Please Forgive My Relative Lack of Humility . . .

Dear Family and Friends, Colleagues and Congregants, Students and Readers:

From time-to-time, I am asked that most obvious of questions “What do you do for a living?” It is usually met with silence and a pull on my beard. I have long thought that the reason a rabbi has a beard is so that he may look reasonably wise even though he hasn’t the slightest idea of what the answer is. (I use the masculine pronoun here; despite the fact that I have many brilliant female colleagues, none of them have beards!)

The problem I have in answering this rather simple question is that over a period of more than a half-a-century, I have been:

• A practicing rabbi;

• An adjunct professor of Politics, History, Cinema and Literature at several universities for more than a quarter century

• A political biographer with numerous published books under my belt;

• A political speechwriter, Capitol Hill staffer and campaign surrogate for the likes of Barack Obama and HIllary Clinton;

• One of the first environmental ethicists ever to serve in government;

• A radio journalist who covered both Watergate and the Patty Hearst kidnapping;

• A blogger with more than 1,000 essays posted on everything from Ancient, American and European History to classic literature, baseball trivia and the creation of the motion picture industry;

• A longtime medical ethicist who has participated in a majority of all COVID-19 and Cancer Moonshot clinical trials;

• An actor who has staged more than 400 performances of “An Evening With Sholem Aleichem.” over a 45-year period.

• And most importantly, a son, brother, husband, father, grandfather and pet lover.

Writing all this out brings on a wave of fatigue . . . but that’s part of what I’ve been doing to earn a living since my late teenage years.

Is it any wonder that I pull on my beard when asked what I do for a living?

Well, just the other day, the good people of “Who’s Who in America,” of which I’ve been a part since 1997, informed me that I have been selected as a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. Unlike most of the other recipients over the past century, I will be one of the few who is not listed in any one field. . . . it’s the “polymath syndrome” within me. By definition, a “polymath” is a person characterized by a great curiosity that leads him/her to continuous learning and involvement (if not mastery) in many different subject areas and languages,

I guess that’s me. I’ve always believed that “growing old is a fact of life; growing up is purely one’s choice.”

I did not want to share this “achievement” with all of you lest you think I was qvelling (Yiddish for “boasting” or “bragging.”) However, Annie urged me to write this essay for, as she bluntly stated, “You’ve earned it.”

Even though it’s not the Oscar, it’s something I will value all the days of my life.

Thanks for reading . . . and for being my family and friends (some, like fellow “Hollywood Brat” Alan Wald, since early childhood) students, and congregants, critics, naysayers and admirers.

KFS

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

The Historic Importance of January 6th . . . 1941

                     January 6, 1941: “The Four Freedoms”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    jean Baptiste Alphonse Karr 

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

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

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

Purim, Politics, and Satire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She’s the girl who saved our people,

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

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

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

When she heard the news from Mordechai

Of what Haman planned to do,

She retreated to her chamber,

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

Praying slow, seeking out the one solution

That would “let her people go”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

Sorry to Say, But Karl Marx Knew What He Was Talking About

Without question, Madame’s first cousin, Mercedes (Mitzi) Debardas Dworin (1922-2016) was my favorite member of the Hyman/Kagan/Chicago side of the family. For not only did Mitzi throw the party at which my mother and father first met in Beverly Hills more than 80 years ago; she was a literate, thorough-going political animal who had no fear calling a spade a spade or a virulent anti-Communist a fascist troll. (She was also the only one in the family who pronounced my name in the European fashion . . . “Kourt.” Up until nearly the end of her life, she was tweaking the political right; in 2014 she responded to an article on former Texas Governor (and then Secretary of Energy) Rick Perry on her Facebook page, writing: “Not even his new-fangled glasses can mask the fact that Gov. Perry is dumber than a bag of hair!”

For quite a few years, Mitzi would host a smallish December luncheon in her home at 313 N. Maple Drive for the surviving members of the Hollywood Blacklist.  As one can well understand, with each passing year, the number of luncheon guests dwindled until, by 2011, the sole survivors who were able to attend, were screenwriter Norma Barzman (who, so far as I know will be 104 this coming September 4), and Norman Corwin, "The Grand Master Of American Audio Theatre," and screenwriter for Kirk Douglas’ 1956 film “Lust For Life.” Mitzi always scheduled these lunch-gatherings for late December, knowing that Annie and I would be in town to listen to them discussing contemporary politics sharing their most difficult memories and letting them know that someone (moi) would keep their names, history and travails alive for yet another generation or two. . .

From the late 1930s through the beginning of the Kennedy era, to be a virulent anti-Communist generally meant being either an ultra-conservative Republican isolationist, or an unreconstructed Southern Democratic racist. These anti-Communists aimed their knives at, among others, union members and their leaders, teachers and blacks. When it came to the movie industry, these hellions of hatred became completely unhinged, hauling actors, screenwriters, directors and producers (a majority of whom were Jewish) before various Congressional committees in order to ask what became the most haunting question of the age: “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” Many took the Fifth, and were forced out of the industry; others “named names,” thus becoming pariahs to their colleagues. Some were sent to prison. Then, there were the self-taught “experts” on Communism who, at the drop of a hat, pointed fingers and told tales of precisely who was out to foment revolution within our borders. Such “experts” became so reviled by progressives that they became eternally damned, their names never again mentioned in polite company . . . among them were the likes of Adolphe Menjou, Robert Taylor, Cecil B. DeMille, Barbara Stanwyck and Ronald Reagan (who, ironically, was the only POTUS to ever lead a trade union . . . the liberal Screen Actors Guild . . . but then again, Ronnie at one time supported actress/U.S. Rep. Helen Gahagan Douglas [aka “The Pink Lady”] over Richard Nixon in the 1952 California senate election).

Not only were people in those days attacked for having been a member of the C.P. back in their youth; they were accused of being “premature anti-Fascists,” “Fellow Travelers” and what today we might call either  “influencers,” or “groomers.”  (One of the actors on my paper route, the blacklisted Hershel Bernardi told me that indeed, he had joined a couple of left-wing groups in his youth due to a girl friend he sought to impress.) There were far too many victims, and not enough heroes or heroines.  It was a terribly difficult time; so many lives, reputations and the ability to earn a living were at stake. There also emerged a kind of PTSD; to the best of my recollection, Madame never, ever signed a petition - even if it was something she believed in - for fear that it would come back to haunt her.  The fear and paranoia engendered by the daunting conspiracies of a generation did not fade; many of the victims took the fear and paranoia with them to their graves.  (BTW: One of the best histories of this era of blacklisting was written by the late actor Robert Vaughn: Only Victims, which served as his PhD dissertation when he was a doctoral student at the University of Southern California. in the late 1960s.)

Being both a Hollywood Brat and a longtime student of American political history and its psychological underpinnings, I have long had my doubts about whether all these virulent anti-Communists really, truly feared Karl Marx’s “haunting spectre” — “the spectre of communism,” or whether they merely glommed onto a political cause which would pay dividends both in the press and at the ballot box. Remember that before “Tailgunner Joe” McCarthy became the end all and be all of anti-Communism, he was known around Washington as “The Pepsi Cola Kid” - a tool of business interests who had accepted a loan from Pepsi-Cola in exchange for working to end sugar rationing (he paid it back), and money from a construction company in exchange for opposing funding for public housing (which he eventually voted for).

From the time of his election to the Senate in 1946 until he gave a history-changing speech in Wheeling, West Virginia in February of 1952 (in which he held up a piece of paper proclaiming “I have here in my hand the names of dozens upon dozens of Communists who are infecting our State Department”), McCarthy was considered a light-weight. Once he gave that speech - and many just like it - he was on the front page of every newspaper in the country and soon found himself the leader of a movement . . . which up to the age of Marjorie Taylor Green and Ted Cruz, is still referred to as “McCarthyism.” Oh to be the eponymous ancestor of a movement!

In years past, anti-Communist Republicans and racist Southern Democrats loudly attacked and spoke and tried their damndest to legislate out of existence such “Socialist” programs as Social Security, Medicare and federal spending on everything from education and public housing to feeding poor children. The rhetoric never changes, just the names of the speakers. We recently saw another McCarthy - Speaker Kevin - promise to legislate against Social Security and Medicare in exchange for being given the gavel he has long dreamed of wielding. He has as much of a chance of succeeding as Robert Taft did back in the 1950s or Newt Gingrich in the 1990s.

Make no mistake about it: MAGA Republicans are just as much against anything and everything that smacks or smells of communism or socialism as were their predecessors. The one enormous difference between yesteryear and today is from whence these MAGAites see the conspiracy emanating. In an earlier age, the face belonged to Stalin, and the place was Moscow. Today, the faces are those of Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schiff, George Soros and anyone who believes in Democracy over autocracy or freedom over oligarchy. Unbelievably, where Russia was freedom’s greatest enemy during the Cold War, today, Vladimir Putin is more praiseworthy than the Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy. (How ironic it is to hear President Zelenskyy attacked as “nothing but a third-rate television comedian” by those who revere Donald J. Trump, a fifth-rate television presence.)

It makes one ill to hear Republican leaders deride the war in Ukraine, attack President Biden for his surprise visit to Kyiv, and for being more concerned about that war than about the needs of the American people, or warning that there should no longer be a “blank check” for that war. Whatever happened to proudly being a beacon of freedom for the rest of the world? Then again, perhaps the Clown Car Caucus has been spending so much time deriding the President, his family and his party, that they’ve failed to note all the bills he’s passed which will lower drug prices, beef up micro-chip production and rebuild bridges, highways and schools.

Will we ever awaken from this nightmare where Russian autocracy is preferred over American Democracy? Or was Karl Marx being spot-on when he noted nearly 175 years ago that “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”

I for one am sick and tired of farce being played out by a bunch of political philistines.

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

Is the USA a "Melting Pot" or a "Salad Bowl?"

  This past Valentine’s Day, PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute, which describes itself as a “nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to conducting independent research at the intersection of religion, culture, and public policy,” issued a report on the astonishing growth of Christian Nationalist beliefs within the American political system . . . overwhelmingly so among conservative “MAGA” Republicans and Evangelicals.  Researchers for PRRI found that more than half of Republicans polled believe that America should/must be a strictly Christian nation, either adhering to the ideals of Christian nationalism (21%) or sympathizing with those views (33%).  

  Christian nationalism is a worldview that claims that the U.S. is a strictly Christian nation and that the country's laws should, therefore, be rooted in Christian values. This point of view has long been most prominent amongst white Evangelicals, but of late, has been receiving a lot of lip service from non-Evangelical Republicans in general.

  During an interview at a Turning Point USA event last August, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene told the overflow audience that Republican Party leaders must of necessity become more responsive to the party’s base which, she claimed, is made up largely of Christian nationalists.  And Ms. Taylor Greene, who is gaining media minutes with every passing day, is by no means the loudest voice in the pews advocating the ideals and political theology of Christian Nationalism within  the public square.  Whether they take the Bible literally - or go to church every Sunday, or publicly advocate living morally upright lives - is well beyond the point; they have found yet another cause by which they can capture the votes of otherwise under-educated, politically unsophisticated naïfs. 

  Over the past many years, members of Congress have offered up resolutions - and even a proposed Constitutional amendment - proclaiming that “America is a Christian nation.” Their arguments never seem to change: either, that the Founders ‘intended” America to be a Christian nation,” or citing Supreme Court Justice David Josiah Brewer’s lead opinion in the 1892 case Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States. The first argument - that the Founders “clearly intended the United States to be a Christian Nation” can - and has been - easily disproven. Even before he became President, George Washington may have said it best, if not first: “Religious controversies are always more productive of acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.” President Jefferson denied that Jesus was “a member of the Godhead,” and Benjamin Franklin, a co-author of the Declaration of Independence with Jefferson, (and like him, a thorough-going Deist) decried Christian church services for promoting church memberships instead of “trying to make us good citizens.”
  So far as the 1892 Supreme Court case, whose origin was an 1885 law called the Alien Contract Labor Law which prohibited “the importation and and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract . . . “, the Court ruled unanimously that the Church of the Holy Trinity was not in violation of the law and could indeed employ the services of an Anglican minister who had been brought to New York from England for the purpose of service to the congregation. What is still remembered and frequently cited from this case is one sentence in Justice David Josiah Brewer’s opinion: “These and many other matters which might be noticed add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” Justice Brewer’s obiter dictum has come into question dozens upon dozens of times over the past 120+ years. And yet, it is still raised by Christian Nationalists to “prove” that their belief is settled law.

Over the past several years, one of the unlikeliest - and least comprehensible alliances has been that between Donald J. Trump and America’s Evangelical/Fundamentalist community. How and why such a rigorously pious swathe of America could lend so much support and so many dollars to a man who has evinced less moral fiber than any of his predecessors is beyond reason . . . except for the fact that preachers from Maine to Southern California have told their flock to do so. An article in last Thursday’s Rolling Stone authored by Tim Dickenson summed up this mystery . . . and the possible fall from “messiahship” for Trump in 2024: “White evangelical Christians are the beating heart of the GOP base. Perhaps the wildest feat of Trump’s political career was convincing the fundamentalist faithful that he — a philandering, thrice-married, “pussy” grabber — could advance the cause of Godliness in the White House. If this bloc were to lose faith in Trump, it could doom his dream of recapturing the GOP nomination.”

At this juncture, it would seem that the mantle of political Messiah is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ to lose. Throughout his time in office, he has increasingly risen within the ranks of Christian Culture Warriors - even without using too much overtly Christological language. His support for the removal of “immoral” books from school libraries; making the teaching of CRT (Critical Race Theory) in schools which do not even teach it a crime; decrying anything which even hints at “DEI” (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) studies in Florida schools from K through graduate level and leading the charge for restoring the death penalty (despite the fact that the Catholic Church - of which he is a member - is universally against it . . . mark him a man who is, by implication if not invocation, fighting hard to become the leader of the Christian Nationlist pack.

Then there is Nikki Hailey, former Governor of South Carolina and Ambassador to the United Nations, who announced her candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination just the other day. She had little to say about what she would do as POTUS, made not a single reference to her former boss by name, and spoke mainly about how difficult it was to be raised as the daughter of a Sikh family in small town South Carolina.

                                                 Sarah Silverman 

To my way of thinking, the most telling thing about her announcement came even before her she made her announcement. The invocation at the event was delivered by controversial pastor John Hagee, who Ambassador Haley told the crowd she wants to be like she when “grows up.” Hagee’s history of controversial statements includes remarks that a God-sent Adolf Hitler was tasked with hunting Jewish people as part of a divine plan to send them to Israel, that Hurricane Katrina “was God’s retribution for a planned gay pride parade” in New Orleans, and that women “are only meant to be mothers and bear children.” Speaking about the event, The Daily Show guest host Sarah Silverman (one of the best comedians/political satirists in the business!) mocked Haley’s praise of Hagee: ““Oh, Pastor Hagee, I hope one day I can appreciate Hitler as much as you do,” Silverman joked. “Right now my appreciation of Hitler is like here (she raises her hand). I want to get it up, get it up to about here,” she continued with a raised-hand salute. She concluded by saying “Sure, this guy thinks the Holocaust is good and that’s not good but on the bright side, he does believe it happened. You know, you got to take the Ws (“Wins”) where you can.”

Hagee’s comment about Hitler and G-d’s divine plan to “send them (the Jews) to Israel,” is one of the most horrifying aspects of the Christian fundamentalist rendering of the Bible.  According to recent  polling by LifeWay, upwards of 80%  of evangelicals believed that the creation of Israel in 1948 was a fulfillment of biblical prophecy that would bring about the Second Coming . . . which means that anyone who has not accepted Jesus as their Messiah will be destroyed.  To a great degree, this explains why the largest and most fervent Zionist groups in the United States are Christian . . . not Jewish.  As a fairly knowledgeable and literate Jew, I could never support anyone who’s love of Israel is based on this revelation; if they succeed, we lose.

 Christian Nationalism posits that America must be a Christian Nation, which entails one hell of a lot of conversion.  To Jews, proselytizing and "spreading the 'Good News’ is about as foreign as ham and cheese on white bread.  We Jews do not have an exclusive on G-d or salvation. Co (my pronoun for “he/she”) belongs to everyone, and everyone belongs to Co. In fact, Judaism is the only religion that offers specific commandments for nonmembers. Following the story of the Great Flood, G-d commanded Noah and his sons to keep seven basic laws. Judaism believes that any Gentile who keeps those laws is righteous and will go to heaven.  Oh yes, Jews did go in for forced conversion once: there is one known case in which Jews (as a ruling power, which in itself is extremely rare) did in fact force gentiles to convert. This took place in the Maccabean era, around 168 BCE. A group called the Idumeans was forcibly converted by second generation Maccabees. However, the Idumeans’ ‘conversion’ was terribly ineffective. We learned our lesson; it doesn’t appear that the policy of forced conversion was popular with other Jewish zealots of the time and has never occurred since.  

Let us get to the original question posed in the title of this essay: “Is the USA a “melting pot” or a “salad bowl.”  According to Christian Nationalists it must be the former; according to American history it really should be the latter.  For what is a “melting pot?”  It is a place where a variety of peoples, cultures, or individuals assimilate into a cohesive whole.  (n.b. the term itself comes from a very popular play written by the Victorian/Edwardian-era playwright and novelist Israel Zangwill.  It tells the story of a Russian Jewish immigrant family, whose mother and sister were killed in a pogrom, hoped for a society free from ethnic divisions, and a refuge for all those suffering persecution for political or religious beliefs. Zangwill wrote, "America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming... Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians – into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American." The play was so popular and well-received that when it opened on Broadway in 1908, playwright Zangwill’s “date” was none other than President Theodore Roosevelt!)

For many generations, the “melting pot” theory worked pretty well.  Although there were certainly racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian feelings, the immigrants themselves wanted nothing more than to become accepted as Americans . . . to melt into the social and cultural fabric of the new world.  The melting pot provided America with a plethora of talent, skilled workers and new citizens.  But alas, in recent times, the very concept of a “Melting Pot” has morphed into something akin to a multi-Christian nation.  More and more, we have become a “Salad Bowl” - an entity which despite being a whole (a “salad”) is composed of innumerable ingredients whose individual shape, size and individuality can still be easily identified.

To my way of thinking, “Christian Nationalism” is not only unpatriotic; it is also un-American and grossly chutzpadik (Yiddish for nervy, impudent or brazen).

If I choose to live my life as an American citizen who observes the Sabbath on Saturday rather than Sunday, to read my holy books from right-to-left rather than left-to-right or stay the hell away from shellfish and cheeseburgers, that should be of no one’s concern. I am still a patriotic American; a (hopefully) noteworthy ingredient in the greatest salad ever created. For those who disagree on religious or cultural grounds know this: you are the minority . . . get used to it.

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

The 21st Century's Most Malignant Legacy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or better still:

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

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

A Look Back to the Original "Beating the Bushes" . . . Feb. 4, 2005

Eighteen years ago yesterday (February 4,, 2005), I posted my first blog essay. This week I will be posting my 923rd. Add into this number the 57 essays posted on my “Tales From Hollywood & Vine Blog, and we’re getting ever closer to 1,000 . . . my original goal oh so many years ago.

As an anniversary remembrance, I am reposting that very first article . . . back in the days when the blog was called “Beating the Bushes.” I hope you will enjoy this look back in time . . . and perhaps discover that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

February 4, 2005

Dad used to say: "The gravest sin of all is treating me like a fool." Well, the Bushies commit that sin on a daily basis -- against all of us. Just how stupid and gullible do they think we are? Who in their right mind would attack a mountain of overdue bills by first going on a spending spree? Who but a fool would be concerned with rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic? Well, the Bush Administration's proposal for privatizing Social Security is just that. Making all the recent tax-cuts permanent is more of the same.

Fudging facts (and here I'm being overly kind) and telling the American public that unless "fixed," the Social Security program is going to be totally bankrupt by (pick a year) is the height of arrogance. And for what? Giving your friends and political allies short-term financial gains? Making the world safe for . . . save for what? With each day's headlines, I am more and more reminded of the 1920s -- the era of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover -- three of the weakest, most politically inept men to ever occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Unless we, the loyal opposition, mount a serious unified campaign in both 2006 and 2008, America is going to become a second-rate nation. Its time to begin beating the Bushes . .

Copyyright©2005 Kurt F. Stone

A Pandora's Box of Existential Fears

For the past several weeks I have been spending an hour or so of daily time doing a bit of research on what - at least for me - is the newest thing in Artificial Intelligence (AI): ChatGPT. For the uninitiated (myself near the top of the list), ChatGPT was created by OpenAI, an AI and research company headquartered in San Francisco’s Mission District. The company launched ChatGPT on Nov. 30, 2022. It is “an artificial intelligence text generator,” which our “Mind Children” (as the Harvard roboticist Hans Moravec dubbed them more than 30 years ago) consider it to be the “future of work.” Simply stated, ChatGPT is an AI tool that can generate human-like text.  It is a natural language processing tool driven by AI technology, that allows users to have human-like conversations and much more. The language model can answer questions, and assist the user with tasks such as composing emails, essays, and code. Usage is currently open to the public free of charge, because ChatGPT is still in its research and feedback-collection phase. The more I have read, learned and digested, the more I fear that potentially, it’s akin to Cliff Notes (remember them?) warping on crystal meth.  

Let’s face facts: most of us have never seen anything remotely like ChatGPT outside of science fiction. As with most new cyber technology, it is more quickly grokked and grasped by the young than their elders. There’s nothing new about that. I mean, what immigrant parent or grandparent didn’t stand in awe of their young one’s mastering English long, long before they themselves spoke their first intelligible sentence? In most cases, it never dawned on them that the children were immersed in the new language from the first moment they went out to play. What parent or grandparent doesn’t believe their 3, 4, and 5-year olds are geniuses because they can run circles around their elders on an I-Pad, or Smartphone? I often tell my lifelong learning students (many of whom are in their 80s and even above) that if there’s something they don’t understand about accessing information, “Ask your youngest great-grandchild for help.”

As time progresses, the uses of Chatbot technology are going to grow and become ever more sophisticated. For now, students are already handing in written assignments which are the products not of their cerebral synapses, but rather their computer’s software. In a piece published a couple of days ago in the New York Times, 4 writers - Claire Cain Miller, Adam Playford, Larry Buchanan and Aaron Krolik reported on a research project in which a random assortment of 4-graders were each given a writing assignment. “We used real essay prompts from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (the standardized test from the Department of Education, known as the nation’s report card). We asked the bot to produce essays based on those prompts — sometimes with a little coaching, and always telling it to write like a student of the appropriate age. We put what it wrote side by side with sample answers written by real children.” None of the experts involved in the project, which included a fourth-grade teacher; a professional writing tutor; a Stanford education professor; and Judy Blume, the beloved children’s author, could tell the difference . . .

As a university instructor and writer, I do not want to wake up one day and find that I’ve become irrelevant due to some devilish bot . . .  

It should come as no surprise that educators ranging from elementary, middle and high school teachers through instructors at such prestigious institutions of higher learning as the Wharton School of Business (whose graduates include Donald and Ivanka Trump, Elon Musk and Donald Trump, Jr.) and Harvard Law (whose graduates include Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, Jaimie Raskin and Merrick Garland) have voiced extreme concern over the negative impact that ChatGPT can have on learning. True, students may receive higher grades because their essays and papers are structurally and grammatically perfect . . . but what about learning itself? The major purpose of education - especially at the lower grades - is to teach critical learning skills . . . not just to achieve the highest possible grade point average.

While as of now it seems unlikely that poets, playwrights and comedians will be replaced by machines, I am truly frightened by the existential threat ChatGPT may well have on Democracy itself.  As Nathan E. Sanders, a data scientist, and Bruce Schneier, a security technologist noted in a recent Times report: “ChatGPT could automatically compose comments submitted in regulatory processes. It could write letters to the editor for publication in local newspapers. It could comment on news articles, blog entries and social media posts millions of times every day. . . . Facebook, has been removing over a billion fake accounts a year. But such messages are just the beginning. Rather than flooding legislators’ inboxes with supportive emails, or dominating the Capitol switchboard with synthetic voice calls, an A.I. system with the sophistication of ChatGPT but trained on relevant data could selectively target key legislators and influencers to identify the weakest points in the policymaking system and ruthlessly exploit them through direct communication, public relations campaigns, horse trading or other points of leverage.

If a bot could create a successful autocrat, he or she would look, act, sound and campaign like Donald Trump or George Santos; soulless creatures who are directed by the soulless algorithms of their crafty creators. Their fibs could be told with straight faces, their polling numbers presented as the god’s honest truth.  AI has yet to create subtlety or satire, and knows virtually nothing about the effect its words have on human minds. 

(Speaking of George Santos [or "Kitara Ravache,” his nom de drag], I came across a marvelous definition of fibs in a P.G. Wodehouse novel last night: “Fibs, my dear [are] artistic mouldings of the unshapely clay of truth . . . “) 

Let’s see such gleeful snottiness emerge from  a Chatbot!)

Way back in 1932, MGM costarred the 3 Barrymores, Ethel, Lionel and John, together for the first and only time in a film called Rasputin and the Empress. The model for Princess Natasha (played by Diana Wynard) in the movie was Princess Irina Romanoff Youssoupoff. The real Princess Irina filed a lawsuit against producer Irving Thalberg and MGM, claiming invasion of privacy and libel in portraying her as a mistress and, later, a rape victim of Grigory Rasputin (called Prince Youssoupoff in the movie). She won an award of $127,373 in an English court and an out-of-court settlement in New York with MGM, for  reportedly $1 million. As a result of the success of Princess Youssoupoff's lawsuit against MGM over this movie, Hollywood studios began inserting the disclaimer "This motion picture is a work of fiction and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental" in the credits of virtually every film released since.

Taking a cue from MGM, perhaps in the near future, Congress will pass a law requiring a disclaimer averring something like “BEWARE: That which follows is the creation of Artificial Intelligence. Any resemblance to the human thought process or the truth is purely coincidental.”

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

Guinevere Had Green Eyes

Note: There are numerous live links in the following blog; many lead to performances [some with written-out lyrics] of songs made famous by the Byrds and CSNY.   Enjoy!

Just 24 hours before he died (Jan. 18, 2023), 81-year old singer/songwriter/icon David Crosby, in his first Twitter of the day, wrote about heaven. The musician, who was a founding member of 2 Rock ‘n Roll Hall of Fame bands (Crosby, Stills & Nash and The Byrds), responding to various posts about heaven and loneliness, joked "I heard the place is overrated….cloudy." The statement was so typical of the multifaceted Crosby. At once a stellar writer of songs that provided the lyrics of a generation who themselves are now in their late 60s through 80s (I  Almost Cut my Hair, Teach Your Children Well, Carry On) and one of the best, most romantic ballads of all time (Guinevere), he was both a blueblood (related to both the Van Cortland and Van Rensselaer families; the son of, Floyd Crosby, the acclaimed cinematographer of such classic films as High Noon, From Here to Eternity and Tabu: A Tale of the South Seas, (for which he won an Oscar); a recovering drug addict, a twice-imprisoned felon, and a financial supporter of many progressive candidates for public office.

Despite all this, he somehow managed to live 81 years and continue recording albums until his late 70s.  Even at the end, his singing voice was crystal clear, his ability to make great harmonies with his longtime friend and compatriot Graham Nash a miracle.  In many ways, he was a freak of nature.   I remember first seeing him at Doug Weston’s Troubadour in West Hollywood; then, he was in his early 20s, a thorough-going folkie sans the lion-like mane and fu manchu moustache.  He was even wearing a coat and tie!  Within a few years he became a seminal member of the Folk Rock group The Byrds, and catapulted to fame and fortune with such timeless classics as Mr. Tambourine Man (written by Bob Dylan), Turn, Turn, Turn (lyrics by Pete Seeger, originally from the  Biblical book of Ecclesiastes) and The Bells of Rhymney (first recorded by Pete Seeger with lyrics by the Welsh poet Idris Davies) and Eight Miles High.   

By this time, he had the iconic moustache he would wear for the rest of his life.  As time went by, his long brown hair thinned and became white, until what was left made him look a lot like Bert Lahr’s Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz.  Almost from the day he received his first royalty check, Crosby began contributing to political campaigns and causes.  Although I’m not 100% sure, I seem to remember that in the summer of 1969 he hosted a fundraiser for the California Assembly Speaker Jess “Big Daddy” Unruh, who was running against Governor Ronald Reagan.  (I did check this out with my former boss in that campaign, Fred Taugher, who, despite making several calls, was not able to guarantee that my memory was correct . . .however, Fred could verify that Crosby had purchased a 59-foot yacht [the “Mayan”] just 2 years earlier).  Crosby continued his political ways up until the 2020 presidential campaiign.

In addition to at one time being addicted to both cocaine and heroin, Crosby suffered from Hepatitis C (which led to undergoing a liver transplant (paid for by rocker Phil Collins) in 1994, and Type 2 Diabetes, which caused him to put on a great deal of weight.  In January 2000, Melissa Etheridge announced that Crosby was the sperm donor of two children with her partner Julie Cypher by means of artificial insemination. On May 13, 2020, Etheridge announced on her Twitter that her and Cypher's son Beckett had died of causes related to opioid addiction at the age of 21. In February 2014, at the urging of his doctor, Crosby postponed the final dates of his solo tour to undergo a cardiac catheterization and angiogram, based on the results of a routine cardiac stress test. And yet, he continued living up to the words of one of his earliest songs: “Carry on.”

More than most singer/songwriter/performers David Crosby, whose professional career lasted nearly 55 years,  was both a symbol and vivid remembrance of an era of peace, love, long hair, beads and pot.  His image as the twinkle-eyed stoner and sardonic hedonist of the cosmic age was said to have been a model for the obstinate free spirit played by Dennis Hopper in the 1969 movie “Easy Rider.” (Hopper died from prostate cancer in 2010).  In one of his last interviews, the notoriously cantankerous Crosby spoke about how he had alienated nearly all of his old musical associates: “All the guys I made music with won’t even talk to me,” he said. “I don’t know quite how to undo it.”  In the second of his two autobiographies he mellowed, writing: “I was tremendously lucky, surviving injury, illness and stupidity,” he wrote. “As for the music, I was blessed early and often, from the Byrds to Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, and singing with Graham”  

The last time I saw David Crosby live was in 2015 nearly 55 years after I had first seen him performing with Les Baxter's Balladeers at the Troubadour; in 2015, he was playing with Stills and Nash.  The 3 (now minus Neil Young)  were note perfect . . . both on guitar and with vocals.  Their complex harmonies brought tears to the eyes. Watching and hearing them was a truly emotional experience.  It brought me back to my college days where protesting (the war in Viet Nam, the draft, Richard Nixon) took up far more time than attending class. The score for those memories was written largely by Crosby, Phil Ochs, and Tom Paxton.  But without question, the most noteworthy of them vis-a-vis musicality were CSNY.  To this day, whenever I hear them - or watch them through the magic of You-Tube - I feel a catch in my throat, youth in my veins and great purpose in my steps.  

Those of us from the Berkeley, Kent State, Columbia, March on Washington days who still are privileged to walk this earth, have yet to give up the fight and the dream.  David Crosby’s lyrics still suffuse our memory and motivation.  To wit:

Carry on
Love is coming
Love is coming to us all.

As idealistic and saccharine as the refrain may sound in 2023, so long as we remember that Guinevere did have Green Eyes and we must continue to Teach Our Children Well, there is still a hope of succeeding.

Rest in peace David; you made a great contribution to a generation of (hopefully) gracefully aging peaceniks, some of whom have yet to cut their hair . . .

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

Just When We Thought We'd Heard It All

Audio Block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

George Santos, Theda Bara and Other Fabulists

A note to you, my beloved readers: I had been intending for this end-of-the-year essay to be a wrap-up of the 1-6 Committee’s mammoth 945-page final report. Try as I might, I simply could not finish reading it in its entirety before my personal deadline. It is both a work of historic importance and a world-class page-turner. It reads like a finely composed novel . . . and yet is both meticulously-well researched and filled with more verifiable footnotes than the Babylonian Talmud. I promise you that in the next several weeks, I will post an essay that gathers my thoughts, and attempts to put this singular work into its proper historic context . . . In the meantime, let’s spend a little time with Representative-Elect George Santos . . . and such long-forgotten silent movie superstars as Theda Bara, Olga Petrova and Jetta Goudal . . . all of whom have something in common . . .  KFS)

Next to politicians and their campaign handlers, there have likely never been more successful fabulists (liars, that is) on the face of the earth than Golden-Age Hollywood P.R. Directors and the stars they created. Like all you, I have been reading about all the lies Rep.-Elect George Santo ran on this past election season. He managed to mislead voters about his work and educational history, his family’s heritage, his past philanthropic efforts and his business dealings. He claimed he was Jewish and that his maternal grandparents were European “Holocaust refugees.” (They actually were from Brazil, and he actually is Catholic.) He claimed to have graduated from Baruch College in 2010 and to have attended New York University. He repeatedly claimed that his mother Fatimah Devolder, who died of cancer in 2016, was a 9/11 survivor who was “in her office in the South Tower on September 11, 2001,” and “passed away a few years later when she lost her battle to cancer.”  He claimed to have lost four employees in the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., in 2016, and that he worked for Citigroup and for Goldman Sachs on Wall Street. None of that appears true — and that is only a partial list.

 As the Biblical Kohelet (King Solomon, writing under a pseudonym) famously claimed, “There is nothing new under the sun.” When it comes to both the famous and infamous of my hometown, Hollywood, California, this is triply true. Oh so many of our neighbors were known to the public by names (and biographies) fabricated by studio press agents rather than given by their parents. (Constant readers may recall a piece I posted nearly 3 1/2 years ago on my “Tales From Hollywood and Vine” blog entitled What’s In a Name? which introduced readers to the real (e.g. birth) names of tens of dozens of Hollywood stars, directors and screenwriters. In our house, Mom (a.k.a. “Madam”) was a master; she knew virtually everyone’s real name, where they were born, and who they really were before becoming famous.

A couple of famous examples:

• Although not the first silent movie vamp, Theda Bara (at left) was certainly the most popular and successful. According to information released by her studio (Wm. Fox), this slightly zoftig seductress who, with one sultry glance could drive any man over the edge, was sold to the public as "the daughter of an Arab sheik and a French woman, born in the Sahara" (Other press releases had her mother being the daughter of an Italian nobleman and baby Theda’s birthplace being in “the shadow of the Sphinx). And her name, fans were told, was an anagram for “Arab Death.” In truth, she was born Theodosia Goodman in the Avondale section of Cincinnati in late July 1885, the daughter of a prosperous Jewish tailor from Poland named Bernard Goodman. Bernie and his wife, Pauline, named their daughter Theodosia, after a daughter of the late U.S. Vice President, Aaron Burr. And so, Theodosia (nicknamed “Teddy” from her youth), would, by age 29, become the highest-paid movie star in the world, playing Cleopatra and other assorted man-devouring vamps. At her height, she made $4,000 a week (more than $60,000 in 2023 dollars . . . and without having  to pay income tax), was able to retire by age 35, and spend the rest of her life as a wealthy matron in Beverly Hills.

• Muriel Harding, born and raised in the distinctly non-glamorous English port town of Hull, somehow, despite her lower-class upbringing and distinctive Yorkshire accent, would be one day become Olga Petrova, one of early filmdom’s most exotic feminists. Built up as a daughter of Russian royalty, in the early teens, she was a widely popular actress, starring in more than 30 full-length motion pictures for Solax, the first studio owned and run by a woman, the producer/director Alice Guy.  Always billed as “Madame Petrova,” she starred on Broadway, wrote numerous plays, a fascinating (though utterly untruthful) autobiography Butter With My Bread,  and spent her retirement in Clearwater, Florida, passing away at age 93 on the last day of November, 1977. 

• Last but not least, let’s not forget the ultimate filmland diva, Jetta Goudal (1891-1985). In her heyday, the darkly exotic Ms. Goudal (her name being pronounced Zah-hettah Goo-doll) was a star who rivaled Gloria Swanson, starring in such classic films as Salome of the Tenements and D.W. Griffith’s Lady of the Pavements.  Arriving in the United States at the close of World War I (after a career on the European stage), she presented herself as “Jetta Goudal, Parisienne-born in Versailles in 1901 and the daughter of a prominent lawyer.”  In matter of fact, she was Julie Henriette Goudeket, born in Amsterdam ten years earlier (1891) to Wolf Mozes Goudeket, a wealthy Orthodox Jewish diamond cutter. Coming to the United States wound up saving her life; virtually her entire family died in Nazi death camps.  Following her film career, she and her longtime (1930-1985) husband, Harold Grieve, became two of the most popular interior decorators in the community. No one - save native Hollywoodites - knew of her family background or history. (n,b.: imperious to the end (she lived to 94) Jetta actually sued Volkswagen over “Copyright Infringement” for calling one of the new line of autos the “Jetta.”  The case died a quick death.)  

Few, if any would ever think of holding made-up names and family histories against actors, dancers, directors and studio p.r. staffs.  That Jonas Sternberg would start calling himself Josef von Sternberg, Jacob Krantz Ricardo Cortez, Spangler Arlington Brugh Robert Taylor,  or Texas-born Tula Ellice Finklea Cyd Charisse (and occasionally Maria Istomina, Felia Sidorova and Natacha Tulaelis) is pretty much de rigueur in art forms based on the creation of fictional characters.  But politics?  That’s a whole other slab of cheese.  During the current George Santos imbroglio, one occasionally hears Republicans gleefully reminding their followers of the lies of President Joseph R. Biden and Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal . . . and once in a blue moon, a Democrat will bring up Ronald Reagan’s conflated record in WWII.  (Nearly all of Reagan’s wartime stories and recollections took place at the old Hal Roach Studios (lovingly referred to as “Fort Roach”) where he made training films.  The studio was located at 8822 Washington Boulevard in Culver City.

So far as  Biden and Blumenthal, they both have been caught in telling tales.  In his closing remarks at a 1987 Democratic presidential debate, Biden lifted passages from one of British Labour Party Leader’s Neil  Kinnock’s most moving speeches without attribution.  Biden’s boo-boo was discovered, he both admitted and apologized for his error; it likely cost him the nomination.  Interestingly, in 2020, Kinnock, by now a Labour Peer, interviewed about the 1987 plagiarism ‘scandal’ said that he had always considered it “an innocent mistake.”  “Joe’s an honest guy. If Trump had done it, I would know that he was lying.”  

Then there was Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal. During the September 2018 hearings on Brett Kavanaugh for a acant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, there was much back-and-forth on Kavanaugh’s credibility . . . especially in the area of taking unwanted liberties with women. At one point, Senator Blumenthal told MSNBC that proceeding with Kavanaugh's nomination would "forever stain the Supreme Court.” That quickly brought back the issue of Blumenthal’s successful 2010 campaign for the United States Senate during which the then long-serving Connecticut A.G. said that he had "misspoken" about his military service during the Vietnam War after the New York Times obtained his Selective Service Record, which showed he received five separate draft deferments while a college student and then, when those deferments ran out, secured a spot in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves (serving stateside, not in Vietnam). The issue quickly died down and he went on to win. But to this day, Republicans use it against him as proof that he is no more honest than Donald Trump . . . or George Santos.

Ah but there is a huge difference here: both Biden and Blumenthal have nearly 85 years in elected office between them; their fables have been far and few between; they have a lengthy, lengthy record of positive service which more than outweighs their past errors. Such is not the case with George Santos; without even having taken the oath of office (which could occur tomorrow, January 3), he has yet to be truthful about anything.

A couple of questions emerge at this time:

1.    How could such a pathological liar ever get elected in the first place

2.    What should be done about him?

As to the first question, it would be easy to blame the Democrats for falling down in their opposition  research and the Republicans for turning a blind eye and keeping their mouths shut.  In point of face, there was quite a bit of information available on the man many Republicans in New York’s 3rd District were already referring to as “George Scam-tos.”  The Long Island North Shore Leader revealed quite a bit about him months before the election: “In a list of complaints about the candidate, the paper called out Santos’ policy stances on abortion and Ukraine. It also pointed out that his claim to real estate ownership was false “He brags about his ‘wealth’ and his ‘mansions’ in the Hamptons – but he really lives in a row house in Queens,” the paper wrote. They said he was involved in a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme shut down by the SEC, questioned the use of money raised for his campaign, and his net-worth.  “Santos had no visible campaign until a few weeks ago - no offices, no signs, no mailings, no significant ‘voter contact,’” the paper reported.  The failure is on both sides of the aisle.  Opposition  research (and conversely, the investigation of one’s own candidate, the idea being “If we can find out the dirt about our candidate, so can they”) is cheap, readily accomplished and absolutely essential.  I remember doing research on one our our guys back in the early ‘70s . . . and this was long before Google, Lexus-Nexus and the like. It was pretty easy . . . 

As to the second question, Santos, I firmly believe, is about to become the Republican’s eternal 15-yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct, and the Democrat’s oh-so-easy chip-shot . . . to put things into pre-Super Bowl terms.  Come tomorrow, Kevin McCarthy is going to need Santos’ vote in order to become Speaker of the House. He (or whomsoever ultimately wins) will either refuse to give George Santos committee assignments or merely seat him on such duds as The Joint Committee on Printing or the Joint Committee on the Library, on neither of which can he do any harm or gain any press coverage.  Then too, he could resign (possible),be expelled (highly unlikely) or be arrested (there are, after-all, already federal finance cases in the works).  The chances of his ever being reelected are about a million-to-one. The changes of a Democrat replacing him are pretty good.

 No one but true movie buffs and real Hollywood Brats remember Theda Bara, Olga Petrova or Jetta Goudal. They all had their day in the sun, scaled the heights, made their fortunes and wound up living long lives of abundance, far away from the kleig lights of yesteryear. I don’t predict such idyllic circumstances for George Santos. He neither deserves nor or is worth it.

May you reign as the butt of late-night talk show jokes. You’ve certainly earned it.

Wishing one and all a yom slyvester samayach - “A happy Sylvester Day!” which is the Israeli greeting for the secular new year. May 2023 be filled with good health, the ebbing of hatred and increasing santiy.

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

Judah Maccabee Speaks to Congress on Hanukkah

In about an hour, those of us living on America’s East Coast will be lighting the fourth candle of Hanukkah, the Jewish “Feast of Dedication.” In Israel and Kiev, they lit the hanukkiyah (menorah) about 5 hours ago. My sister Erica and her family, who live in Southern California (as do I . . . at least in spirit), will be lighting the candles will be in about 4 hours. Should one ask the question “What is the meaning and purpose of Hanukkah?” and you likely will get a story about the miracle of a single cruse (earthenware pot or jug) of oil lasting a full eight days when there was only enough for a single day. This all took place at the rededication of the second Temple in 164 B.C.E after the Hasmonean Judah Maccabee and his brothers routed the Selucid Empire in their  quest for religious freedom. It’s a quaint story; it’s also no more than a legend, and sadly, paves over the true, historically verifiable miracle (nes in Hebrew) of the commemoration.

This historically true miracle is that in the years 167-160 BCE (Before the Common Era) Judah Maccabee (a priest - a Cohayn), his father Mattathias and brothers (Eleazar, Simon, John and Jonathan) successfully rebelled against and then defeated the mighty Greco Seleucid tyrant Antiochus IV Epiphanes (that’s Greek for “G-d made manifest” . . . quite an egotistical regnal name he gave himself). What made the defeat so miraculous was that Antiochus (also called Epimanes, Greek for “The Mad One”) had the world’s first professional army, whereas Judah and his band were amateur warriors, to say the least. They became the first “army” whose cause was totally ephemeral: not for land, not for largesse, not for women, but solely for religious freedom.  Unlike his Seleucid and Ptolemaic predecessors, Antiochus IV hated the Jews and made their worship an all but capital offense.  Judah and his brothers decided that enough was enough, and managed to beat the pants off of him and his well-paid warriors.  That’s the real miracle.  (Unfortunately, the Hasmoneans (Maccabees) were not nearly as skilled when it came to be leaders in peace as they were leaders during war.  Eventually, they claimed the royal throne for themselves (an absolute no-no for a priest), failed miserably, and invited the Romans to come in and help keep things calm.  Oops!

The Maccabees succeeded first as warriors before they got a chance to lead a nation at peace. In our own time, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the son of Jewish parents has had the chance to lead a civil government before becoming a war-time president. Trained to be a lawyer (although he never practiced), coming to early fame as a stand-up comedian and then as a popular television and movie star, he has proved himself to be one of the bravest, most charismatic leaders on the planet. Yesterday, clad in his signature camouflage  sweater and cargo pants, he was visiting troops on the front lines.  Today, after having been spirited out of his country and still wearing the same clothes, he is in Washington, D.C.  He has already met with President Biden, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer and about an hour from now (7:00 PM EST) will be addressing a joint session of the United States Congress.  Unless I am wrong (which I often am), this might be the first wartime address by the head of a government during war since Winston addressed a joint meeting of Congress on December 26, 1941.  

Back then, Churchill warned Congress “You do not, I am certain, underrate the severity of the ordeal to which you and we have still to be subjected. The forces ranged against us are enormous. They are bitter, they are ruthless. The wicked men and their factions, who have launched their peoples on the path of war and conquest, know that they will be called to terrible account if they cannot beat down by force of arms the peoples they have assailed. They will stop at nothing.”

What President Zelenskyy will say is anyone’s guess.  However, I have to believe it will be Churchillian in its scope and power.  .  He will thank us for all we’ve done to date; ask us for more funding, and teach those who do not yet understand, just how important the war in Ukraine is to not only to America, but indeed, the rest of the world.

I’m going to take a pause at this point, light the fourth candle on our hanukkiyah, have a latke or two, and watch President Zelenskyy’s speech to Congress.   He will thank us for all we’ve done to date; ask us for more funding, and teach those who do not yet understand, just how important the war in Ukraine is to not only America, but indeed, the rest of the world.

Back at you in a little over 2 hours . . . . 

. . . It is now 8:30 PM EST. President Zelenskyy finished his speech just a few minutes ago. Although what he had to say was pretty much what I expected, the manner in which he said it, the passion he he brought to his words were thrilling. He made his country’s gratitude for all we, the American people have done, abundantly clear. He said in no uncertain terms that not one cent of the billions of dollars of weaponry we’ve sent Ukraine should be considered a gift, but rather an investment; an investment in the furtherance of freedom and democracy, as well as in the ultimate diminution of Russia and Vladimir Putin.

Zelenskyy proved himself to be a master at holding a room and casting an emotional spell over a diverse audience. It was one of the few times in recent memory when both Democrats and Republicans cheered and applauded with the same gusto. The Ukrainian president told Congress - and the American people - that despite the fact that many, many Ukrainians would be observing the Christmas holiday in underground subway stations, bereft of both light and heat, they would nonetheless, look to the future with hope. He likened their suffering and strength to the Battle of Saratoga in the early days of the Revolutionary War. These are the words of a leader. He also compared the current fight to World War II's Battle of the Bulge.

"Just like the brave American soldiers, which held their lines and fought back Hitler's forces during the Christmas of 1944, brave Ukrainian soldiers are doing this same to Putin's forces this Christmas -- Ukraine holds its lines and will never surrender. "

Although he didn’t say anything specifically about Hanukkah, he was definitely speaking in terms of miracles. What the Ukraine, under his stellar leadership, has managed to accomplish in a war against a behemoth - one that was supposed to last but a few days or weeks - is nothing short of a miracle.

Most people are aware that Jewish people engage in doing a bit of gambling during Hanukkah, using a dreidle (a four-sided spinning top. On each face of the top is a single Hebrew letter which represents a word and an instruction on what to do with your bet. The letters nun, gimmel, hey and shin represent the words nes gadol hyah shahm, which stand for “A great miracle happened there.” In Israel, the final letter, shin, is replaced by the letter po, thereby making the message “A great miracle happened here.”

Perhaps we should use both tops this year: one to proclaim that a great miracle happened there (meaning Ukraine) as well as here . . . meaning wherever freedom and democracy fight against heartless aggressive autocracy.

Thank you for your words, your deeds, and your great leadership skills President Zelensky. You yourself are a great part of the miracle.

Indeed, you are our Judah Maccabee!

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Of Quarks and Quacks

 “Alice” - the Lawrence Livermore particle collider 

Say what you will, but the past 168 hours have been the living definition of an alpha and omega week. Say what? For those who studied a bit of Greek (and managed to stay awake during class), alpha (A) and omega (Ω) are, respectively, the first and last letters of the Greek αλφαβήτα (alphabet). The concept of “alpha and omega” also connotes bipolar opposites; the nadir and the zenith . . . the highest high and lowest low. And that they should both occur in the same 168-hour period (a week) is both eerie and one for the books.

Let’s begin with last week’s omega, its low point - and one I can write about with quite a bit more confidence than its alpha:  its high point.    This past Tuesday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, saying that COVID-19 vaccines have been “pushed on Americans,” asked the state Supreme Court to impanel a grand jury to investigate “wrongdoing in Florida” related to these shots.  DeSantis announced his request for a grand jury during a media event to discuss “COVID-19 mRNA (“Messenger RNA) vaccine accountability,” where he was joined by state Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, M.D., and a group of professors, researchers and doctors - all of whom are noted for questioning the efficacy of coronavirus vaccines and whether adverse health reactions (lethal side effects) have been accurately reported. Within that part of the medical community which specializes in clinical trials in epidemiology and infectious diseases, the response to the DeSantis gang’s proposal was both swift and all but unanimous: that Governor DeSantis and Dr. Ladapo are, in the words of our late Grannie Annie,  “full of canal water.”    

As for the governor’s inane proposal: The Florida Department of Law Enforcement would serve as the primary investigator for a grand jury, though the governor’s petition said any law enforcement agency in the state could be called upon for the probe.

On the same day, DeSantis announced that Dr. Ladapo, who doubles as secretary of the Florida Department of Health, will lead what Ladapo called a “surveillance study” to explore deaths that occurred after people were vaccinated against COVID-19. “We are initiating a program here in Florida where we will be studying the incidents, in surveillance, of myocarditis within a few weeks of COVID-19 vaccination for people who died,” Ladapo said. (n.b.) Myocarditis is a condition that causes inflammation of the heart. It can be fatal . . . although it need have nothing to do with a COVID-19 vaccine or booster. Moreover, a recent clinical study showed that patients with COVID-19 “had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19.”)

One should expect that a state government’s Chief Medical Officer should possess significant experience in the area of public health. Checking the internet’s best source for medical research information [Clinical Trials.Gov] we find that Dr. Ladapo has taken part in precisely 5 clinical trials, only two of which were ever completed: Financial Incentives for Weight Reduction Study and Financial Incentives for Smoking Treatment. Compare this to the soon-to-be-retiring Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is the 6th most cited medical researcher on planet earth, and that prior to being named head of the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] Dr. Rochelle Walensky was chief of Infectious Diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital . Talk about alpha to omega!)

The DeSantis/Ladapo proposal has next to nothing to do with public safety or the saving of lives. What it does involve is the governor’s obsession for keeping his name and worldview in front of the MAGA crowd who he believes may well be looking for a candidate to replace Donald Trump in 2024. Participating alongside Governor DeSantis and Dr. Ladapo at the Tuesday media event were Stanford University professor Jay Bhattacharya and epidemiologist Tracy Hoeg, both of whom are expected to be part of the the governor’s Public Health Integrity Committee. The committee, according to DeSantis, will “assess recommendations and guidance” that has come from entities such as the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health.

Bhattacharya served as a witness for the state in a high-profile lawsuit challenging a directive by DeSantis that schools avoid imposing mask requirements for students to stave off the spread of COVID-19. Bhattacharya also was one of the state's witnesses in a separate legal challenge of DeSantis' decision to reopen schools in the early stages of the pandemic. Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, M.D., PhD., is a board certified Sports Medicine and Spine Medicine specialist in California who has on innumerable occasions spoken out in favor of DeSantis’ anti-mask, anti-school closure mandates: “We know that masks interfere with communication, and children do not like wearing them. The children with hearing impairments and other impairments have difficulty wearing masks. And, we’re forcing them to do this just because we have this idea that they’re going to be doing something good. We have actually no high-quality evidence showing that they are.”

All we can hope for is that the seven-member Florida Supreme Court (six of whom were appointed by DeSantis) will vote against his petition for a Grand Jury, thereby staving off his desire to keep his “COVID vaccines are a conspiracy” campaign away from center stage as we move onwards to 2024.

Well, that’s the omega. What, pray tell is the alpha?

Only what could be the biggest scientific breakthrough since Galileo di Vincenzo Bonaiuti de' Galilei (1564-1642), the “Father of Modern Physics” proved the validity of Copernican heliocentrism (which states that the Earth rotates daily and revolves around the Sun) or Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity (E = mc2, which expresses the fact that mass and energy are the same physical entity and can be changed into each other). In this case, the alpha may well turn out to be the BIGGEST and MOST IMPORTANT scientific breakthrough in the past half millennium: going back in time 14 billion years (or less than 6,000 if you are a Bible-toting literalist) to the very origins of the universe. For as of just the other day, Physicists have confirmed the existence of a doubly charmed baryon (a composite subatomic particle), opening the door to an entirely new kind of fusion, known as quark fusion.

Yes, yes, I know, many readers are going to tune out at this point, assuming that I’m going to continue writing in “Star Trek” technobabble. I promise this is not the case: I am neither a particle physicist nor a writer of science fiction; just a regular guy who took a 2 semesters of “College Physics for Philosophers” and a perpetual student. Believe me: I know a hell of a lot more about practical politics and medicine than I do about fusion.

As a brief introduction to this week’s alpha: You’re looking at quarks right now. Magazines, screens, and air are made of atoms, and atoms are largely made of protons and neutrons – which are the most familiar examples of the three-quark bundles that physicists call baryons. Fusion describes a general process in which particles recombine to form new particles, because the new particles need less energy to exist than the old ones did. With that scant info in tow, you should know that on 5 December, researchers at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in California finally did it, focusing 2.05 megajoules of laser light onto a tiny capsule of fusion fuel and sparking an explosion that produced 3.15 MJ of energy—the equivalent of about three sticks of dynamite. This means that for the first time in human history, scientists have finally, finally been able to ignite a nuclear fusion reaction unlike any before in human history. That's because the fusion reaction produced more energy than it took to start the reaction.

I wish I could go in to greater detail, but this ain’t my field. Nonetheless, after chatting up several friends and classmates who know one hell of a lot more than I do (e.g., those who went into physics rather than philosophy, politics or rabbinics), they tell me that the result of this fusion test should ultimately change the energy picture for the entire globe; that ultimately we will be able to provide clean, non-lethal, non-polluting, infinitely available energy for the rest of human history. And if this isn’t the ultimate alpha, I cannot image what could be better.

What makes all of this so incredibly weird is that at precisely the same time that physicists - the experts whose “religion” is scientific truth - have made such a mind-numbing, historic pronouncement, the conspiracists - whose motto is “believe nothing but what we tell you” - are doing everything in their power to clobber and corrupt our gateway to the future. And for what? For clinging to power? For bringing Armageddon a few inches closer? For putting down those who did better than them in school? I simply do not know . . . and seriously doubt I ever shall.

What I do know is that the future will ultimately be far, far more in the hands of those who use their brains to bring about hope and progress, than those whose raison d’être is to create hysterical retrogression. And, it will also take a radical change in society, wherein telling lies and fomenting fear becomes as unacceptable as alchemy.

Wishing one and all a Happy, Merry Everything!

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Politics and Poker

                    Senator Krysten Sinema (I-AZ)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Ignorance and Knowledge, Wisdom and Lord Beaconsfield

When I sat down to write my first blog essay in early February of 2005, I set out a couple of hard and fast rules for myself: never review a book I had not read nor a movie I had not seen; never pass off as fact that which is truly fiction; never write about a subject, situation or scenario I have not, to the best of my ability, researched as best I can. And above all, never fear admitting ignorance . . . there is always time to learn from someone who can help fill in the gaps. These rules of the road can best be summed up by the greatest of all second-rate English novelists, who would also become Prime Minister of the British Empire: Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881), a.k.a. the Earl of Beaconsfield.  For he once wrote, “To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge.”

The author of at least 17 novels (the best-known of which were Coningsby, Sybil (also known as “The Two Nations”) and Tancred, Disraeli was the son of Isaac D’Israeli, a distinguished literary critic and historian, and Maria (Miriam), née Basevi, Sephardic Jews whose families had emigrated from Italy to England in the mid-18th century. Although raised and educated at London’s Sephardic Bevis Marks synagogue, Benjamin was baptized at age 12. Conversion to Christianity (a religion which he never in fact practiced) permitted him to enter polite British society and eventually politics as an adult. Throughout his career, he was the target of innumerable anti-Semitic barbs and jabs. As Queen Victoria’s Prime Minister, he was finally asked “What religion are you?” to which he quickly (and quite brilliantly) replied, “I am the blank page between the Hebrew and the Christian Bible.”

The above serves as a prolegomena to why I have never written on certain subjects . . . like computer technology, anything containing the word algorithm, the U.S. Internal Revenue code, the rules and strategies of any non-American team sport, and the worlds of hedge fund management, value investing, leveraged buyouts and, last but not least, cryptocurrency.  In brief - and following Lord Beaconsfield’s sage advice - I am wise enough to know what I cannot grasp, and find nothing demeaning in admitting that fact . . . and then searching for experts who hopefully can teach me about that which I do not know.

Over the past couple of years, a handful of the more business savvy members of our family - as opposed to the academic types - have been urging me to get into cryptocurrency. I must admit up front that despite having read quite bit about that realm of cyber-business and learning that people have actually made “killings” in it, I still don’t have the foggiest notion of what it is all about. Oh sure, I can read, cut and paste a definition of it . . . I’ve read Kaspersky until I’m blue in the face.  But somehow, I just never trusted the whole crypto currency thing.  It struck me as being a bit of a cult; something which QAnon addicts who just naturally mis- or distrust big business turn to in order to make their fortunes. 

Then came the utter bankruptcy of Sam Bankman-Fried (known as SBF) of FTX.

Once considered a financial wunderkind, Bankman-Fried now faces legal battles, possible extradition and bankruptcy in a sudden shift from his previous high-profile status as a mythic entrepreneur, political funder and philanthropist heralded for saving other struggling crypto firms. In short, the saga may have cost some investors their life savings.

                    Sam Bankman-Fried  (SBF)

The crash of Bankman-Fried’s disgraced empire comes as FTX, the company he founded and led as CEO, (along with Alameda Research, the exchange’s trading arm) until his recent resignation, grapples with a solvency crisis. Established in 2018, FTX was one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges until it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy earlier this month. Within a single day, November 8, 2022, his net worth plummeted an estimated 94 percent to $991.5 million on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. This devastating fall represents the largest one-day drop in the index’s 10-year history. Commentators say his personal assets may now stand below zero.

This unfolding drama reads like a Hollywood blockbuster in the making. It comes complete with a meteoric rise from obscurity and subsequent fall from world renown, not to mention tremendous financial donations, a mea culpa issued on social media and a class action lawsuit naming headline legends — all within a rapid span of four years.

The suit, filed by Florida lawyer Adam Moskowitz, alleges billions of dollars in damages and names NFL quarterback Tom Brady and billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban, as well as Larry David, Gisele Bündchen, Stephen Curry, and Shaquille O’Neal among celebrities who could be liable for crypto endorsement.  Investors rushed to rapidly withdraw their investments while advisers have reportedly struggled to locate both cash and crypto amidst the ruins. Noting poor internal oversight and record keeping, critics are drawing unsavory parallels between FTX’s implosion and that of Lehmann Brothers, Enron Corp. and Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

SBF’s financial collapse raises broader questions about the crypto industry, which the entrepreneur entered following a stint at Jane Street Capital. Soon after, he established Alameda Research as a quantitative bitcoin trading firm. What makes this plot twist even more complicated is that SBF drew attention for his commitment to “effective altruism,” his membership in an organization called Giving What We Can, in which wage earners dedicate 10% to effective charities, and his public pledge to give away his fortune over his career.

According to Open Secrets, which tracks campaign finances, SBF donated about $40 million to the US midterm election campaigns for many candidates supported by pro-Israel groups, including the Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) and United Democracy Project, an AIPAC-affiliated super PAC. SBF also donated $250,000 directly to DMFI PAC last May. And in the 2020 election campaign, he was among the top donors to Joe Biden’s campaign, with a personal contribution of $5.2 million.

I’ve got to tell you: since the collapse of FTX and SBF’s cryptocurrency empire, I have not asked the family financial barons how they’re doing . . . or if they suffered significant losses. Why? Partly because if they don’t want to open up, it’s none of my business; mostly though, because I do not want to come close to engaging in schadenfreude . . . German for “gloating at the misfortune of others.”

OK, so I don’t really understand how FTX and Alameda Research worked, and what ultimately caused it to collapse. I certainly don’t own a crystal ball that will tell me what long term danger it represents to the world of investments . . . let alone individual investors. What I do know - and what scares the living daylights out of me - is that anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists are going to start tying a gigantic tail to SMF and his family. With the staggering growth in worldwide anti-Semitic traffic, this is the worst possible time for Sam Bankman-Fried to become the name and face of a gargantuan international banking crash . . . even one as relatively unknown to the masses as crypto.

The fact is this is the worst possible time for Sam Bankman-Fried’s name and vast failure to become page-one news. Consider that this is coming on the heels of two notorious anti-Semites (“Ye” and Nick Fuentes) dining with FPOTUS at Mar-a-Lago; newly-minted Twitter CEO Elon Musk reopening the Twittersphere to the most virulent hate speech; and NBA All-Star Kyrie Irving directing his hundreds of thousands of online followers to a link introducing anti-Semites to a notorious film - “From Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America!” - which revives age-old lies about the “true” origins of the Hebrew people. (In keeping with my pledge not to review a book or movie that I have neither read nor seen, I direct your attention to a summary review posted on the ADL website on December 3 of this year.)

 For generations without end, whenever the tireless ebb and flow of society’s mysteries and mutations becomes too difficult to grok or decode, fingers of blame all too frequently come to the fore.  We are, alas, living in one such generation; fingers of blame are once again being pointed at Jews for being both the source and the cause of societal change.  We’ve heard -and suffered from - it before.  The charges are mostly old, even if the names change:

• Jews control the media, banks, and governments;

• Jews were at the heart of the slave trade to the early America;

• As recently as March 2018, a Washington D.C. city council member claimed that the Rothschild family was “controlling the climate to create natural disasters they can pay for to own the cities.”  

• Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (who will likely play a significant role in the House come January 2023) implicated “Rothschild Inc” in connection with a deadly forest fire that, she wrote, was started using laser beams from space.  Greene has also frequently amplified the QAnon theory that George Soros, a Hungarian-American Jewish billionaire and mega-donor, is an enemy of the people.

• “Replacement theory” - the conspiratorial notion that Jews and other non white  people are consciously engaged in “replacing” white protestants with Hispanic immigrants who have a much higher birth rate in order to take power from “real” Americans.  This nonsense can be heard frequently on Fox News, News Max, and One America News.

• That in addition to the above, Jews are also heavily engaged in such anti-American movements as “ANTIFA” and “Black Lives Matter,” as well as being perpetrators of “Critical Race Theory.”

I repeat: this is the worst possible time for the Jewish community in America . . . and indeed around the world . . .  to have yet another villain added to the list of predatory conspirators.  Don’t be overly surprised if someday soon, someone doesn’t unearth a quote from one of Disraeli’s long-forgotten characters (Sidonia, an ardent Jewish nationalist who is likely a cross between Lionel de Rothschild and Disraeli himself) hidden in the pages of Coningsby.  For deeply buried within its pages, Sidonia informs Harry Coningsby, the penniless Lord Chancellor that “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” 

So who are these “different personages?” The Rothschilds?  August Belmont? George Soros? Michael Bloomberg?  Sam Bankman-Fried?  Just ask “Ye,” Nick Fuentes, the newly-bankrupted Alex Jones and Marjorie Taylor Greene . . . for they, among many others, are just ignorant enough and evil enough to speak of things they know virtually nothing about.

  Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone  

A Tale Told by an Idiot . . . Signifying Nothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

The Red Wave That Turned Into a Trickle

Who, besides we political geeks and nerds, would have ever held out hope that except for FDR in 1934, and George W. Bush (after 9/11 and going to war on false pretenses) in 2002, that Joe Biden would have the best midterm election of any sitting President in memory? (As if any of us can actually remember 1934.) Well, that’s the way thing have gone. And despite the fact that we still don’t know if the next House Speaker is going to be Nancy Pelosi, current House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (who has already announced his candidacy) or Ohio’s favorite Luddite “Gym” Jordan, Democrats have done a far better job than most pundits might have imagined. There is still a possibility (slim though it may be) that the Lower Chamber will remain in the hands of the Democrats. Then too, who would have put good money on the Democrats keeping their oh-so-slim majority in the Senate?

So far, Democrats have picked up one Senate seat (Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman’s vanquishing of celebrity surgeon/snake oil salesman Mehmet Oz by 4 points [50.8%-46.8%] despite still recovering from a rather severe stroke?  As of this writing (Saturday, 11//12/2020 at 10:30), Republicans and Democrats are tied at 49-49 in the senate, which means that in order for the Democrats to maintain control, they will have to win in either Nevada, or Georgia, where there will be a runoff election between Herschel Walker (R) and incumbent Senator Rafael Warnock (D) on December 6.  Incumbent Arizona Democrat Mark Kelly defeated Republican Blake Masters, who ran as an election denier who had received a coveted endorsement by Donald Trump. Running as a moderate, Kelly - who won a special election to fill the seat that was left open at the time of John McCain’s death - ran as a moderate, breaking with Biden on issues like immigration as he sought to navigate headwinds generated by Biden’s low approval rating and widespread economic pain due to rising inflation. carried moderates by a margin of 63% to 33% and independents by a margin of 55% to 39%, NBC News exit polls showed. Kelly won women by 12 points and lost men by 4 points. Kelly and Masters broke even with white voters but Kelly carried the state's large Latino electorate by 18 points, assuring his victory.

N.B. Early this morning (Sunday 11/13), the A.P. called the Nevada senate race pitting incumbent Senator Catherine Cortez Masto [D] against former Attorney General Paul Laxalt in Masto’s favor, thus assuring that Democrats would maintain control of the upper chamber. The Democratic win in the Senate is likely to prompt further recrimination in Republican circles over who is to blame for the poor showing. Much attention has so far focused on Trump after he backed rightwing or celebrity candidates in several key races who lost, such as Dr Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania.

There are still several significant House races as yet to be determined. In California’s 47th District. which is largely made up of Orange County (as a kid we used to call it “Orangutan” due to its ties to the John Birch Society), the Harvard-educated law professor Katie Porter, who was first elected in 2018, is locked in a battle with Conservative Republican Scott Baugh, best known for having been sentenced to paying $47,900 in civil fines stemming from violations of California's Political Reform Act. For her part, Porter, a moderate Democrat, is the first member of her party elected to represent Orange County in many, many years. As of early Sunday morning 11/13, with 72% of the votes counted, Porter (who is viewed as a potential future star of her party) is ahead by 4,733 votes (51.27%-48.73%).

In Colorado’s 3rd District, ultra-conservative gadfly Lauren Boebert led with 50.17 percent of the vote to Democrat Adam Frisch's 49.83 percent with 99 percent of votes counted, pulling ahead of the Democrat with a razor thin margin. Although not a particularly powerful member of the House, Boebert manages to get herself on the news for her ultra-pro gun and anti-Semitic rants . . . and her ability to raise campaign cash. Ironically, the man who may well end her 1-term Congressional career, Aspen City Council member Adam Frisch, is from a practicing Conservative Jewish family.

Speaking of Jewish candidates, despite the frightening uptick in anti-Semitism, a surprising number of Jewish men and women have found electoral success. The new, 118th Congress, will include:

• Becca Balint, the first Jewish woman elected to Congress from Vermont. Balint, a former state senator and activist, was the first openly gay person to serve as President pro tempore in Vermont's State Senate. She is now Vermont's first female representative and its first openly gay representative.

• Seth Magaziner, Rhode Island, Rhode Island's treasurer, who defeated Republican challenger Allan Fung for a seat held by Democrats for three decades but that many had considered a prime Republican steal opportunity. Magaziner, who considers himself ethnically Jewish but does not identify religiously, is the son of a Catholic mother and former senior Bill Clinton adviser Ira Magaziner. He now joins Rep. David Cicilline in Rhode Island's Congressional delegation, which is now 100% Jewish.

• Jared Moskowitz was elected to replace Florida Democrat Ted Deutch, who left his role as the most prominent pro-Israel member of the Democratic caucus to run the American Jewish Committee. Formerly Florida's director of emergency management, Moscowitz played a primary role in dealing with the state's rising antisemitism, adopting a similar tack as his predecessor in condemning allegedly anti-Jewish sentiments from both parties.

• New Yoker Daniel Goldman, the former House Democratic counsel in Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial, made waves during his New York district's primary after he invested millions of his estimated $253 million net worth to his campaign. The heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, Goldman is set to be among the richest members of Congress. He won his primary against three progressive challengers who effectively cancelled each other out. The AIPAC-backed Goldman, who says he is raising his children in a modern Orthodox tradition, was buoyed by the United Democracy Project Super PAC donating significant funds to a non-affiliated Super PAC, which in turn attacked Niou over her Israel positions. His newly drawn district covers liberal parts of Lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn with heavily Orthodox populations.

• Ohio Republican Max Miller, a former Donald Trump aide who earned the former president's enthusiastic endorsement, joins Tennessee Rep. David Kustoff as one of two Jewish Republicans in Congress after Lee Zeldin lost his bid to become New York governor. The 33-year-old Miller, whose mother and father both come from powerful families in the local Jewish community, ran to succeed Republican Trump critic Rep. Anthony Gonzales.

• Ohio Democrat Greg Landsman has long been a supporter of Israeli civil society organizations that support marginalized youth. The Democratic Majority for Israel and Jewish Democratic Council of America-endorsed Landsman has focused his campaign on education access based on his career as a nonprofit leader and public educator. He also holds a master's degree in theology from Harvard and participated in the Wexner Heritage Program for Jewish leaders, further citing his Jewish identity as a key force behind his career on the Cincinnati city council. He defeated Rep. Steve Chabot, a favorite of AIPAC and the RJC who voted to overturn the 2020 election results.

One of the most notable additions to the national political scene will be newly-elected Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who handily defeated the fiery, ultra-conservative state senator Doug Mastriano. Elected Pennsylvania’s Attorney General in 2017, Shapiro was attacked by the anti-Semitic Mastriano for sending his 4 children to the same Hebrew Day School he attended when he was a youngster, claiming that because the school’s tuition of nearly $40,000 per student, Shapiro was “obviously out-of-step with average Christian Pennsylvanians.” Shapiro and his wife Lori, who met at the Akiba Hebrew Day School more than 30 years ago, maintain a kosher home.

2022 was an election of many firsts:

• Arkansas:

  Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) – First elected female governor of Arkansas

  Leslie Rutledge (R) – First female lieutenant governor of Arkansas

• California:

  Alex Padilla (D) – First elected Latino senator from California

  Robert Garcia (D) – First out LGBTQ immigrant elected to Congress

  Rob Bonta (D) – First elected Filipino American attorney general of California

  Shirley Weber (D) – First elected Black secretary of state of California

  Connecticut:

  Stephanie Thomas (D) – First Black female secretary of state of Connecticut

• Florida:

  Maxwell Frost (D) – First Gen Z member of Congress (He’s 25 years old, born in 1997)

  Illinois:

  Delia Ramirez (D) – First Latina member of Congress from Illinois

  Eric Sorensen (D) – First out LGBTQ member of Congress from Illinois

  Maryland:

  Wes Moore (D) – First Black governor of Maryland

  Anthony Brown (D) – First Black attorney general of Maryland

  Aruna Miller (D) – First Asian American lieutenant governor of Maryland

  Massachusetts:

  Maura Healey (D) – First out lesbian governor in US history; first out LGBTQ governor of Massachusetts; first elected female governor of Massachusetts

  Andrea Campbell (D) – First Black female attorney general of Massachusetts

  Michigan:

  Shri Thanedar (D) – First Indian American member of Congress from Michigan

  John James (R) – First Black Republican elected to Congress from Michigan

  New York:

  Kathy Hochul (D) – First elected female governor of New York

  George Santos (R) – Wins the first House election (versus Robert Zimmerman) that featured two out LGBTQ nominees

  Ohio:

  Marcy Kaptur (D) – Once she is sworn in next year, she will be the longest serving woman in congressional history

  Oklahoma:

  Markwayne Mullin (R) – First Native American senator from Oklahoma in 100 years (Robert Owen served from 1907-1924)

  Pennsylvania:

  Summer Lee (D) – First Black female member of Congress from Pennsylvania

  Austin Davis (D) – First Black lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania

  Vermont:

  Becca Balint (D) – First woman to represent Vermont in Congress; first out LGBTQ member of Congress from Vermont

  Charity Clark (D) – First female attorney general of Vermont

It should also be noted that voters in California, Michigan and Vermont chose to enshrine abortion protections in their state constitutions. Voters in Kentucky - where abortion is currently banned - rejected an amendment that would have said there was no right to the procedure at the state level. These results, which came just months after the U.S. Supreme Court removed the constitutional right to abortion, showed that when asked directly, a broad cross section of Americans want to protect abortion access. As the Supreme Court decision began to fade from the headlines, Republicans who support abortion restrictions tried to shift the political conversation to what they believed would be more favorable ground like economic issues and crime.

What they had not considered - or believed - was that the fate of democracy was also on the ballot . . . as well as the FPOTUS, Donald J. Trump. Now the finger-pointing begins. Trump believes that Republican losses were due mostly to a string of candidates not loyal enough to his “big lie” strategy as to deserve victory. Republican insiders are more wont to blame Florida Senator Rick Scott (who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, termed the election a “complete disappointment” for Republicans, blamed the losses on low voter turnout on Election Day. Others blamed Scott himself, for helping select some of the most deeply flawed candidates in recent memory.

(It also helped that in what turned out to be a risky - though grand political chess move - Democratic insiders decided to make significant contributions to the most vocal, right-wing pro-trump candidates in various primaries. The idea behind the scheme was to persuade Republican primary voters to send their most extreme candidates to the general election, with the hope that swing voters wouldn't be able to stomach them, and instead vote for the Democratic candidate. As things turned out - especially in races for senate seats and governorships, their strategy worked quite well.)

In both the House and Senate, current Minority Leaders - Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative Kevin McCarthy - could likely face their own living hell. Already, the FPOTUS has told reporters that McConnell a “lousy leader” and thrown his support behind Florida Senator Scott. Conveniently, Scott is rumored to be mulling a presidential run against Trump in 2024. On the House side, despite the fact that no reputable news source has made the call giving Republicans a razor-thin victory, Republicans have begun jockeying for leadership roles under the assumption that they will be able to seize power. Some House Freedom Caucus members are outright opposed to making McCarthy the next Speaker - a position he has been dreaming of for many years. Other members of the caucus are demanding concessions from him that would greatly water down his power as speaker . . . should he realize that dream. These concessions could include appointing such right-wing crazies as Marjorie Taylor Green (GA), Matt Gaetz (FL) and Paul Gosar (AZ) to the most powerful committees . . . if not posts as committee chairs. (MJT easily won reelection 65.8%-30.0% in Georgia’s 14th District; Gaetz 67.8%-32.2% in Florida’s 1st District; Gosar ran unopposed in Arizona’s 9th.) No matter what the case, the Republicans will begin the 118th Congress a party and a caucus at odds with one another.

Word has it that this coming Tuesday (November 15), DJT, the man of Perpetual Promotion, will announce his intention of running for POTUS in 2024. Perhaps he believes that once he throws his hairpiece into the ring, the DOJ will have to stop investigating his innumerable deceptions and didoes. Perhaps he believes that there’s far more money to be made running for office than submitting to legal writs. Then too, perhaps he is just as self-deluded as he seems. Whatever may be the case, I believe that his shelf life as leader of the Republican Party is closing in on its expiration date.

Indeed, the Red Wave he has so long predicted has turned out to be merely a trickle.

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Priceless: The Essays of David Dalin

October 30, 2020

Priceless: The Essays of David Dalin

When you stop and think about it, it should come as no surprise that American Jewish history is still a relatively new academic field.  Then too, American history itself, as compared to, let’s say, Egyptian, or Greek or even Russian history, is still, relatively speaking, in its infancy.  The first Jews did not make it to America until 1654; the first to write about the Jewish presence, and contributions to this new land didn’t seriously put pen to paper until the 1930s.  And that historian, Hebrew Union College’s Jacob Rader Marcus (1896-1995) was originally a world-renowned scholar of the Jews of the Medieval World. In a very real sense, for those engaged in studying, research and writing of American Jewish history, Dr. Marcus is the father/mentor of us all. (Ironically, the rabbi I grew up with, Morton A. Bauman [1912-1993] served as Dr. Marcus’ student assistant/editor for his first book in 1937; I, in turn was his student assistant/editor for one of his last books, 1981’s The American Jewish Woman, A Documentary History.

Among the truly gifted and prodigious students and academic descendants of Dr. Marcus are Lance Sussman, Gary Zola (the longtime director of the Jacob R. Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives (and my former upstairs neighbor), Jonathan Sarna (the Joseph H. and Belle R. Braun Professor of American Jewish History in the department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies and director of the Schusterman Center for Israel Studies at Brandeis University - and my one-time cantor), and David Dalin, my dear friend and fellow Californian, and easily one of the current generation’s finest and most illuminating scholars in the field of American Jewish history.

Over the past 40 or so years, Professor Dalin, Senior Research Fellow at Brandeis University and a member of the academic advisory and editorial board of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives, has written more than a dozen fascinating books including The Myth of Hitler's Pope, The Presidents of the United States and the Jews, Harold Stassen: The Life and Perennial Candidacy of the Progressive Republicans and Jewish Justices of the Supreme Court: From Brandeis to Kagan (which was nominated for the National Jewish Book Award for best biography), as well as dozens upon dozens of trenchant, eminently readable essays on virtually every aspect of the American Jewish experience.

Dr. Dalin’s (who was also ordained as a Conservative Rabbi at JTS in 1980 latest book is entitled Jews and American Public Life, (2022, Academic Studies Press) It is a collection of 16 of his most thoughtful essays published over the past four decades. Subtitled Essays on American Jewish History and Politics, this work admirably showcases the extent of Dalin’s wide-ranging academic interests and scholarly passions. Divided into 7 parts, Dalin’s essays deal with the lives and accomplishments of such notables as Louis D. Brandeis, the first Jewish Justice of the Supreme Court, and baseball superstars Hank Greenberg and pitcher Sandy Koufax (to date the only Jewish members of the Baseball Hall of Fame). Of far greater interest - at least to this reader - are Dalin’s essays in which he “reintroduces” us to such national treasures as:

• Judge Mayer Sulzberger (1843-1923), longtime judge of the court of common pleas in Philadelphia, communal leader par excellent and likely best best known American Jew of his time;

• Louis Marshall (1856-1929), preeminent corporate, constitutional and civil rights lawyer, advisor to presidents, conservationist, one of the founders of the American Jewish Committee as well as an early director of the NAACP, and

• Cyrus Adler (1867-1940), President of Dropsie College, longtime Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, a communal leader instrumental in the rescue and job-placement of refugee Jewish scholars from Hitler’s Europe, and without a doubt, the greatest Jewish bibliophile in American history;

Elsewhere in this brief (287 pages) volume, Dalin focuses attention on the critical role American Jews have played in the historic debate over the wall separating Church and State, and the now forgotten time when Nazis planned to stage a march in the largely Jewish suburb of Skokie, just outside Chicago. Dalin’s eye for - and understanding of - the drama of American politics and the role Jews have played in it - as Republicans (which a majority of American Jews were until FDR) and Democrats as well as Socialists and progressives - is first-rate; he has intimate knowledge of the cast, a highly developed understanding of its script, and an unceasing curiosity about what it all means.

To read Dr. Dalin’s collection of essays is to be filled with both awe and pride at just how much Jewish attorneys, communal leaders, philanthropists - even athletes - have contributed to American greatness. As a people, we have spent eons debating and disagreeing with one another about virtually everything under the sun; indeed, even our greatest literary work, Talmud Bavli, has been called “an eternal argument between one generation and another” And yet, we have long been guided by the sage Hillel’s dictum ah tifrosh min ha-tzibor , namely, ‘Never separate yourself from the community,’ in order to create a place where all - regardless of religion, ethnicity or political position - may seek a better, more humane future.

David Dalin’s essays are priceless; his research and knowledge inexhaustible; his powers of communication both accessible and entertaining. Indeed, he is one of the best and brightest historians in what is, when all is said and done, a relatively new field of academic inquiry.

As we say in Hebrew, Mazal tov v’yishar koakh . . . “Congratulations, and may your power be increased.”

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Are Medical Ethics an Oxymoron?

              Hippocrates (460-370 B.C .E.)

The other day, while standing in a supermarket checkout line, a fellow standing behind me heard the cashier greet me by saying “How ya doin Doc?” The fellow asked me “Are you a doctor? You look like one.” (I was clad in a blue pinstripe suit, maroon tie and matching show hankie, topped off with a Panama hat.) “Sort of,” I said to the man, who was wearing a tank-top sporting colorful tats from shoulder-to-wrist.

“What’s that mean. . . sort of? he asked. “I work in the field of medical ethics,” I replied, waiting for what, after nearly 30 years, is a pretty common response. “Isn’t that kinda contradictory?” he asked, a toxic grin on his face. “You mean like oxymoronic?” I asked. His face turned blank, as if he were wondering whether or not I had just called him a moron.

“So tell me,” he said as I started to insert my debit card into the reader, “what do you think of this Dr. Fauci?”

“I think he’s one of the greatest, most brilliant and humble people on the planet,” I said, giving him a broad grin.  “And what do you think about him?” I asked.

“I think he’s killed more people than just about anybody in history,” he said . . . just challenging me to get into an argument.

“And how is that?” I asked.  “I have always considered him to be a most honorable fellow.”

“Don’t you know?  He’s the guy who created COVID-19 in some Chinese laboratory just so he could make billions from selling a phony cure.”

That’s where the conversation ended.  Fortunately, the cashier had completed his task, loaded up my recyclable bags, and said “see you next time, Doc.”  He imperceptibly jerked his head in  the direction of the fellow behind me as if to say “jeez . . . what a moron!” At least it didn’t come from me.

I learned a long time ago never to get into an argument with an idiot . . . or a conspiracy buff . . . especially when it comes to an area where I know a thing or two.  I have neither the time to bang my head against a brick wall, nor any particular love of concussions.

Hippocrates, widely considered one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine, laid down the first principle of medical ethics:  primum non nocere (hoc est, “First, do no harm”). Over many centuries and innumerable plagues and pandemics, an inviolate code of ethics has attached itself to the healing arts.  The modern field of medical ethics owes a great deal to the Third Reich, whose doctors, it was discovered during the post-war “Doctors Trial” (officially called United States of America v. Karl Brandt et al), held in Nuremberg at war’s end, of the grossly inhumane “medical procedures” that were carried out on human beings without their knowledge or consent.  So breathtakingly shocking were the results of these 12 trials, that a new field - medical ethics - was born.

The 4 most overarching principles of this field of medicine are:

• Autonomy (Respect a person’s right to chose what’s right for them);

• Non-maleficence (Do no harm);

• Beneficence (All choices for a patient are made with the intent to do good). and

• Justice (Treat and provide care fairly to all patients).   

For close to 30 years, I have served as a member of an “Institutional Review Board” (IRB), a group made up of physicians, scientists, pharmacologists and multidisciplinary academics, who are charged with safeguarding both the rights and the safety of those who participate in clinical trials (medical research). Personally, I attend a minimum of 2 teleconferences each week, during which we review anywhere between 3 and 15 new medical trials, research modifications, and what are called “continuing reviews.” it represents a tremendous amount of research and work, but ultimately is as rewarding (and demanding) as anything we have ever done.

At any given teleconference, we might be dealing with studies involving multiple myeloma (a dangerous form of cancer), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS - “Lou Gehrig’s Disease”), Crohn’s Disease (“Terminal Ileitis”), Osteogenesis Imperfecta (“Brittle Bone Disease”) or Acromegaly (a rare disease resulting from excessive production of growth hormone) or hundreds of others. Before we begin our meetings, we must swear that we have no financial conflicts of interest with the clinics, corporations or universities engaged in research . . . just to make sure that everything is on the up-and-up.

Make no mistake about it: creating new drugs and medical devices, or seeking to determine if an FDA (Food and Drug Administration) drug can effectively be used for a non-approved purpose, is a lengthy and extremely expensive proposition. For every Viagra (Erectile Dysfunction), Remicade (Crohn’s Disease), Celebrex (Osteoarthritis) or Synthroid (hypothyroidism) which rake in billions upon billions of dollars, there are literally thousands which will never earn a penny . . . let alone receive FDA approval. Sometimes, the research money is provided by ”big pharma”; sometimes, it comes from the Federal government.

When done properly, clinical trials can take years, and be painfully slow. And like it or not, this is just the way things should and must go.  Short-cuts can lead to medical catastrophes.  Who remembers the “Thalidomide babies” tragedy of the 1950s? Research on Thalidomide had begun to show the drug’s effectiveness in alleviating nausea in pregnant women, and many physicians started prescribing the drug off-label as a treatment for morning sickness. Not long after Thalidomide started being used for this purpose, physicians and scientists began observing birth defects in children born to mothers who had taken Thalidomide during their pregnancy; studies showed that exposure was particularly dangerous for infants born to mothers who had used the drug approximately 20—34 days post-fertilization. Common birth defects seen in these children included deletion of the ears, deafness, severe underdevelopment or absence of the arms, defects in the femur and tibia (bones of the legs), and many more. (Today, Thalidomide is still being prescribed . . . but for the treatment or prevention of certain skin conditions related to Hansen's disease (once known as leprosy) and to treat a certain type of cancer called multiple myeloma (cancer of mature plasma cells in the bone marrow). But back in the day however, Thalidomide had not gone through nearly as extensive research and rigorous oversight as it has in the couple of generations.

But frequently, when a disease hits close to home - one which profoundly changes one’s way of life, such as with paralysis, memory loss, or one which could lead to early death - such as COVID19 - people demand that the medical ethics community throw oversight rules out the window and provide assistance . . . even if the drug or device is not approved . . . or worse, breaks the first principle of medical ethics, by “doing harm.”

The best - and most recent - example of this came not from the CDC, FDA or any researcher of note, but rather from the FPOTUS, who flatly announced to the world that he recommended taking the anti-malarial drug Hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID-19. And despite a rapid and all-but unanimous thumbs-down from the medical and scientific community, Trump’s friends in the alt-press community actually touted “research” which “proved” that the medicine could increase survival rates by 200%. (This was actually posited in an edition of the USA Sun which, by the way, is a Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid.  Surprise surprise!)

 As a result of increasing pressure from patients (and families) of those suffering from serious, debilitating and/or lethal diseases, the FDA has begun approving the use of medical treatments with drugs which, even though likely to be safe, have not yet proven to be efficacious. Two examples:

• The agency recently approved a treatment for A.L.S., (“Lou Gehrig’s Disease”), a fatal neurological disorder, despite questions about whether the drug, called Relyvrio, will extend patients’ lives or slow the progression of their disease. Because the drug appears safe, the agency reasoned that “given the serious and life-threatening nature of A.L.S. and the substantial unmet need, this level of uncertainty is acceptable in this instance.” The F.D.A. could withdraw the drug’s approval at a later date if ongoing confirmatory trials showed poor results.

• In 2021, the F.D.A. issued a controversial approval of the Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm, through one of its programs to speed access to new treatments, called “accelerated approval.” An advisory committee for the agency determined that there wasn’t strong evidence that the drug worked, but the F.D.A. gave the green light anyway, to the delight of some patients and advocacy groups.

There is also an approval rating that the FDA can grant a drug or device, which can make it approvable for “Humanitarian Use Only.” We see these from time to time; they are generally reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and are closely scrutinized before being granted. This does not mean that the Hippocratic Oath has been cast onto the trash heap; rather it points to medicine’s ability to balance science with compassion. This gives me no pause.

What does concern, however, me is that increasingly, pressure from pharmaceutical companies, families and even regulators (such as the FDA) is becoming the bedrock of a new trend: prioritizing access to unproven medical products over gathering evidence that they safely work. As the noted bioethicist Dr. Allison Bateman House, Assistant Professor, Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, notes recently in a New York Times op-ed piece, If this trend continues, it could result in people increasingly using and paying for ineffective and possibly unsafe medical products. In the worst case, it could mark a return to an era when drug-related harms occurred under insufficient regulation.

In a time when increasingly, the findings and lessons of specialists and experts in many fields - and not just medicine - are being cast aside in favor of the fact-free supporters of hidden agendas, there is reason for concern.

Medical ethics are not an oxymoron; they are the wall which separates fact from fiction, and Hippocrates from Dr. Mengele . . .

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone