldwide is nigh on impossible to thoroughly comprehend. Certainly, there is an [un]fair measure of anti-Zionism involved, though, as mentioned above, simply being critical of Israel does not necessarily make an individual, a group or a political alignment guilty of being anti-Semitic. Then too, the explosive growth and untrammeled “Wild West” nature of social media over the past generation has made the spread of all kinds of mis- and disinformation and conspiracy theories available to the credulous masses. But in the main, the reason for the growth of the baseless hatred of Jews is what it always has been: cultural breakdown and economic uncertainty, which frequently lead to both antisocial behavior and the dire need to “pin the tail on the donkey.” It’s what the father of sociology, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), himself a French Jew from a long line of Rabbis, called anomie, generally translated as “normlessness” . . . a "condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals."

It is absolutely essential to restore norms to society; to challenge anyone who is shallow, callow or ignorant enough to liken anything or anyone they don’t agree with to Hitler or the Nazis;  to have the courage to stand with the angels (in the Jewish world we call them mentchen),  call a monomaniac a menace, and refuse to remain silent before the megaphones of mendacity.  

I have long pondered - with a soupçon of frustration - about what came first: Jews or anti-Semites. “How’s that?” you may well ask. At times it just seems to me that if G-d in Co’s (the “Divine Possessive Pronoun” id est .. His/Her) infinite wisdom had not created the Jews, the “Eternal People,” anti-Semites, in their infinite depravity, would have, in order to possess a target for their eternal hatred and inhumanity. As a question, it is no doubt a non-starter . . . but one which has long drawn my attention.

Another imponderable is how or what can ever bring an end to anti-Semitism . . . to the hatred of Jews? It is undoubtedly the case that psychopathy cannot be cured with a pill, shockwaves or a set of facts and photos. What can help - if not solve - this menace is a commitment on the part of individuals, leaders and nations to make the world saner, less economically unbalanced, and more universally educated; to do whatever we can to delimit the causes of severe anomie . . . toxic normlessness.

Or, to slightly paraphrase the late Pete Seeger, Oh when will we ever learn?

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

“Our greatest fears lie in anticipation.”

                            Honoré de Balzac (1799-1850).

As I begin writing this week’s essay, it is 11:15 AM EDT, on Sunday, the 24th of April 2022. The citizens of France are at the polls, voting for whether centrist Emmanuel Macron, the 8th President of the Fifth Republic of France will retain his presidency, or be bested by the ultra-right populist Marine Le Pen. Although going into the final days of the runoff campaign Macron’s polling show him to be ahead Le Pen by nearly 10 points, few political observers are sanguine about Macron being reelected for another 5-year term.  That’s just in the nature of French national politics. 

French politics have certain similarities to that which we experience here in the U.S.  As is the case here across the pond, the French have a political left, right and center, although it is quite a bit more delineable in the land of Liberté, égalité, fraternité.  Unlike in America, these political approaches are more or less codified into three separate political parties . . . but with a decided difference.  Le Pen’s political party, the National Rally (Rassemblement National, formerly the “National Front”) is quite a bit more hard core far-right than our Republican Party; Macron leads  the centrist La République En Marche! (frequently abbreviated LREM, and translatable as The Republic on the Move, or The Working Republic); LREM was Macron’s attempt to create a political home for those who were neither as statist as the Socialists nor as anti-immigrant or Fascistic as the far-right. Lastly, there is a far-left democratic-Socialist party called La France Insoumise  (“France Unbowed”), headed by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a former member of the European Parliament (MEP), who is, roughly speaking, the French equivalent of Bernie Sanders. In  the first presidential primary, Mélenchon came in 3rd with nearly 23 % of the vote.  Today, many Mélenchon supporters are either voting for Macron or staying home and abstaining.

The title of this week’s post, “Our greatest fear lies in anticipation,” (Nos plus grandes craintes résident dans l’anticipation) comes from La Comédie humaine by the great French writer Honoré de Balzac (1799-1850). Always filled to overflowing with pithy maxims, de Balzac really hits the nail on the head here. For with regards to today’s election in France, it’s not so much the anticipation of whether Le Pen will defeat Macron which stimulates our fear, but rather whether she - like Donald Trump here in America - will wind up having more power than Macron in shaping the next five years.

Like Trump and his coterie, Le Pen is a pathologic Islamophobe. Although she has toned down the verbal hatred and outrageousness since she last took on Emmanuel Macron, her political positions remain the same: anti-NATO, anti-immigrant and pro-Putin. When it comes to Putin, Le Pen has been totally up front and totally prideful about accepting a multi-million dollar loan from the Russian strongman. Were she to G-d forbid win the election  she would then be able to attack NATO from the West while Putin does his best to bring it down from the East.

IT IS NOW 2:15 EDT: JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, MARINE LE PEN CONCEDED THE ELECTION TO EMMANUEL MACRON!

HALLALUYAH!

Unlike Donald Trump, Mlle. Le Pen freely admits she’s been soundly defeated. The latest figures show Pres. Macron besting the final polling figures. (n.b. As of midnight the final figures are Macron 58.5%, Le Pen 41.5%). It should be kept in mind, that 5 years ago, he defeated Marine Le Pen by a much wider margin than today’s 17 points. However, this is the first time that an ultra-right candidate has scored above 40% in  a presidential election. Being a political animal, Mlle. Le Pen, who publicly ran on such issues as “. . . our daily lives - salaries, taxes, pensions” -  put the best, most positive spin on her loss as possible, calling the results ". . . a shining victory . . . in this defeat, I can’t help but feel a form of hope.”  It should be noted that the French will go back to the  polls for Parliamentary elections on June 12 and 19.  It is likely that Le Pen’s Rassemblement National will pick up additional seats in the 577-member body.  As of this morning, Macron’s La République en Marche group has 308 deputies.  It will be Le Pen’s purpose to get as many of her allies elected, thereby weakening Macron’s chances for enacting his national political agenda.

As word spreads across Europe of Macron’s victory, various leaders have expressed their overwhelming joy:

• Spanish P.M. Pedro Sánchez: “Democracy wins. Europe wins.

• European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: “Together we will make France and Europe advance.”

• Italian Premier Mario Draughi: “. . . splendid news for all Europe, and a “boost to the E.U. being a protagonist in the greatest challenges of our times, starting with the war in Ukraine.” 

President Biden called President Macron Sunday night, but was only able to speak with members of his staff. When asked about this, Biden told reporters after returning to Washington from a weekend trip in Delaware, “I feel good about the French election . . . . I tried to talk to him last night. I spoke to his staff and he was at the Eiffel Tower having a good time. And I’m going to be talking to him today.”

The French, it has long been noted, don’t generally love their presidents; with his victory, Macron becomes the first to be reelected since 2002.  Somewhat predictably, Le Pen did better in the country’s north and in southern areas along the Mediterranean; both areas are rural, economically depressed and less educated.  Macron’s base is largely urban, better educated and far less likely to blame France’s economic and cultural difficulties on immigrants.  If this sounds a bit familiar, it should; in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and much of Europe, political divisions are drawn largely between those who are fearful of being overrun by “aliens” and those who see that the future will undoubtedly be different . . . so why not help make the best of it?

Considering the frightful rightward turn in the politics of so many countries, Macron’s victory offers for many, a brief international sigh of relief. Today we celebrate; tomorrow many will be back to fearing the future. For those inclined to fearfulness, remember de Balzac’s insight . . . that the genesis of fear is anticipation. Anticipation - whether it be about future success or failure - is at root an abstraction; it need not be real. Let us hold on to Emmanuel Macron’s victory and see it as a harbinger for greater sanity and humanity in the political realm, rather than a mere blip on the screen of growing autocracy.

Vraiiment: ‘Nos plus grandes craintes résident dans l’anticipation.

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

"There Are More Horses' Asses Than There Are Horses"

Audio Block

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

Without question, Dorothy Parker and Will Rogers were two of the most notable, quotable wits of the past century or so. Parker, a poet and world-class epigrammatist, screenwriter and saucy satirist, the teeny-tiny “mouth that roared” was best known for such pity maxims as “Men don’t make passes at girls who wear glasses,” The best way to avoid a hangover is to stay drunk,” and a marvelous epigram about the equally quotable Oscar Wilde which appeared in a 1927 issue of the original Life:

If, with the literate, I am
Impelled to try an epigram,
I never seek to take the credit;
We all assume that Oscar said it.

Then there was Will Rogers: vaudevillian with a lariat, beloved motion picture actor, political commentator and honorary mayor of Beverly Hills, He was perhaps best known for the statement: “I belong to no organized party; I am a Democrat.” One of Mayor Rogers’ very best political quotes (although wrongly attributed to Watergate figure G. Gordon Liddy) is as satirically insightful today as when he first uttered it nearly a century ago: “There are more horses’ asses than there are horses.”  Rogers’ bon mot is, perhaps, best understood by Parker,  who once noted: “There’s a hell of a distance between wise-cracking and wit. Wit has truth in it; wise-cracking is simply calisthenics with words.”

And indeed, when considering all the utter cruelty and cerebral rigor mortis occurring in partisan politics these days, Rogers’ quip about horse’s asses is absolutely spot on.  Need some examples? Just the other day, while a clear majority of America was proudly celebrating Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation to become the first Black woman to sit on the United States Supreme Court, there was a concurrent walkout of every Republican senator (save one, Utah’s Mitt Romney) the moment Vice President Harris announced the final vote.  Despite possessing virtually every quality and experience one might wish for a Justice - including humility and brilliance - 47 Republicans voted against her, claiming either that she was soft on crime, supported pedophilia or possessed an “activist” judicial philosophy.  Did they really believe it?  Of course not; they simply did not want to give the Republican base a reason to challenge them in the next election.

Then there’s the case of another Black judge, the late Joseph W. Hackett (1932-2021) who was the first Black man to serve on the Florida Supreme Court and the first Black judge on a federal appeals court in the Deep South.  Upon his passing, it seemed both natural and fair for Congress to pass a bill naming a federal courthouse after him.  When the time came to organize such a proposal, virtually every member of the Florida congressional delegation - Republican Senators Rick Scott and Marco Rubio, along with all 16 Republican members of the House and all 11 Democrats, signed on as co-sponsors.  It appeared that Judge Hackett was going to be enshrined.  History was on the side of a man who attended segregated public schools and graduated from two historically black universities, and then rose to the judicial heights. For generations, the naming of federal courthouses after distinguished jurists has been the one area where congressional bipartisanship is both expected and de rigueur.  But such was not to be the case with Judge Hackett.  As journalist Annie Karni wrote in a February 22, 2022 (2/22/22) piece in the New  York Times: “ . . . in a last-minute flurry, Republicans abruptly pulled their backing with no explanation and ultimately killed the measure, leaving its fate unclear, many of its champions livid and some of its newfound opponents professing ignorance about what had happened.   

                                                  Rep. Andrew Clyde (R.-GA)

What had happened? The late Judge Joseph W. Hackett’s nomination had appeared in Georgia Republican Andrew Clyde’s crosshairs . . . that’s what happened. Clyde, shown in the photo on the right, is a dead-ringer for the australopithecus robustus, a late Pliocene-Early Pleistocene (4 to 2 million years ago) epoch humanoid. How and why did Rep. Clyde singlehandedly turn a routine vote to name a federal building after a trailblazing judge into a Republican purity test? 

First the how: Rep. Clyde circulated a 1999 Associated Press article about one of Hackett’s decisions relating to prayer in schools. Never mind that Hackett was following Supreme Court precedent when he ruled against student-approved prayers at graduation ceremonies. This single decision made him toxic among House Republicans, with 89% eventually voting against naming the courthouse after him. Since the bill’s passage was seen as certain, it had come for a vote under a fast-tracked process that required a two-thirds majority, which meant that with Republicans suddenly opposed, it failed.  When Republican members of the Florida Congressional delegation were asked why they wound up voting against a nominee they had originally supported, most answered “I don’t know.” Well, at least they were being honest . . . 

Next the why: Rep. Andrew Clyde, like fellow Georgian Marjorie Taylor Greene, is a first-term member of the House.  In his short Congressional career, he has become known for such things as voting against a resolution to give the Congressional Gold Medal to the police officers who responded to the January 6th insurrection; opposing the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act that made lynching a federal hate crime; and voting against recognizing Juneteenth as a federal holiday.  He’s the guy who called January 6 “just a normal tourist visit,” and has been repeatedly fined for not wearing a mask on the House floor.  In other words, despite resembling a prehistoric ape, he’s one of congress’s leading horse’s asses.  And let us not forget California’s Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader in the House, who said not a word about Clyde’s - or his party’s lunacy.  And this is the man who desperately wants to become the next Speaker of the House! We can always pray that the stable suffers a bout of equine encephalitis.

This is not meant to imply that horse’s asses are housed in just one political stable. Goodness knows, one can find equine tuchases within the ranks of Democrats and progressives as well as Libertarians, Socialists and QAnon quacks.  But still and all, the largest and most egregious number reside in the Republican paddock.  

Here in Florida, we are subject to the constant whinnying of Governor Ron DeSantis who, while ignoring such major statewide issues as skyrocketing insurance premiums, unaffordable rental costs and a chief medical officer who does not believe in the conclusions of science, instead has created his own militia whose sole purpose is to ride herd on electoral fraud (?), made abortion all but illegal for women and definitely felonious for physicians, and puts  the rights of parents to keep their children from having to read any book which might “make them feel bad” well ahead of the purpose of education - teaching children how to think. Just the other day, the head of the State Department of Education announced that the state was rejecting more than 50 math textbooks from next school year’s curriculum, citing references to critical race theory among reasons for the rejections. When questioned, Gov. DeSantis said there were different reasons for the books being rejected and officials aimed to “focus the education on the actual strong academic performance of the students.” “We don’t want things like math to have, you know, some of these other concepts introduced. It’s not been proven to be effective, and quite frankly, it takes our eye off the ball.” If anyone can explain what the hell he meant by that, please text me ASAP.

So what’s the cure for this extreme number of horse’s asses? As I believe I suggested a couple of weeks ago, stockpiling tens of thousands of feet of film showing them at their worst . . . and then airing the evidence of their idiocy on ad after ad after ad. And make sure that the media asks them truth-seeking questions . . . make them justify why they are doing everything in their power to excise ethics, fairness and the truth from democracy.

When all is said and done, horses belong in stables, paddocks and racetracks; not in the hallowed halls of Congress, state legislatures, the various governors’ mansions and above all, the White House.

Copyright©2022, Kurt F. Stone

Behind Closed Doors With Senators Cruz, Hawley, Cotton and Blackburn (SATIRE)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO): “So guys, what’s your take on the confirmation hearings so far? Think we’ve scored any significant points?”

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR): “Certainly not enough to keep her from being confirmed by the Senate as a whole. But we knew that going in . . . We’ll be lucky to keep the committee from sending her name up to the floor on a tie vote, although there’s no telling how Dr. Sasse’s going to vote . . . I mean he didn’t even show up when she was being voted on for D.C. circuit last year.  Personally, I think he’s squishy soft when it comes to our issues.”

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX): “Yeah, but unless I’m dumb as a community college grad, defeating her in committee . . . let  alone the Senate . . .  wasn’t our purpose in the first place. We all know that what we’re after is scoring points with the hoi polloi . . . which I, as a graduate of both Princeton and Harvard Law, class of ‘95, where I was editor of the Harvard Law Review . . . know means the common folk, and not ‘The Upper Crust’ like most idiots do . . . “

Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): “Shut the f. . .k up Ted.  We all know you graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law, and that Josh here graduated from Stanford and Yale, and that Ben Sasse earned degrees from Harvard, St. John’s and Yale. And you can even  look over at the Dems on the committee and see Booker, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Coons and Whitehouse, all of whom graduated from Yale.  Big deal . . . none of you ever started a successful business like my Mister and me. And by the way: what’s this guys crap? I’m not a guy. I’m a a friggin gal.  And don’t you forget it!”

Cotton: “Yeah Marsha, we hear ‘ya, but right about now,  here in this little private hidey hole, you sound all kinds a’ “woke” to me.  But out there in the big, bad hard-nosed world of political warfare, you come off like some sort of June Cleaver ‘Suzy Homemaker’ clone who’d prefer hanging out in the kitchen, standing by your man.  What gives? Are you in reality a RINO?”

Marsha: “Of course not! You know better than that! It’s just that when the doors are closed, the cameras have gone dark and the stringers have scattered, we all get to loosen our girdles ‘n ties, toss out  the scripts and act and speak like real selves.  And the great thing about it is that the simpletons we urge to give us bucks and votes don’t even know the difference.  Ain’t it the truth?”

Cruz: Yeah Marsha, we all know it’s true; that’s just the nature of big-league politics . . . for both us and the folks across the aisle. Although just between you, me and the hitchin’ post, we are one hell of a lot more obvious about it than the Dems.  I mean Hell’s bells: just so long as we keep 99.44% in the  good graces of our numb-nuts leader, we’re going to keep on getting reelected, turnin’ back the country to the way it was when Mrs. Cleaver was raising Wally and the Beaver and the Lord’s Prayer was said everyday in school across the nation.  Fear’s the ticket . . . fear of the lying left-wing fake media; fear of non-Aryan immigrants and the ‘Black Lives Matter’ crowd, and fear of ‘The Squad’  . . . as if these gals are the entirety of the ultra-Socialistic Democrat Party.”

Josh: “But aren’t we going to have to eventually say what we’re for and not just what we’re against?  Up till seems to me all we’re doin’ is implying, not stating, that we’re for defending the White Christian masses from a future filled with Commies, homosexuals, pedophiles and teachers’ unions bent on ‘groomin’ children for lives filled with godless filth. I mean that’s why we kept on hammerin’ away at Judge Jackson’s record, making her seem like the kind of jurist who in an earlier day would have been the protector of Oscar Wilde, Lord Montbatten and Errol Flynn.  I mean, we couldn’t attack her on her record . . . she did one hell of a lot better at L-school than any of us, and turned out to be virtually unflappable.  Hate to  admit it,  but that woman is the real deal . . . but let’s keep it to ourselves.  We’re just lucky that the Democrats didn’t  point out that we haven’t proposed a single piece of legislation dealing with child porn . . . or that we’ve loudly supported Supreme Court nominees who are less than paragons of virtue . . . remember Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh?” 

Cruz: “Now wait just a second there Josh: when it comes to anti-child porn legislation, Lindsey Graham  does have a bill to form a commission to study online child porn (for which you, Marsha, were a co-sponsor), and I for one introduced a bill to nix Covid relief rebates to those convicted of sex offenses involving children . . .  and oh yeah, remember that book I ragged on about as being filthy dirty and ought to be removed from school libraries? Anti-Racist Baby by Ibram X. Kendi? Well, I’ll be hornswoggled: it’s now the #1 bestselling children’s book on Amazon. Sort of makes me wish I’d read the bugger instead of just claiming I had . . .

Marsha: “. . . and speaking of your bill Ted, you know as well as I that got a big fat zero co-sponsors and was never even assigned to a committee . . .  and by the way, you never got on board Lindsey’s commission bill . . . “

Tom: ‘Let’s be honest guys ‘n gal, so far as the Jackson hearing, we did the best we could.  Let’s admit it behind closed doors: nary a Republican - and that includes Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert and Madison Cawthorn -  for one second believes that Judge Brown-Jackson is ‘soft on porn.’ All we were doin’ was grandstanding to beat the band . . . and  for good reason: to stay in the good graces of the QAnon wing of the party.  We all read polls the way bookies pour over Vegas betting odds, and know very well that a poll from PRRI found that 23 percent of Republicans believe that ‘the government, media, and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who run a global child sex trafficking operation,’ and that another poll by YouGov found that fully 50 percent of Trump’s supporters believe that ‘top Democrats are involved in elite child sex-trafficking rings.”’ And while we may all agree that this is a barrel of crap while sitting behind closed doors, it would be political suicide not to have brought it up again and again and again during the hearings.  To a large swathe of  the party faithful ‘Pizzagate’ lives! Are we in agreement?”  

Ted, Josh and Marsha: YES INDEED!”  

Ted: We’ve got to keep on hammerin’ away at the idea that so long as Democrats control the two houses of Congress and Senate and God forbid continue controlling the Executive Branch, America’s goin’ to become a place where parents have no say in what their children read or what they’re taught, that biological males are goin’ to be be playin’ on girls’ teams and squatting in women’s bathrooms, and that God almighty HIMself is going to be outlawed. And whether or not we believe this is true is far from the point. We absolutely must keep these fears in the forefront if we are gonna to take back the country . . . if we’re going to continue being showered with the hundreds of millions of campaign dollars our best-heeled donors can bestow upon us. I know that I for one would greatly prefer to be the savior . . . ah . . . President . . . of the United States than a mere senator from the Lone Star State. Are we all in agreement?’

Josh: “Everything except your becoming the next POTUS!”

Tom: “I’m going to have to agree with Josh on that one. How’s about you, Marsha?”

Marsha: “I haven’t really given it much thought . . . I’m too busy raising money for my 2024 reelection race - and perhaps traveling out to meet with the good folks of Ioway . . . “

Josh: OK, it’s time to tighten our ties and our girdle, throw open the doors of the hidey-hole, and get back to the task at hand . . . of warning and solving problems which we do not believe truly exist.”

All: FORWARD INTO THE PAST!!!

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Sholem Aleichem's Response to Tucker Carlson More than 160 Years Before the Fox News Mamzer Opened His Big Fat Moyl

Audio Block

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

                         Sholem Aleichem (1859-1916) at Age 24

For the past couple of weeks, in addition to all my other tasks, I have been preparing for my one-man show on the greatest of all Yiddish writers, Sholem Aleichem. I will be performing it this coming Tuesday, March 22 at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, beginning at 3:00.  If you are interested in attending, just show up at FAU’s Friedberg Hall at about 2:30 at sign up.  Or, you can call 561-297-3185.)

I’ve been appearing as the man born in 1859 as Shlomo Nohumovich Rabinovich (1859-1916) for nearly a half century now, and each time I do, I try to make “his” performance a bit different from the last time we trod the boards. The Jewish equivalent of Mark Twain, the Russian-born Rabinovich (whose penname, Sholem Aleichem, is the most common Yiddish/Hebrew greeting, meaning, roughly “How’re ya doin’?) wrote hundreds of short stories, essays, novels and plays capturing the essence of a world which no longer exists. And yet, he is terribly universal: think of Fiddler on the Roof, which, adapted from many of his stories about a Jewish dairyman named Tevye, is one of the most popular, beloved and successful musicals/movies in the history of entertainment. Oy, if only the terminally impoverished writer could have lived a bit longer, he would have become as rich as Rothschild . . . 

Sholem Aleichem (Rabinovich) was born in Pereyaslav, a small city with a large Jewish population in the Poltava Governate of the Russian Government . . . that is to say, the Ukraine . . .  in early March, 1859. His father, a prosperous merchant named Nohum Rabinovich, gave his favorite son (Nahum had 12 children), in addition to a rigidly Orthodox Jewish education, a first-class secular education in which he read everyone from Shakespeare and Dickens to Gogul and Cervantes, as well as learning math and science.  At age 18, he became tutor to Olga Loyev, the daughter of one of the wealthiest Jews in Czarist Russia.  Upon Elimelech Loyev’s death, Shlomo inherited his vast estate, liquidated it and moved to Kiev (the Yiddish pronunciation of what we today call "Kiiv,” and became a stock broker on the "bourse.”  Within a few years, Rabinovich (who had already adopted the  penname ‘Sholem Aleichem’ so that his colleagues wouldn’t know what he was doing after hours), lost  all his money.  By this time he and Olga (whose Yiddish name was "Hudel,” which would become famous years later) and their growing family, had to move from Kiev and begin a trek which would eventually see them and their 6 children (which he always referred to as his "Republic,” resettle in such cities as Odessa, Nurmi, Copenhagen, Paris, London and twice, NYC.  Olga, by the way, in order to help  support the family while her husband wrote, went on to became a dentist - the first Russian woman to do so.

Before Sholem Aleichem began publishing stories, novels and essays in Yiddish, Hebrew was the only literary language taken seriously by Jewish readers; Yiddish, the daily lingua franca of European Jews, was, from a literary point of view, only for women.  In matter of fact, all of his earliest works (including a Jewish Robinson Crusoe), were written in classical Hebrew.  His idea of writing Yiddish pieces for the masses was indeed, revolutionary.  

                            Sholem Aleichem’s Funeral Procession May 14, 1916

No matter what his financial troubles - and they were many - he continued to write . . . and write and write.  No matter where he lived and what the state of his health (he suffered from Tuberculosis, prostate disease and diabetes) he managed to publish an essay or chapter each and every week :”starring” such favorites as Tevya, Menachem Mendel and Motl, Pesya, the Cantor’s Son. His characters moved form the shetlach (small villages of the Russian/Polish “Pale of Settlement”) to New York’s Lower East Side, Paris and Johannesburg, South Africa,  provided an essential link to a world which was ever-changing.  Ironically, in his distinct cultured household, the language his "republic” spoke was Russian; none of his children were able to read their father’s works in the original.   

Always living hand-to-mouth despite his universal readership in the Jewish communities around the world, he died in poverty in New York City in May 1916, and was mourned by hundreds of thousands. (At the time, it was widely reported that upwards of 300,000 people followed his funeral march from 165 Kelly Street in the Bronx to his final resting place at the Mt. Carmel Cemetery in Brooklyn. It may well have been the largest funeral procession in the history of New York City.  His ethical will was a moving work of brilliance . . . so much so that it was reprinted on the front page of the New York Times and read into the Congressional Record by New York City Representative William Stiles Bennet. 

So what in the world has all this to do with Tucker Carlson, his coterie of bahndit’n (that’s Yiddish for “gangsters”) and the ongoing dismemberment of Ukraine?  Just  the other day, Carlson, who has been accused of being “one of the biggest cheerleaders for Russia” during the now more than four-week conflict, asked viewers on his top-rated Fox News show a series of questions about whether Putin had promoted “racial discrimination” in schools, made fentanyl, attempted “to snuff out Christianity” or eaten dogs . . . all of which he suggested the Ukrainians were engaged in.  Carlson’s central question was “Why in the Hell should we be concerned with Ukraine?”  

Two quips - one humorous, one filled with anger - coming from the mouth of Sholem Aleichem’s beloved dairyman Tevye, provide the answer:

• "Why should I break my head about the outside world? Let the outside world break its own head."  and

• "Get off my land. This is still my home, my land. Get off my land."

As things turned out, of course, more than 2 million Jewish men, women and children fled the Pale of Settlement, the vast majority of whom made the perilous trek to the  United States of America where, freed of the shackles of Czarist oppression and anti-Semitism, went from being pushcart peddlers and pants pressers on New York’s Lower East Side to creating the motion picture industry, the great department stores like Saks, Macys, Sears and Gimbels, sending their children to colleges and universities and living long enough to see them win Nobel Prizes in medicine, physics, chemistry and literature, as well as Pulitzers and Oscars.  In short, Ukraine’s - and Russia’s - loss was the world’s gain.  At the same time, Sholem Aleichem was deeply aware that at some point in time, there would arise a new era of pogroms (organized massacres of particular ethnic groups . . . most notably Jews) that would once again bring about mass exoduses and unspeakable destruction.  And  though he knew that he would not be alive at that future time (he always believed that he would die before turning 60 . . . just like his father), he urged that his children and grandchildren be at the forefront of creating peace where there would be war, and love and humanity where there was senseless bigotry and hatred.

In his last will and testament, he urged that at the time of his yarzheit (the anniversary of his death) his children, grandchildren, friends and readers gather together and recite kaddish (the mourner’s prayer written mostly in Aramaic) in whatever language they best understood  and rather than shed tears, “. . . select one of my stories, one of the really joyous ones and read it aloud in whatever language they understand best, and let my name be mentioned by them with laughter than not mentioned at all.”  

Sholem Aleichem died at his home at 165 Kelly Street, the Bronx, on May 13, 1916 - the 10th of Iyar, 5676 on the Jewish calendar.  This year, the 10th of Iyar, 5782, falls on Wednesday, May 11 on the Gregorian calendar.  I for one will be heeding Reb Sholem’s request by gathering with as many of his fans as possible via “Zoom” for  the reading of one of his most humorous stories . . . in English and yet to be selected.  In that way, not only will we be honoring his last request, but answer the bandit’n  und m’shuga’im (gangsters and lunatics) who side with the heirs of the Czars.

Anyone who would like to participate in the Zoom gathering, please email me through this blog or at kfstone@kurtfstone.com Title your email “Sholem Aleichem Zoom” and do provide your name and email address.  The Zoom gathering will begin at 7:30 EDT on Wednesday May 11 and last about 45 minutes.  A link will be sent to you on the morning of May 11.

Sholem Aleichem!

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone    

"Woke"

A couple of days ago, North Carolina Republican Madison Cawthorn, the youngest philistine in Congress, held a town hall forum in his home state. Speaking to the group - many of whom are not supporting him for reelection - he called Ukrainian President Zelinskyy (the correct transliteration of his name) a "thug," and posited that the Ukrainian government, now under siege by the Russian military, is "incredibly corrupt, and incredibly evil, and has been pushing woke ideologies." Someone should have informed the 26-year old man child that the word woke, when used in its relatively modern political incarnation is decidedly not plural. Simply stated, there are no woke ideologies. Had I been at the gathering I would have fought through the increasing nausea to inform him of his misstatement and then ask him a simple question: “Would you please define the term woke (or stay woke) in its political context for all of us?” Not having been there (thank G-d!), I can only imagine the utter jabberwalky with which my inquiry no doubt would have been met. By and large, I have rarely met a Trumpeter who has the slightest idea of what the word woke means. When coming from the mouth of a moron, it is intended to be a derisive political aspersion; a synonymous look-down-the-nose slur . . . a middle-finger-in-the-air epithet for politically correct, progressive or liberal. 

A little research turns up the fact that the term woke or the two-word phrase stay woke goes back nearly 85 years when blues musician Huddle Ledbetter (better known as “Lead Belly - the King of the 12-String Guitar”) used it in a 1938 protest song entitled Scottsboro Boys. In the song, Ledbetter tells a story about nine black teenagers who were falsely accused of raping two white women on a train in Scottsboro, Alabama, in 1931. Ledbetter warns black people that they “. . . best stay woke, keep their eyes open", when travelling through Alabama.  In addition to the Scottsboro Boys, he also wrote songs about people in the news, such as FDR, Adolf Hitler, Jean Harlow, boxer Jack Johnson and, believe it  or not, Howard Hughes.

Three decades later in 1962, African American novelist William Melvin Kelley (1937-2017) wrote an article in the New York Times titled If You're Woke, You Dig It, in which he describes a 'woke' person as someone who's aware of the experiences of black people in the United States. The term gained popularity on social media in 2014 following the killing of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old who was fatally shot by a white police officer named Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. After prosecutors said that they did not have enough evidence to bring charges of murder or manslaughter against the officer, protests took place nationwide, with the slogan "stay woke" being used to shed light on instances of police brutality against Black people.

While it originally meant “becoming woken up or sensitised to issues of justice”, its meaning has changed over time into a political slur, according to linguist Tony Thorne.

The labels 'woke warrior', 'wokerati' (a British term) and 'woke worthies' are often used to insult people on the left, who are seen by conservatives as a threat to freedom of speech. A year ago, British P.M. Boris Johnson's spokesman said he was not sure what the word "woke" meant, despite the government having declared war on "woke worthies" and introducing a law to stop them. Then too, when leaving office in January 2021, former secretary of state Mike Pompeo tweeted: "Censorship, wokeness, political correctness, it all points on one direction — authoritarianism, cloaked as moral righteousness."

Secretary Pompeo’s statement is – as Granny Annie would have it “utter canal water.”

What this brief historico-entymological journey through the land of woke teaches us is a couple of intriguing factoids:

• That woke and its linguistic derivatives have a longer history than one might suspect;

• That its meaning changes over time, and that these changes are, generally speaking, due to changes in political action and vocabulary.

• That this single one-syllable word has so many meanings - especially today - as to be almost devoid of meaning itself.

New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), herself an avatar of wokeness, tweeted not too long ago that ‘Woke’ is a term pundits are now using as a derogatory euphemism for civil rights & justice.” As one of the most visible members of her generation (who grew up in the ‘90s, she insists - unlike progressives who grew up in the ‘60s through the ‘80s - that “Woke ain’t broke.” Where once woke meant to keep one’s eyes and ears attuned to social and political injustice, today’s up-and-comers believe it is far, far more. That being woke is senseless if it does not motivate liberals and progressives to action; to the understanding that words aren’t nearly as important as sweat they can produce.  

The next time you hear or read the word woke coming out of the mouth, pen or keyboard of a political Luddite, you might demand for them to define the term . . . and prepare yourself for the  sound of silence.

Copyright©2020 Kurt F. Stone

Taking a Tip From R. Tarfon

After nearly two week’s of Putin’s savage pummeling of Ukraine, even the most obsessive of news watchers feels in need of a break. The 24-hour-a-day footage of buildings and bridges being reduced to rubble, the miles long Russian convoys and endless lines of fleeing refuges makes for moral outrage, sleepless nights and heated debate centering on two questions:

1. What’s going on in Vladimir Putin’s debilitated mind? and

2. What can we do about it?

Of course, at the same time, we marvel at - and pray for - the awesome heroism, resilience and fortitude of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his Ukrainian countrymen who, like the Maccabees of old, refuse to take it.  Then too, as we noted in last week’s blog the response of the E.U., the U.S., and countries around the world has been heartening.  No, they have not invoked NATO’s Article V, which says in black-and-white "Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all."  One reason is that Ukraine is not a member of NATO; the other is that an armed response from NATO either on land or from the air could most likely trigger World War III.  And there are debates about the wisdom of establishing a “No Fly Zone” over Ukraine, despite President Zelenskyy’s urgent request that NATO do so.

(N.B. A no-fly zone is an order to ban aircraft in a specified area. Such zones are sometimes imposed over government buildings or public places for security reasons, or over sacred sites for religious and cultural reasons. Their most contentious use is when they are used during conflicts to prevent military aircraft from engaging in hostile actions. The modern use of such strategy goes back to the Persian Gulf War. No-fly zones can allow countries to take action without committing large numbers of ground troops, relying instead on a comparatively small number of aircraft and supporting infrastructure. But enforcing such restrictions can also involve a significant use of force, including destroying anti-air defenses or shooting down aircraft.)

While diplomats and national leaders, such as French President Emmanuel Macron, Israeli P.M. Naftali Bennett (who flew to Moscow on the Jewish Sabbath, despite being a practicing Orthodox Jew) and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have all met with President Putin; here at home we have the likes of South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham calling for someone to assassinate the Russian president, and Fox News entertainer Tucker Carlson acting like Putin’s “Tokyo Rose.” And of course, the vast majority of Congressional Republicans are telling their constituents that it’s President Biden’s many weaknesses that are what gave Putin the idea of invading Ukraine in the first place.

And here we are, beset with what physicians call malaise, feeling confused and angry to the point of catatonia and wondering “what in the world can we do to help end this nightmare?

Enter the Talmudic sage Rabbi Tarfon who, lived sometime between 70 CE and 135 CE. His most famous bit of wisdom can be found in the Mishnaic work Pirke Avot (“The Ethics of the Fathers”), chapter 2, verse 16: "It is not your responsibility to finish the work [of perfecting the world], but you are not free to desist from it either.” It’s almost as if he’s speaking to us from across the centuries . . . not telling us precisely what to do, but rather reminding us that we should never sit idly by during an overwhelming crisis just because our actions cannot and/or will not solve it.  

So what can we do to help shake our feelings of anger, inadequacy and utter helplessness?

One of the best ways to be of assistance is through making a donation. There are any number of organizations collecting and distributing food, clothing, emergency healthcare, transportation, toys and housing for the millions of Ukrainians currently undergoing the worst crisis of their lives.  As of today (March 8), more than 2 million Ukrainians have fled their native land and headed mostly to Poland (which is being, for the  most part, wonderfully welcoming), Romania, Bulgaria and parts further west.

Now mind you, whenever and wherever devastation rears its ugly head, scammers are not too far behind, gobbling up tens of millions of dollars, Euros, shekels and other donations in order to line their pockets.  If there is a Hell, it is meant for them.  But please, don’t let the fear of being scammed keep you from making a donation to any of the charitable organizations we’re going to be listing below.  For those who do not yet know, there is a wonderful online organization called Charity Navigator, which is to 501c3 organizations what “Snopes” is to the world of political facts fiction and conspiracy theories: it investigates thousands upon thousands of charitable organizations from top to bottom, and then rates them on  a scale of one to five stars.  If a group, such as the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, receives the coveted 5-star rating, you can give without worry.  

What follows are five 5-star rated eleemosynary (charitable) organizations playing a large role in the Ukrainian crisis.  For your convenience, each bulleted entry begins with a live link.

• Jewish Joint Distribution  Committee: Founded way back in 1914, “The Joint” began with a cablegram requesting the American Jewish community’s support in aiding starving Jews in Ottoman-era Palestine; it continues to serve as a beacon of hope for Jews and others in 70 countries today.  It is the oldest such organization in the world.

• World Central Kitchen: Founded in 2010 by José and Patricia Andrés, the good folks of WCK are guided by the principle that  “ . . . food relief is not just a meal that keeps hunger away. It’s a plate of hope. It tells you in your darkest hour that someone, somewhere, cares about you.  This is the real meaning of comfort food. It’s why we make the effort to cook in a crisis.

• Doctors Without Borders: Recipient of the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize, DWB (Medicins Sans Frontieres) describes itself as “An independent, global movement providing medical aid where it’s needed most."  With regards to Ukraine, DWB is up and running in the port city of Odessa and in Warsaw.

• Direct Relief: According to its website, the 5-star rated charity “. . . is working directly with Ukraine’s Ministry of Health and other partners in the region to provide requested medical aid, from oxygen concentrators to critical care medicines – while preparing to offer longer-term medical aid to people displaced or affected by the conflict.”

• The International Rescue Committee: Founded at the call of Albert Einstein in 1933, the IRC now works in over 40 crisis-affected countries as well as communities throughout Europe and the Americas. They deliver lasting impact by providing health care, helping children learn, and empowering individuals and communities to become self-reliant.  They have a special project honing in on the needs of Ukraine.

This list is, of course, far from exhaustive.  There are many other sites collecting funds for Ukraine as well as “Go Fund Me” sites who likewise are aiming funds specifically for the war-torn democracy.  Please remember to check out as best you can any organization or charity seeking your hard-earned dollars for the people of Ukraine.  If you need assistance evaluating a charity please email me and I will try to lead you in the right direction.

And please, keep in mind the wisdom of Rabbi Tarfon. 

To repeat: "It is not your responsibility to finish the work [of perfecting the world], but you are not free to desist from it either.”

Copyright©2020 Kurt F. Stone

"There's a Spectre Haunting the World"

We begin by paraphrasing one of the most famous opening lines in all 19th century literature: “There’s a spectre haunting much of the world . . . the spectre of fascistic victimhood.” The literate amongst us will no doubt recognize from whence this paraphraseology comes: the opening paragraph of Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto (1848), which reads “A specter is haunting Europe—the specter of Communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre; Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French radicals and German police spies.”

Leapfrogging ahead 170 years, we find a no less brilliant, prescient and disturbing analysis of contemporary times, which should be read by anyone wishing to understand the political crisis currently engulfing the world: Professor Timothy Snyder’s The Road to Unfreedom, which begins with the words “The politics of inevitability is the idea that there are no ideas. Those in its thrall deny that ideas matter, proving only that they are in the grip of a powerful one. The cliché of the politics of inevitability is that ‘there are no alternatives.’ To accept this is to deny individual responsibility for seeing history and making change. Life becomes a sleepwalk to a pre-marked grave in a pre-purchased plot.”

Whether it be Marx or Snyder, both are (or in the case of the former, “was”) writing about tremendously dynamic, potentially earth-shattering changes in the political world. Marx wrote about an ancien regime made up of the churchmen, nobles and the ever-growing banking houses of Europe. He (along with his co-author, the German political philosopher Friedrich Engels, was concerned with a new order; one which would lift up the very victims of the ancien regime. In the case of Professor Snyder (he’s the Richard C. Levin Professor of history at Yale University), his focus is also on victims . . . but in a very different way. For his victims are not society’s dispossessed; rather they are the modern era’s version of the ancien regime, being convinced by their leaders that unless they man the barricades against immigrants, Jews, and a vicious “new world order,” they will be taken over by, and become enslaved to, a growing hoard of anti-Christian, “woke,” ultra-liberal Communist immoralists (the American version) or anti-Christian pro-Nazi fascists (the European/South American version). 

Writing in this past Saturday’s The Guardian, Jason Stanley noted that “Vladimir Putin’s pretext for invasion recasts Ukraine’s Jewish president as a Nazi and Russian Christians as true victims of the Holocaust.” To accuse Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, of being a Nazi ranks right up there with the worst lies in all recorded history. President Zelensky is, of course, himself Jewish, and comes from a family partially wiped out in the Nazi Holocaust. For the atheistic, autocratic Putin to recast himself as the ultimate defender of Christian nationalism puts him in league with America’s 45th POTUS, who somehow convinced most Evangelicals that he is the ultimate bulwark against Socialism and immorality. . . and that White Christian males – not Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jewish or Muslim folk – are modern American society’s true victims. Just as Putin asserts that Nazified Ukrainians represent a lethal threat to the Russian people, so too do Trump and his ilk warn that “ultra-left-wing Socialists and Communists” represent the gravest threat to “real” Americans.  Both believe the enemy must be defeated at all costs.  Between Putin and Trump (and their most avid acolytes) there is barely a millimicron’s worth of distance in their political weltanschauung..

Historically, it was hard-right conservative Republicans who feared and warned of “Reds under the beds” . . . those lurking writers and academics, screenwriters and actors (a huge percentage of whom happened to be Jewish) who were the true enemies of America. Today, the shoe is on the other foot; former President Donald Trump describes Putin as “smart” and “savvy, and, Fox “News’” host Tucker Carlson insists that “Hating Putin, has become the central purpose of America’s foreign policy. It’s the main thing that we talk about. It might be worth asking yourself, since it is getting pretty serious: What is this really about? Why do I hate Putin so much? Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him?” As far as the Republican right is concerned, Putin is the one standing up to the “Nazified” Ukrainian President Zelensky (who was democratically elected), while President Biden kneels before those who are doing their best to demean and destroy White Christian America. Oh what an unfathomable change of footwear!

How is it possible that the American chapter of the “Friends of Putin” can ignore that this mass murderer has ordered his troops to bomb the largest cities in a Democratic nation which is our ally, as well as deploy TOS-1 heavy flamethrowers (which are capable of vaporizing human bodies) against innocent civilians? How can they aver in poll after poll that Vladimir Putin is a more capable leader than Joe Biden? I guess they just prefer Tom Doniphon (the character played by John Wayne in the 1962 film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance) to Thomas Jefferson ‘Tom’ Destry, Jr.) the character played by James Stewart in the 1939 film Destry Rides Again). As Emily Tamkin, senior editor of The New Statesman wrote in a recent New York Times guest editorial, “The American political right was long associated with Cold War hawkishness. But in recent years the trend has shifted toward fawning praise for autocrats, even those leading America’s traditional adversaries, as well as projecting our own culture wars overseas. Where once Russia and other autocracies were seen as anti-democratic, they have now become symbols of U.S. conservatism — a mirror for the right-wing worldview.“

This “victimization” battle-cry has become both the raison d'être and basis for the platform of one of America’s two major political parties. It tells voters that they - and they alone - can put an end to all the malevolent, progressive (which they spelled either S-O-C-I-A-L-S-T, W-O-K-E or U-L-T-R-A- L-E-F-T- W-I-N-G) conspiracies designed by the “enemies of America” to continually victimize and thus destroy the “real America.”

A frightening proof of this is Florida Senator and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair Rick Scott’s 31-page GOP agenda that he’s dubbed “My Plan to Rescue America.” Scott’s 11-point proposal for what Republicans promise to do should they take back the Senate in 2022 can be summed up in a few chilling sentences:

• Finish construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border -- and name it after Donald Trump;

• Ban all racial disclosures and references to ethnicity on government forms;

• Legally recognize that there are only "two genders," and that "unborn babies are babies."

• Limit absentee ballots and demand that "no ballots that show up after election day will be counted, ever,"

• Mandate that school children say the pledge of allegiance, salute the Flag, and learn that America is a great country;

• Starve Washington’s economy, and stop Socialism;

• Eliminate all federal programs that can be done locally, and enact term limits for federal bureaucrats and Congress;

• Guarantee that Americans will be free to welcome God into all aspects of their lives;

• Guarantee that every American pay income taxes, so as to assure they have “skin in the game.”

Having lived through eight years of Rick Scott’s governorship here in the Sunshine State, many of us have discovered that as a political leader, he is both hapless and hair-brained. This proposal of his will no doubt - if used correctly by Democrats - become an albatross for Republicans in the 2022 election. For Scott’s lame rescue plan is attempting to solve problems which do not exist . . . such as stolen elections, the teaching of “Critical Race Theory" in public schools, millions upon millions of Americans not paying income taxes (ever hear of payroll taxes?”) illegal immigrants stealing jobs from hard-working Americans. In other words, Scott’s plan, like Vladimir Putin’s, is using the spectre of victimization to keep the legions in line.

But there is some hopeful news on the horizon - both in Europe and America. In Europe, we are daily witnessing both the adroit leadership skills and breathtaking heroism of President Zelensky and the Ukranian people, and the growing unity of our allies in the E.U. and NATO (even Sweden has dropped its centuries-long position of political neutrality). And here in America, it’s not so much what we see as what we‘re beginning to sense: the muteness of the institutional wing of the Republican Party towards the purveyors of victimization - folks like Trump, Scott, Cruz, Hawley, Greene, Carlson and Bannon.

Yes, there is unquestionably a spectre haunting the world . . . but precisely what spectre, only time, tolerance and the truth shall tell.

Copyright©2020 Kurt F. Stone

From Rurik to Putin is Measured in More Than a Thousand Years . . . and Less Than a Couple of Hundred Miles

Once upon a time I was really into Russian history, literature and music. I went through a long spell reading their great writers - Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Turgenev and Yevtushenko - listening to their musical masters - such as Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich - and learning about their historic underpinnings going all the way back to the days of the legendary Rurik (830 CE - 879 CE), a Varangian (that’s Scandinavian or Viking) warrior who, in the mid-to-late 9th century CE, founded the first significant dynasty in Russian history. It would be called the Rurik Dynasty. Rurik and his heirs also established a significant geographical and political formation known as Kievan Rus’, the first incarnation of modern Russia. (Notice how the name consists of two entities - Kiev and Russia - which are all over the news these days? Some things never change)

The line of Rurik (that’s a bronze statue of him on the left) continued to rule Russia well into the 16th century and the mythology surrounding the man Rurik is often referred to as the official beginning of Russian history.

All this can be read in the first book of Russian history, known variously as either The Primary Chronicle or Tales of Bygone Years, which is the history of Kievan Russia from the year 850 to about 1110.  It’s not an easy read . . . but then again, neither are novels by Dostoevsky, or poems and plays by Pushkin.  I vividly remember reading these Tales of Bygone Years sometime in the late sixties; at the time Leonid Brezhnev was First Secretary of the Communist Party, although he had yet to consolidate his power to become the regime’s ultimate leader (he would hold that post until his death in 1982, and then be replaced by the long-forgotten Yuri Andropov).

One of the things I came away with from reading this ancient work (in English translation, of course) was that even as far back as the 10th century, these mythical, eponymous figures who would one day lead the Russian Soviets, were already showing signs and symptoms of possessing an historic, geographic and political inferiority complex classically defined as “an intense personal or historic feeling of inadequacy, often resulting in the belief that one is in some way deficient, or inferior, to others.”  It has also been described to as “a sense of incompleteness” or “a gateway to narcissism.”   

In keeping up with the latest news surrounding Russian President Vladimir Putin’s shocking and - to my way of thinking, mindless - attempt to rewrite history, I see the unmistakable fingerprints of Rurik and the monks of Kievan Rus’. Like the ancients, Putin and his small inner circle of multibillionaire oligarchs are still trying to figure out who they are and where they belong  on the world stage.  Are they Europeans?  Are they Asiatic?  And what arrows do they have in their quiver to hold all the disparate nationalities, language groups, religions and time-zones (there are 11 of them ) together into a unified whole? 

 What is Putin’s ultimate goal in invading (or not) the Ukraine? To continue the process of reassembling the old Soviet Union? To earn for himself newer and greater chapters in history books yet written? To put NATO in its place? And where does this all stop? At the gates of Finland, Poland or Estonia? It seems to me that anyone who can plumb the depths of his mind and ultimate intent, is likely also capable of squaring the circle (completing a seemingly impossible task) . . . in this case, granting Russia the identity and superiority which has eluded it since the beginning of time.

Putin certainly knows and understands that invading the Eastern Ukraine is going to unleash an economic embargo against his country the likes of which haven’t been seen in decades. Russia’s two greatest assets are, of course, nuclear weapons and oil. The second is of tremendous importance.  Within the past couple of hours, Germany has pulled the plug on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline (a 765-mile-long natural gas pipeline from Russia, running under the Baltic Sea to Germany. The project is intended to enable Russia to circumvent Ukraine and other countries and pipe its gas directly into Europe), as the UK and European shares see-saw and the ruble has already sunk to a two-year low. Hauntingly, this does not seem to worry Putin at all . . . at least in public.   He no doubt understands that sanctions from the U.S., UK and other Western economic powerhouses will likely have a negative echoing affect on these economies . . . such as significant raises in the price of oil. Then again, a rise in the price of oil in Europe can be a boon to American oil companies.

Here on the home front, President Biden has, in my opinion, been handling the situation with a far greater degree of intelligence, aplomb and political craftsmanship than his predecessor ever could have hoped for. Responsible members of the Republican leadership in Congress, along with - believe it or not - the editorial page writers of the Wall Street Journal have had some pretty positive thing to say about Biden’s handling of this looming international event.

One Republican no one has heard from during the past several weeks and months is the former POTUS .. . . until just today. The former President slammed President Biden’s handling of the crisis with Russia, insisting that Vladimir Putin would never have invaded Ukraine on his watch. Touting his close relationship with the Russian autocrat (“I know Vladimir Putin very well, and he would have never done during the Trump Administration what he is doing now, no way!” ), Trump suggested on that he would have figured out a way to prevent Putin from moving troops into breakaway provinces of Ukraine, without offering any specifics. Even for Trump, the harsh attack on Biden marks a shocking break from the traditional deference that the opposition party leaders typically give to a sitting president during a mushrooming global crisis.

When all is said and done - and there is so much yet to be said and done - Putin’s reasons for invading (or not) the Ukraine are as unknowable as the Russian soul, as cold as a frigid Muscovite winter. He seems bent on earning for himself an entire chapter in the saga which began with Rurik oh so many centuries ago. At the same time, his immediate goal, Donetsk, is a mere 535 miles from the Kremlin.

The one person who likely understands Vladimir Putin the best, died 71 years before the future Russian strongman was even born: Fyodor Dostoyevsky. For in his immortal novel, The Idiot, (his own personal favorite), he writes: “Don’t let us forget that the causes of human actions are usually immeasurably more complex and varied than our subsequent explanations of them.”

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Super Bowl LVI: An American Celebration (?)

In slightly less than 2 hours, Super Bowl LVI will get underway at SoFI Stadium in Inglewood, just a couple of miles from LAX, the Los Angeles International Airport. When we were kids, the land upon which SoFI sits was the home of the Hollywood Park Racetrack, which opened in 1938. Originally built by the Hollywood Turf Club, the racetrack’s chairman was Jack L. Warner of Warner Brothers film studio. Prominent shareholders included Jack Warner's brother and fellow Warner Bros. executive Harry, Hollywood studio executives Walt Disney, Sam Goldwyn, Darryl Zanuck and actors Al Jolson, Bing Crosby, Joan Blondell, George Jessel, Ronald Coleman and Ralph Bellamy.  Eventually sold to Los Angeles Rams Owner/Chairman E. Stanley Kroenke, SoFi is the both the nation’s first indoor/outdoor stadium, as well as being home  to L.A.’s two professional football teams; the Chargers  and the Super Bowl-bound Rams.

Los Angeles’ historical name is El Pueblo de la Reyna de Los Angeles - “The Town of the Queen of the Angels.” In fact, many churches, businesses and at least 1 hospital go by the name “Queen of [the] Angels.” (Since 1989, “Queen of Angels” hospital, which now holds historic status, is called “Hollywood Presbyterian”). Somewhat ironically, Cincinnati, home of the Rams’ Super Bowl opponents, the Bengals, has been called “The Queen City” for more than a century-and-a-half, although earlier, it was frequently referred to as Porkopolis, due to the city’s rise as a pork packing center.  Cincinnati’s claim to “The Queen City” name was strengthened considerably in 1854 when Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem “Catawba Wine” was published. The concluding passage of the poem read:

And this Song of the Vine,
This greeting of mine,
The winds and the birds shall deliver
To the Queen of the West,
In her garlands dressed,
On the banks of the Beautiful River.  

Fans of Longworth well understood that he was referring to America’s most German city, Cincinnati.    Historically, the Los Angeles (and St. Louis) Rams have face the Cincinnati Bengals a mere 14 times, with the Bengals having emerged victorious in 8 of those games. 

Today’s game marks only the 3rd time the Bengals have been in the Super Bowl.  They have yet to win the vaunted Lombardi Trophy, having lost  to the San Francisco 49ers 26-21 in Superbowl XVI (1981) and again to the 49ers 20-16 in Super Bowl XXIII (1989).  By comparison, today’s game (which is now in 1 hour) will be the Rams fifth appearance; they have won just once, a 23-16 victory over the Tennessee Titans back in Super Bowl XXXIV (1999).  Most polls favor the Rams in today’s scrap.  According to the American Gaming Association there will likely be upwards of $7 billion in legal and illegal wagers.  Most of the money will be bet on the Bengals which, were they to win, would net bettors a tidier sum than a wager placed on the Rams.

Without question, the  Super Bowl is one of the year’s most  highly-rated television events, although precisely  of what viewers percentage  of the viewing audience are tuning in to watch the game itself versus those more interested in viewing ads or the half-time extravaganza starring the likes of rappers Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Eminem, Mary J. Blige, Kendrick Lamar (none of whom I am terribly familiar with) is anyone’s guess.   As for the commercial extravaganzas, we can expect spots for various beers, chips, wings and electronic devices. (Turns out, there were also quite a few spots for bitcoins, which I have concluded after a bit of research, are the early 21st century’s version of snake oil). How many millions of dollars will have been spent on talent, breathtaking technology and the like is again, anyone’s guess.

So who are you going to be rooting for? I know my sister Erica (Riki) is a steadfast Rams fan and has just texted me that SoFi is magnificent, the temperature is 86 and should the Rams win, “. . . they will own this town!” I hope her dreams come true.

As for me, I really don’t much care who wins. In a sense, I have a stake in both cities, having been born and raised in Southern California (during all those years when the Rams were just awful) and spending 5 years in Cincinnati during the late ‘70s studying for my rabbinic ordination. L.A. was and still is home. I love mountains which encircle the valleys; feel very close to its values, and still have the lion’s share of my classmates living there. And where else can one be broiling in the sun while above you, people are skiing in the snow?

But truth to tell, I rather enjoyed my years living in the Queen City; their Philharmonic was and still is world class, the zoo is fantastic, Graeter’s ice cream is the world’s absolute best, and it is still actually possible to live in a 19th century Victorian abode for next to nothing. (Our huge apartment, the “Rose Hill” in North Avondale, was the same building where Theda Bara was raised). However, I couldn’t abide by its highly conservative politics (although Jerry Springer was just beginning to make progressive waves in a city whose historic first family are the Tafts), and found the City Council to be antediluvian. Don’t forget: Cincinnati is, after all, Northern Kentucky,

In a way, today’s Super Bowl is perfectly emblematic of America in 2022; a single country with many, many differences in taste, style and politics.

(We’ve reached halftime. The Rams have a slight lead; Odell Beckham, Jr. (who wore $200,000 diamond studded cleats during pre-game warmups) is out with a badly injured knee; it’s time to stop writing and pay a bit of attention to the entertainment. Back with you shortly . . .

I’m back. Turns out that to my taste, the entertainment wasn’t terribly entertaining. I’m not terribly fond of hip-hop; my tastes run more to musical pieces with melody, harmony and tonality. Watching and listening to a bunch of multi-million dollar gold-encrusted stars play up their gangsta roots (whether real or contrived) will never replace the Stones, Airplane, CSNY or CCR, That’s just me. I also found it rather off-putting that several of the performers couldn’t lip sync very well.

Back to the game . . .

The Rams managed to pull off a squeaker of a victory. Down 20-16, the Rams went on a 15-play drive capped by Matthew Stafford’s 1-yard touchdown pass to Super Bowl MVP Cooper Kupp for the go-ahead score with 1:25 left. Kupp’s touchdown catch came after three costly penalties on the Bengals’ defense.  Throughout the game I was texting back-and-forth with my slightly older sister, who is a fanatic fan of any team headquartered in Los Angeles.  By the final whistle, she had me converted to being a Ram’s fan.

But to me, the the Super Bowl is far, far more - and far, far less - than a celebration of American sports and national pride.  It’s a sectional war between geographic and political regions; a triumph of merchandizing in which stars are paid more than most of us will earn in a lifetime just  to make a minute commercial featuring products most of us cannot afford; a roving camera pointing out all the celebrities occupying the best seats.  As Super Bowl games go, this one certainly had its moments of excitement, and definitely put both Matthew Stafford and Cooper Kupp on the map; expect to see them all over the tube and making a commercial or two in the days to come.  

But as to being an “American Celebration?”  It will never replace William Daniels, Ken Howard and Howard Da Silva in the film 1776! 

Now that’s an American celebration! 

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Mother Nature's "Self-Propelled Flowers"

Without question, one of G-d’s most unique and fascinating creatures is the butterfly, of which there are more than 24,000 individual species. Scientifically, they are of class insecta, order lepidoptera, and suborder Rhopalocera. They are among nature’s most colorful entities and unlike virtually any other thing on earth, spend far more time metamorphosing from seed to fully actualized creature than living as an adult. (Depending on the species, it can take upwards of a year to go from seed to caterpillar to chrysalis to full-fledged butterfly. And yet, the average lifespan of an adult butterfly is no more than 40 days.)

And, unlike just about anything that lives, it starts out as a work of great physical ugliness - a caterpillar - and winds up as one of nature’s most colorful beauties. The late science fiction writer Robert Heinlein (Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Starship Troopers) referred to them as “. . . self-propelled flowers.” Another writer, Anton Chekov, in comparing butterflies and moths to human beings noted: “In nature, a repulsive caterpillar turns into a lovely butterfly. But with humans it is [often] the other way around: a lovely butterfly turns into a repulsive caterpillar.” Me thinks both writers were on to a great truth.

Heinlein, because his terse description is so apt; Chekov, because he understood that many otherwise good people inexplicably devolve into base, gullible and purely repulsive creatures. In the first instance - that of understanding butterflies to be Nature’s “self-propelled flowers,” we here in South Florida have only to get into our  cars, drive a few miles, and treat ourselves to a glorious afternoon at Butterfly World in Coconut Creek which bills itself as “The Butterfly Capital of the world.” Located at 3600 W. Sample Road, Butterfly World encompasses 3 acres of butterfly aviaries, botanical gardens, a working butterfly farm and a research center. Over the past 30+ years, the park has expanded to include 2 additional aviaries for tropical birds and an interactive lorikeet encounter, as well as a skilled aviculture care and research staff to support these endeavors.  Today, Butterfly World is the home to thousands upon thousands of different species of these colorful winged creatures.  It is a marvelous place to spend an afternoon, and to my way of thinking, is one of the holiest spots on earth . . .

For his part, Anton Chekov (1860-1904), the greatest of all Russian playwrights (The Seagull, Uncle Vanya, The Cherry Orchard) and short-story writers (Rothschild’s Fiddle, The Lady With the Little Dog, The Death of a Government Clerk) was a close student of the human condition, who easily grasped both human weakness and misdirection . . .  the beauty of the butterfly and the repulsive nature of  the caterpillar.  I have to believe that were Chekov alive today, he would not be at all surprised by how a butterfly refuge at the Texas border had become the target of appalling lies created by the conspiratorial crazies who fly the flag of QAnon.  

What in the world could a butterfly conservatory have to do with QAnon . . . the anonymous online lunatics who a couple of years ago somehow tens (hundreds?) of thousands of gullible souls that a popular Washington, D.C.-area pizza parlor (“Comet Ping Pong”) was engaged in a child sex trafficking conspiracy - all under the watchful eye of then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Originally born in 2016, the so-called “Pizzagate” conspiracy - despite world-class debunking - is still alive and kicking, mostly on Tic Tok.

A week ago last Wednesday, the National Butterfly Center in Mission, Texas, closed indefinitely after a couple of years of wild QAnon conspiracy theories and mounting threats of violence, including a physical altercation with a Republican congressional candidate from Virginia demanding ". . . to see all the illegals crossing on the raft," according to a piece in The Texas Tribune. On any given day, hundreds of species of butterflies travel through the 20-year-old nonprofit sanctuary, the Houston Chronicle reports. "Birders from across the country visit the refuge to observe and photograph birds unique to the Rio Grande Valley, and thousands of local schoolchildren take field trips to the center each year."

The center’s founder, Dr. Gary Glassberg, a lifelong lover of butterflies who also developed the process of DNA fingerprinting, issued a statement about the current conspiracy which forced the center to close its gates: “We know it’s a dangerous lie . . . .  People say you’re raping babies, then unhinged people come out of the woodwork.”  Marianna Trevino Wright, the center’s longtime executive director, who has actually received death threats, told the New York Times “When I took this job, I thought I would be able to spend a good amount of time outdoors: butterflies, birds, educating children, writing grants . . . . Now every day my children literally worry whether I’m going to survive a day at work.”  What in the  world could have brought this all about?  In a word: Trump’s Border Wall.

In 2017, the National Butterfly Center sued the Trump administration to block construction of a border wall through its property. Two years later, "We Build the Wall" chief Brian Kolfage posted doctored photos of the butterfly sanctuary's dock, claiming it was being used for migrant transport and child sex trafficking. During the wall-funding campaign, Kolfage repeatedly attacked the butterfly center on social media. “Instead of enabling women and children to be sex trafficked like @NatButterflies, we are taking action! This is a war for control of the most powerful country,” (It should be noted that Kolfage was later indicted for allegedly misusing funds for his nearby crowdfunded border wall.) In a country where many believe that Satan-worshiping pedophiles run the government and that the resurrection of John F. Kennedy Jr. will restore a Trump presidency in 2024 (if not sooner), the butterfly center has become the latest unlikely victim of wild misinformation and outright lies spreading rapidly online.

Simply - and hauntingly - stated, the National Butterfly Center has become a borderland version of Comet Ping Pong.

So what can the majority - the ones whom Anton Chekov sees as being beautiful - do about the growing minority of caterpillars who believe every conspiracy put out by Alex Jones, Steve Bannon and the anonymous, eponymous “Q?”  It seems to me that responsible members of the mainstream media should bluntly, unhesitatingly question every right-wing, ultra conservative politician during their campaign appearances and press conferences and ask them how they respond to charges that the National Butterfly Center is running an underground child sex-trafficking ring or that John F. Kennedy Jr., never died and is going to reemerge to campaign for Donald Trump in 2024 or any of a number of other ludicrous notions.  Force them to admit they know it’s all a crock . . . or that they whole-heartedly support these conspiracies.  Force them to answer whether or not they support the likes of QAnon, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and all the others who have devolved from butterflies to caterpillars.  

To a great extent, various types of media share a mutual responsibility for the growth and spread of toxic and even lethal conspiracies. And in the long-run, it will take the concerted effort of various types of media to act as a rampart against the onslaught.  

Let every caterpillar evolve!

Copyright©2020 Kurt F. Stone

RFK Must Be Turning Over in His Grave

Many of us remember precisely where we were and what we were doing in the early morning hours of June 5, 1968: we were glued to the television and shedding tears. For it was shortly after midnight, that New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy, the man many of us were supporting for POTUS, was gunned down by the 24-year old Sirhan Sirhan in the kitchen of the old Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, who was then gang tackled by journalist George Plimpton, former Olympic decathlete Rafer Johnson and former NFL great Roosevelt “Rosie” Grier. I well remember sitting in paralytic astonishment, my mother next to me on the couch in the family room. The next several hours would turn out to be the first (and only) time I ever got drunk with her . . .

Senator Kennedy was such a good man.  Perfect?  No, of  course not, but he was pretty damn close for my taste.  I well remember his brother, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy’s eulogy, delivered at his memorial service held at St. Patrick’s Cathedral: 

My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it. Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world. As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not."

RFK and his widow Ethel Skakel Kennedy (who turns 94 this coming April) had 11 children over 18 years.  The third of them (after Kathleen and Joseph), born in 1954, was Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr.  Like his late father and a majority of the Kennedy family, Robert Jr. is a graduate of Harvard and earned a juris doctor at the University of Virginia.  For most of his professional career, this Kennedy has specialized in environmental law, advocating and litigating for the protection of waterways, indigenous rights and renewable energy.  He created a bottled-water company which, before being sold to Nestlé in exchange for a significant donation to local waterkeepers, turned over all its profits to Waterkeepers Alliance. Additionally, for nearly 30 years, he held the post of supervising attorney and co-director of Pace Law School's Environmental Litigation Clinic, which he founded in 1987.  Through other projects and investments, RFK., Jr. has engaged in a lot of  good works . . . typical of most Kennedys past, present and, we can only pray, future.

But then too, there is a disturbing side to Bobby Kennedy’s namesake . . . one which began evincing itself as far back as 2005.  RFK, Jr. was a founding board member of the Food Allergy Initiative. His son suffers from anaphylactic peanut allergies. Kennedy wrote the foreword to The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, in which he and the authors falsely linked increasing food allergies in children to certain vaccines that were approved beginning in 1989. Kennedy is the chairman of Children's Health Defense (formerly the World Mercury Project), an advocacy group he founded in 2016. The group alleges that a large proportion of American children are suffering from conditions as diverse as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), cancer, and various autoimmune diseases due to exposure to certain chemicals and radiation. The Children's Health Defense has blamed and campaigned against vaccines, fluoridation of drinking water, paracetamol (acetaminophen), aluminum, wireless communications, and others “dangers.” Kennedy's group has been identified as one of two major buyers of anti-vaccine Facebook advertising.

All this is merely the tip of a potentially lethal iceberg.  It should perhaps come as no surprise then that RFK, Jr. has been a longtime anti-vaxxer, anti-masker whose lies and anti-science rhetoric have fueled the anti-vaccine movement. According to a study by The Center for Countering Digital Hate (PDF) there are just a dozen people who are responsible for 65% of the COVID-19 disinformation being spread on social media platforms; unbelievably, Kennedy and his organization, Children's Health Defense, were the second biggest offenders.

Goodness knows, many of us have become sadly enured to the anti-vaxx, anti-mask conspiratorial rantings of everyone from Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Senator Rand Paul and Representatives Paul Gosar, Matt Gaetz and Madison Cawthorn, to loonies like radio talk-show conspiratorialist Alex Jones and soon-to-be confirmed Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo. Whether they really, truly believe the shund (that’s a dismissive Yiddish term meaning, roughly, “dramatic theatrical trash”) or not is beside the point. Some are vaccinated liars who are merely doing what they do and saying what they say in order to gratify and thus solidify their political base. But Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr.? What in the hell is wrong with him? I mean, he’s neither running for office nor attempting to fill his already overflowing bank account.

And, to make matters even worse - if that’s possible - RFK, Jr.,  like the worst of the anti-vaxxers, has, on many occasions likened the directives of science and medicine to the Nazi’s “final solution.”  This past January 25, appearing at an anti-vaccine, anti-mandate rally in Washington, D.C., Kennedy Jr. told the crowd that today’s COVID-19 mandates, along with technological advances in surveillance, had rendered anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers more persecuted than Anne Frank. (Pardon me while I brekh’n - that’s Yiddish for “upchuck.”)

His exact quote was: “Even in Hitler’s Germany, you could cross the Alps into Switzerland, you could hide in an attic like Anne Frank did. I visited in 1962 East Germany with my father, and met people who had climbed the wall and escaped. So it was possible. Many died [inaudible], but it was possible.”

Anne Frank?  Doesn’t Jr. care or realize that Anne Frank is one of the world’s best-known symbols of the profound tragedies of the Holocaust; that she is a reminder of what was lost when humanity failed to stop the rise of Nazi fascism?  Bobby Jr.’s comment - and this is certainly not the first time he’s made it - brought about a torrent of negative comments. So much so that he did issue an apology on his Twitter feed: “I apologize for my reference to Anne Frank, especially to families that suffered the Holocaust horrors. My intention was to use examples of past barbarism to show the perils from new technologies of control. To the extent my remarks caused hurt, I am truly and deeply sorry.” But this was far from enough.  Both his sister Kerry and wife, the actress Cheryl Hynes (of “Curb  Your Enthusiasm” fame) issued  stunning condemnations.  Kerry Kennedy wrote: “Bobby’s lies and fear-mongering yesterday were both sickening and destructive. I strongly condemn him for his hateful rhetoric. He does not represent the views of @RFKHumanRights or our family.

His wife, who has a recent history of throwing house parties that expect visitors to have proof of vaccination and other sensible COVID-19 public health precautions—tweeted out: “My husband’s reference to Anne Frank at a mandate rally in D.C. was reprehensible and insensitive. The atrocities that millions endured during the Holocaust should never be compared to anyone or anything. His opinions are not a reflection of my own.”

I for one simply cannot fathom how anyone with an ounce of sense or an education can buy into the anti-vaxx, anti-mask, anti-Dr. Fauci, anti-Bill Gates world of conspiracies.  I have a feeling that the late Senator  Robert F. Kennedy would not have been able to either.

His son and namesake must be giving him many sleepless  nights in the world beyond . . .

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone