The K.F. Stone Weekly

Coupon Clippers of the World Unite!

   Last Wednesday in my "All Politics All the Time" course at Florida International University, we spent a few minutes discussing Mitt Romney's tax return, which he had released just the day before.  Not surprisingly, most of students were well versed on how much

            Romney's Home in Deer Valley, UT

Governor Romney earned per year (roughly $20 million), the percentage he paid in taxes (approximately 15%) and the various sources of his vast wealth.

 

   In the midst of our conversation -- for which I had originally allotted no more than ten minutes -- one student asked, "If Romney gets elected, will he be the richest president in American history?"

   "That's a fascinating question," I answered slowly, doing a quick "Google search" in my head. "Although I'm not sure," I answered after a few seconds of silence, "al regel achat (Hebrew for while standing on one foot) I would have to say the answer is 'no'  -- Mitt Romney would not be our wealthiest president.  I think that distinction goes to George Washington, who in addition to being one of the tallest men in the nation (nearly 6'2"), was likely its richest as well."  My answer drew a few skeptical head

            Romney's Home in La Jolla, CA

wags -- about both his height and wealth. I promised the class that I would do some serious research and hopefully have an answer for them by our next class session.

 

 Another student challenged the class with a comment/question: "What does it all mean in the long-run?  Just because the man's super-rich does that mean he can't understand people who aren't?  Are we going to hold his wealth against him?"

   The student was bringing up an intriguing point which, in a time of gross economic disparity, will likely be a major issue lurking just beneath the surface should Governor Romney get the Republican nomination.  

   As a society, our fascination with the "lifestyles of the rich and famous" is somewhere between widespread and universal.  A quick survey of which magazines and tabloids are hawked at virtually every supermarket checkout line in America amply proves the point.  How many people who don't even know the name of the family living across the street can give you line and verse about how much famous people earn . . . or the price of their mansions or the "toys" they play?  We know so much about people we don't truly know as to become inured to real life.  We read or hear so much about other people's wealth that we can actually say of an athlete making $2 million a season that "he's a real bargain."  $2 million a bargain?  That's $38,461.53 a week!

   Sounds pretty outrageous when you break it down by the week -- or the game, at bat or even hour.  Consider the following:

• Kobe Bryant makes $307,853.66 per game -- if he plays all 82 games in a season.
• A-Rod makes $50,000 per at bat -- if he comes to the plate 600 per season.
• Tom Brady earns $825,507.50 per game, 16 games a season.
• In 2011, Lady Gaga earned $1,730,770 a week.
  
• Mitt Romney earns $2,285.00 an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
  

   Don't get me wrong, I am not denigrating anyone making a king's ransom; God bless 'em all I say.  But at the same time, you have to wonder if all that money might not create a wall of separation between some seriously wealthy people and the rest of us who don't have a 7 or 8 figure income.  Yes indeed, there certainly are very wealthy people who never forgot where they came from; who still have a deep and thorough understanding of what it means to be living on the edge.  Take former Representative Alan Grayson who, despite possessing a net worth somewhere north of $30,000,000.00 is one of the wild and woolliest progressives in America.  (Check out the essay on Alan in my book, The Jews of Capitol Hill)  Then there are Senators Frank Lautenberg and Herb Kohl, two multi-multi millionaires who are at the forefront of those arguing for higher taxes for the wealthy and against cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

   And then there's Mitt Romney.  The son of former Michigan Governor -- and American Motors CEO -- George Romney, Mitt wasn't exactly born into the middle class.  His father earned, on average, more than $300,000 a year during his peak years.

           Romney's Home in Belmont, MA

As such, Mitt and his 4 siblings were raised first in the upscale Detroit Palmer Woods neighborhood and then the even more tony Bloomfield Hills, where he prepped at the Cranbrook School.  And although Mitt Romney is, without question, a good, decent and charitable man -- he tithes his church -- he acts and sounds like a man who hasn't the slightest idea what it is like to worry over whether one will have enough money to pay the mortgage, health insurance and utility bill, or is barely able to cover the monthly minimum on their credit cards -- despite working two jobs.     

 

   A person who is truly in touch with the challenges of daily life would not say -- even as a joke -- "I should tell my story . . . I'm also unemployed," despite earning 54,795.00 a day off of his investments.  Who in the real world can blithely afford to challenge someone to a $10,000.00 bet -- as he did with Texas Governor Rick Perry?  Then there's Romney's off-the-cuff comment, "I get speakers fees from time to time, but not very much." (In this case, the "not very much" amounted to more than $350,000!)

   When a candidate like Mitt Romney -- who in his lifetime has gone from being privileged to richer-than-Croesus -- or Newt Gingrich -- who has gone from lower-middle-class to multimillionaire -- argues for lower taxes for the rich and against, say, collective bargaining rights for union workers, it smacks of being completely out of

           Romney's Home in Wolfboro, NH

 

touch. When a man like President Barack Obama -- the child of a mixed-race broken home -- who earned more than $5 million writing books -- argues in favor of the rich (which now includes him) paying "their fair share," one gets the sense of a person still in touch with real people living real lives, facing real challenges. With economic disparity looming as the subtext for the 2012 presidential election, one can't help but believe that Mitt Romney is going to be at a decided disadvantage.

   Now, as to the question of our wealthiest president: turns out I was correct.  According to a fascinating story published on the acclaimed website 24/7 Wall Street.com George Washington was, far and away, our wealthiest Commander in Chief.  The editors of 24/7 Wall Street estimate that Washington was worth -- in 2010 dollars -- somewhere in the neighborhood of $525 million.  Additionally, he made far, far more than subsequent presidents; his salary was 2% of the total U.S. budget in 1789!  Other truly wealthy chief executives include Thomas Jefferson ($212 million), James Madison ($100 million), Andrew Jackson ($119 million), Theodore Roosevelt ($125 million), Herbert Hoover ($70 million), and Lyndon Johnson ($98 million).  (Those wondering about JFK should know that had he lived, he stood to inherit more than $1 billion from his father.  Such, however, was not to be his fate . . .)

   As a society of voyeurs, we are, without question, addicted to the "lifestyles of the rich and famous." One hopes that when it comes to being a society of citizens and voters, we seek out those who, despite having earned -- or not -- great wealth, still have their fingers on the pulse of real people living real lives, facing real challenges.  

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

A Keystone Comedy

This past week President Obama and the State Department rejected a permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. What a perversely ironic name: "Keystone." For me, a child of Hollywood, that name conjures up images of anarchic Kops who jump up and down, run to and fro, and throw pies with gay abandon; all perfectly predictable, all in the service of that low-brow class of comedy known as "slapstick." If the issues involved in the current Keystone -- the pipeline -- weren't so deadly serious -- energy, ecology and employment -- it too could qualify as slapstick: anarchic, predictable and low-brow.

Except this Keystone isn't a silent flick; it's got a sound-track and special effects and everything.

And it's more of a tragicomedy . . .

For anyone who's been paying close attention to this ongoing tragicomedy, the State Department's rejection should come as no surprise; it is all part of an election-year scenario composed by the Republicans Caucus. From the moment late last month when Boehner & Company attached a provision to the payroll tax extension bill requiring the president to decide on the pipeline permit within 60 days, their intention was as obvious as the plotline of a Keystone Comedy: to hit Barack Obama and the Democrats with an election year pie in the face. Even before Republicans attached the provision, the White House had stated that it would need a minimum of another year in order to evaluate the various potential impacts of the pipelines. (For those not yet aware of what "fracking" -- hydraulic fracturing -- is, check out an article from The Guardian.) What has not been generally reported is that Nebraska and North Dakota -- two states that would be along the proposed pipeline route -- expressed severe reservations about the impact it might have on farmlands and aquifer. As a result, TransCanada -- the firm set to build the pipeline -- went back to the drawing board in order to create a new route. Both the president and the State Department have made it clear that they are willing to revisit this issue in the future, once TransCanada maps out a new route proposal. But to listen to the opposition, the denial is both eternal and unalterable.

Guess again.

From day one, most Republicans -- and a number of Democrats -- proclaimed that approving the Keystone XL was absolutely essential; both for the jobs it would create, and for the energy independence it would guarantee. With the Obama Administration's denial, Republicans can now breathlessly accuse the president of being callously unconcerned about either. "He is," more than one Fox commentator has complained, "anti-oil and anti-Capitalism."

How predictable.

Anti-oil? Anti-Capitalist? Really? In his statement on the decision, the president said his administration is looking at another proposed pipeline in the Midwest. Just last month, his administration made available 21 million acres - an area about the size of South Carolina - of offshore drilling sites in the Gulf of Mexico -- not precisely the action of a man or an administration that is "anti-oil." The lease auction attracted more than $337 million in high bids from oil companies.

Moreover, when the State Department issued its original negative report on the proposed Keystone-XL, it was marred by enough controvery and scandal to warrant an investigation by Foggy Bottom's inspector general.( Yes, that's right; the administration was investigating itself!) Last year, a Freedom of Information Act request by environmental groups revealed that a former Hillary Clinton campaign aide was working as a lobbyist for TransCanada, and that Cardno Entrix, a massive contracting firm and TransCanada client, was hired to prepare much of the original environmental assessment.

And the Teeheezels of the right still would have us believe that the administration is anti-oil!

What a predictable script.

In the run-up to Obama's permit denial, the entertainers at Fox, emoting from scripts written by TransCanada, claimed that the proposed $7 billion, 1,700-mile pipeline would create 12-15,000 jobs. Now that it has been put on hold, that number has magically grown to anywhere between 20,000 and 50,000 construction and manufacturing jobs as well as more than 120,000 indirect jobs. So far as I can tell, this is the only jobs program the Republicans have put forth since taking over Congress -- except for cutting taxes and regulations.

Want to talk about jobs?

A recent 40-page study published by the Cornell Global Labor Institute entitled Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL concludes that the job estimates put forward by TransCanada are "unsubstantiated." The folks at Cornell GLI found that "50% or more of the steel pipe, the main material input used for Keystone XL, will be manufactured outside the U.S." Another study concluded that at best, Keystone would create between 2,500 and 6,000 temporary construction positions. It follows that if the number of direct jobs -- and their economic impact -- are far less than TransCanada has claimed, that the number of indirect positions will also be far less.

Another line in the script goes, "The oil carried by the Keystone XL will go a long way towards weaning America off of foreign oil -- something the president obviously could care less about!" Here again, there's a bit of a problem with reality . . . and reportage. It turns out that the United States, for the first time in 62 years, is a net exporter of petroleum products. According to data released in late November of 2011 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration -- and reported by that notorious Socialist rag The Wall Street Journal -- "The U.S. exported 753.4 million barrels of everything from gasoline to jet fuel in the first nine months of 2011, while it imported 689.4 million barrels." As recently as 2005, we imported nearly 900 million more barrels of petroleum than we exported. The last time we were a net exporter of oil, gas cost 26 cents a gallon, the price of a first-class stamp was 3 cents, and a typical house cost $13,500.

This bit of good news has gone largely unreported. The question is why. I suspect it is because the lion's share of oil that would flow through the Keystone XL would be exported overseas . . . which does a lot for corporate profits but precious little for energy independence.

It has been loudly suggested that President Obama canceled the Keystone XL pipeline as "an election-year gesture of good will to his most ardent supporters on the Left." While it is true that environmentally-conscious Americans are gleeful that at least for now the pipeline and the dangers of fracking have been put on the shelf, not all of the president's "most ardent supporters" are happy. For in putting the Keystone XL on hold, President Obama has earned a ton of enmity from organized labor -- a key group he will need if he is to be reelected. Labor believes that the president's action is short-sighted; that it kills unionized jobs. I don't think anyone's crystal ball is powerful enough to see whether or not jobs produced by the pipeline project would be unionized.

One thing I do know that in denying TransCanada their permit, President Obama has done precisely what the Republicans set him up to do; he has faithfully acted out the script they wrote for him. The president and his advisers are wise enough to know that in denying the Keystone permit, he was setting himself up to have a political pie thrown his way.

The question now is, how good are his reflexes . . . ?

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Where Has All the Propofol Gone?

Propofol -- one of the drugs that led to Michael Jackson's untimely death -- is a short-acting, intravenously administered hypnotic agent. Known in some circles as "Milk of Amnesia," its uses include the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia, sedation for mechanically-ventilated patients, and procedural sedation. Propofol -- and its generic equivalents -- has been widely and successfully administered in hospital operating rooms around the world for nearly 30 years. And, as of June 4, 2010, Teva Pharmaceuticals, the Israeli-based firm that was the major supplier of Propofol, no longer manufactures it. Today, it is almost impossible to find.

Where has all the Propofol gone?

And while we're at it, where has all the Doxil, Adderall, Mitomycin, Morphine Sulphate, Avalide, Ondansetron, Succinylcholine, Dextrose, B-12 and more than 200 other important meds gone? Shockingly, between 2006 and 2010, drug shortages increased by more than 200% according to a Government Accountability Office Report released late last month. Many of the drugs declared "MIA" are critical chemotherapeutics; intravenously infused medicaments and "cocktails" that can often mean the difference between remission and metastasis -- between life and death. Some of the shorted meds -- though far less exotic -- are just as critical to the health and well-being of patients in need: things as basic as injectable cobalamin (vitamin B-12) and Tylenol 1 (the 325 mg version). Although a lack of injectable B-12 might not seem as critical as a dearth of Propofol or Doxil (a chemotherapeutic drug used in the treatment of breast cancer), it can be for the patient in need; severe B-12 deficiency can lead to irreversible damage, especially to the brain and nervous system. I know; I'm supposed to receive a weekly injection . . .

When and if a supply of these drugs can be located, it is at a cost; there are reports of drugs which distributors sold just two years ago for $25.00 per dose, now going for as much as $1,200 per dose on the "Grey Market." And this phenomenon is not confined to certain states or regions; it's happening all over the United States. Large, well-heeled establishments like the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic and Vanderbilt University Medical Center at least have the possibility of purchasing critical medications -- at monstrously inflated prices -- because they have both the ability and the resources to order in great quantity. But one should keep in mind that there are just as many -- if not more -- patients whose lives depend on receiving chemotherapeutic drug protocols who live in small towns and are served by small hospitals that don't buy in quantity and thus cannot afford to pay hyper-inflated prices. Sometimes, when a drug that a patient tolerates well can't be readily located, the physician will prescribe an alternative -- which frequently the patient cannot tolerate. With some medical conditions, an interruption in treatment of a month, even a week, can be disastrous . . . even deadly.

The question is not only "Where has all the Propofol gone?" but "What has led to its scarcity?"

It all depends on who you ask, what ones starting point might be . . . even what axe they may be grinding. Make no mistake about it: the scarcity of pharmaceuticals is an issue and a problem for both Democrats and Republicans, ultra-conservatives and ultra-progressives. Anyone, regardless of his or her political philosophy, can contract cancer or Crohn's Disease, require surgery or suffer from a thousand-and-one life-threatening ailments. And yet, when it comes to analyzing the current situation, politics and point of view do count for something.

At base, market forces have a lot to do with the scarcity of drugs. The prices we pay for pharmaceuticals in the United States are far higher than those paid by the citizens of any other country in the world. In large measure this is why the pharmaceutical industry has for years been the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S. According to the annual Forbes 500 survey, the American pharmaceutical industry tops the list of all industries with a return of 17% on investment. And although the cost of manufacturing a new drug is relatively low, the cost of inventing and then patenting a new drug is relatively high. Drug manufacturers have always claimed that the high cost of pharmaceuticals is due to this latter issue. Then too, a hefty part of the price for bringing a new drug to market can be found in advertising costs; ever notice all those commercials urging us -- the patient -- to tell our physician that we want them to prescribe drug "x" or "y" for condition "a" or "b?" Silly me; I thought it worked the other way around; that the doctor did the suggesting and prescribing to me, and not I to her . . .

Many, many pharmaceutical giants have seen their patents lapse and other companies manufacture, then market, generic versions of their creations. Generally speaking, when a drug goes off patent and becomes generic, the price drops precipitously; the companies making them are in the business of gaining as much market share as possible. This is a no-brainer. But then, the generic manufacturers cry, the price remains both low and flat; profits are minimal -- too minimual, many say, to warrent continued manufacturing of generic "a" or "b." Some place blame on the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act (H.R. 1) which Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law on December 8, 2003. This act limits Medicare payment for physician-administered drugs to the average sales price plus a 6% administrative fee, which manufacturers claim has limited profit margins and thus their ability to maintain and upgrade their facilities. And despite the fact that H.R. 1 provides for an analysis of average sales prices twice a year, it still means that the profit to be made on these generics is going to rise at a pretty slow pace. Many companies have concluded that if drug "a" or "b" can't bring in more than 6% profit above cost, they simply will discontinue its manufacture.

Another factor is the drug distribution system itself. Physicians face pressure from health insurers to obtain the best prices for prescription drugs through multiple distributors. However, as noted above, distributors tend to provide the best prices and most stable supply to high-volume purchasers. Then too, according to information provided by IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, most of the nearly 170 prescription drugs in a shortage status as of October 2011 were offered by a single supplier or a small number (under 4) of firms.

Some claim the problem has been exacerbated by tighter Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement of drug manufacturing standards. (According to public records, over the past 2 years the FDA expedited more than 300 industry applications for new or updated manufacturing facilities. So much for the It's-the-fault-of-too-many-damned-regulatory-hoops-to-jump-through argument.) This past October, President Obama signed an executive order requiring the FDA to expedite regulatory review of drug manufacturers and investigate price gouging. At the same time, the White House announced that they would immediately begin requiring some drug manufacturers to report production interruptions to the FDA. The manufacturers that have to report to the FDA are those drug manufacturers that have no generic equivalent and are critical to maintaining life. There are currently two pieces of legislation making their way through Congress calling for advanced warning of impending drug shortages and more FDA action. But passage is both uncertain and a long way off. For now, drug distributors would appear to be in the driver's seat.

Today, a majority of the shorted meds are being manufactured overseas -- in China, South America, Eastern Europe and Israel. The FDA simply does not have the budget or the manpower to inspect these foreign manufacturing plants. As a result, there are a lot of pharmaceuticals on the market that do not meet American safety standards -- another cause of shortages.

That the country which prides itself on having "the best healthcare on the planet" should have these problems -- drugs shortages, an unscrupulous "grey market" charging sky-high prices for life-saving meds, and a fast-declining manufacturing base -- is unconscionable. That no other industrialized country suffers from a similar set of problems likely shows that we do not, in fact have "the best healthcare on the planet." To my way of thinking, many of these problems would be alleviated by going to a single-payer system; one that recognizes that although industries -- especially those that employ more lobbyists than any other on the planet -- have a constitutional right to make a reasonable profit, human beings have a God-given right to live.

If Michael Jackson's doctor could get his hands on Propofol why can't my doctor at the Cleveland Clinic?

And while we're at it, where in the hell is my B-12?

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Lies to Live By

The study of history can be both instructive and curious; instructive in how it illuminates the progress of man; curious in that often, the more one learns, the less one understands. Shining a light on the events -- not to mention the personalities and politics -- frequently tarnishes the patina of noble ingenuousness with which said historic ingredients have long been imbued. This is because history -- as instructive and curious as it is -- is also filled with myth, half-truths and outright lies. Or, as Mark Twain would have it, The history of our race, and each individual's experience, is sown thick with evidences that a truth is not hard to kill, and that a lie told well is immortal.

History, of course, has its quaint myths: Every Jewish child knows that the "miracle" of Hanukah is a cruse of oil that lasted for eight days. (In fact, the real miracle is that a group of farmers, shopkeepers, artisans and scholars went to war for an idea and
actually defeated a professional army.) It used to be that every American school child knew the story about the young George Washington who, after being confronted by his father about the chopping down of a cherry tree famously proclaimed, "I cannot tell a lie . . ." (This engaging little tale was actually invented by Parson Mason Locke Weems in his biography of the great man, written shortly after his death.)

History can also be numbingly repetitive; when Congress gave President Lyndon Johnson a blank check for war in Vietnam, it was based on a lie ("The Maddox and Turner Joy were fired on by North Vietnamese torpedo boats!") -- and Johnson knew it; when President George W. Bush beat a mendacious drum for war in Iraq it was based on a lie ("Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!"), and he knew it. In so lying, both men were -- perhaps unknowingly -- following in the footsteps of Cato the Elder who purposefully misrepresented the Carthaginian threat to Rome (Carthago delenda est -- "Carthage must be destroyed!"), thus precipitating the Third Punic War. Moreover, Rome's utter destruction of Carthage, gave rise to one of history's most dubious -- yet durable -- claims: that Rome, seeking to ensure that Carthage would never rise again, sowed the fields with salt so that nothing would ever grow there again. (n.b. This is highly dubious; salt was an expensive commodity in the ancient world. The amount needed to permanently destroy the fertility of the soil would have been so enormous that the supposed benefit would not have been worth the financial cost.)

Myths and lies have a long history in American politics. Now, before any of our more conservative readers say, "Oh, he's at it again . . . he's going to go after the Republicans and give the Democrats a free pass . . ." let me assure you that in politics all sides, all parties lie. Federalists, Whigs, Republicans, Democrats, Tea Partiers, Libertarians, Socialists, Flat-Earthers . . . It goes with the turf. Then again, this is a progressive blog, so if it appears than we're going after one party more than another well, that too goes with the turf . . .

Moving from the realm of Cato, Carthage and conspiracy to the present day, we present several lies currently being promulgated; lies we sincerely hope will not become a part of history:'

• The salvation of the American economy lies in lowering taxes on corporations and the rich, cutting middle-class entitlements, deregulation, extreme deficit reduction and a balanced budget. This mantra, sung by virtually every Republican in America is, to be diplomatic, a gross mistruth. The economic quagmire known as "The Great Recession" was far more the result of the deregulation of banks and tax cuts for the rich than entitlements for the middle-class. And while it is certainly true that deficits and debt do matter -- and must ultimately be addressed in a serious, purposive manner -- clamoring for draconian cuts in the midst of an economic downturn isn't mere fiscal imprudence; it betrays an utter disconnect. For too long, we've heard that placing ever greater wealth in the hands of corporations and the already wealthy will ultimately benefit everyone -- that "a rising tide raises all boats." This, of course, presumes that everyone has a boat . . .
• No one has ever died because they didn't have health care: This maddening mistruth came from the mouth of Republican "flavor-of-the-month" Rick Santorum, during a Q&A session with students at a small Christian college in Iowa this past December 5. A student asked the former Pennsylvania senator about health care and the Christian responsibility of caring for the poor. The student said "I don't think God appreciates the fact that we have 50 to 100,000 uninsured Americans dying due to a lack of health care every year," citing a 2009 study out of Harvard University. “Dying?” Santorum answered. "I reject that number completely . . . that people die in America because of lack of health insurance. People die in America because people die in America." Actually, according to the Harvard study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, if you take two Americans who are physically identical – same age, same gender, same race, same weight, same smoking history – and one of them has health insurance and one does not, then the one without health insurance is 40% more likely to die each year.
• States need to pass laws to ensure against voter fraud: Of late, an increasing number of states -- all of which have Republican governors and Republican-majority legislatures -- have been introducing and passing legislation cutting back on early voting, changing rules for presenting absentee ballots and requiring voters to present state-issued i.ds in order to vote. Their argument is that all of these moves are necessary in order to "protect the sanctity of the ballot from unscrupulous voters." And yet, according to a recent study by the Brennan Center for Justice has shown that instances of voter fraud in America are extraordinarily, unbelievably rare. Ohio, as an example, has documented four instances of voter fraud (out of more than 9 million ballots cast) in the last two presidential election cycles. Kansas, where the secretary of state pressed the legislature to pass a draconian i.d. law, admitted that his office could only document 221 cases of voter fraud since 1997. The real purpose behind all this is to make it far more difficult for certain groups -- students, ethnic minorities and the elderly -- to vote. Not surprisingly, all three of these groups have a greater tendency to vote Democratic than Republican. This is a naked attempt on the part of Republicans to create a "cure" for a problem that does not exist. One has a greater chance of being hit by lightening or winning the lottery than engaging in an act of voter fraud.

This is by no means meant to be an exhaustive list of "lies to live by." We could easily have included such canards as "President Obama wants to turn America into a European Social Welfare state," or "The mainstream media is run by liberals for liberals," or "Corporations are people," or "There is no such thing as man-made global warming," or "Ronald Reagan never raised taxes . . ."

The truth of the matter is that from Cato to Cantor, and from Maccabees to McConnell, lies abound.

Which makes history both instructive . . . and curious.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Traveling at the Speed of Life

  Nearly a century ago, Woodrow Wilson, arguably our  most scholarly president (PhD Johns Hopkins, 1883) noted that the worst part about his job was that it afforded almost no time for what he called "concentrated thought." Wilson was a man for whom contemplation and deliberation were close to divinity.  Here was a man given to grand ideas which were fully-formed, then communicated with unsurpassed -- yet understandable -- eloquence. Once, when asked how long it took him to prepare a speech, an uncharacteristically jocose Wilson responded, "If I am to speak for ten minutes, I need a week for preparation; if fifteen minutes, three days; if half an hour, two days; if an hour, I am ready now."  Reading between the lines, one senses Wilson's frustration at having lost "the needed time alone to think."  For the nation's 28th president, the speed of life had simply become too rapid to permit serious contemplation.

   Ironically, at the time Wilson was bemoaning the "breakneck pace of human life," the maximum speed limit in Washington, D.C. was only 10 MPH.  The most expeditious way for him to communicate with other world leaders was the via diplomatic cable, which could  take more than 24-hours; a trip between Washington and Berlin took about a week -- provided that there were no storms at sea.  A person in San Francisco sending a letter to a friend or family member in, say Boston, could start looking for a response in about 7 or 8 days.  And yet for Wilson, the world was moving entirely too fast for comfort.  Imagine what "The Phrasemaker" would have to say about the speed of life in 2012, when an email or text that goes answered for more than a few minutes causes us to stew or fret . . .

   The ever-increasing speed of life is like a narcotic; we can never get enough. That which was considered to be "faster than a speeding bullet" just yesterday, is no better than a snail's pace today. The ever-increasing speed of life has made us ever-increasingly impatient. Not that long ago, no one gave a second thought to the fact that a radio or television took anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute to "warm up." Today that wait would be a totally unacceptable eternity. Remember when getting up off the couch to change channels on the one television in the house was de rigueur?  Or how little time it took to figure out which programs were on at 8:00 pm?  Today, a life without many remotes for many flat-screens is a life filled with deprivation; one needs a good 5 minutes just to look through the menu selector in order to check out the hundreds of programs coming on in the next time-slot.  Remember when a 56k dial-up modem was the ultimate in speed?  It wasn't all that long ago.  Really.  Today, a wait of more than a couple of nano-seconds is worse than waiting for Godot . . .

  There are several corollaries to the heightened impatience and sense of immediacy brought on by the ever-increasing speed of life: a rise in unrealistic expectations; an explosion in the number of instantaneous sources providing information; even less time for "concentrated thought." How else to explain why today a new president has at best, a one month "honeymoon" with the public, where yesterday it might last the better part of two years? Or the rapid rise and even more rapid fall of "front runners" like Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich? Time and again we anoint a new messiah, a new emperor, only to discover that he or she has no clothes.  We give leaders next to no time to solve social, political and economic problems that may have taken years to fester before reaching the surface. We proclaim programs to be abject failures even before they go into effect.  It is reminiscent of the old joke about the die-hard Cubs fan who, after an Opening Day loss, loudly proclaimed, "Just wait until next year!"  We expect reality to mirror a two-hour motion picture in which all problems can be addressed, analyzed, and solved by super heroes before a glorious final fadeout.  But reality is not a motion picture; our leaders are not super heroes, let alone messiahs or emperors.  And its not their "nakedness" which makes them unacceptable; it's the discovery that they are clothed in off-the-rack garments, just like the rest of us . . . 

   Viewed in this light, is it all that surprising that impatience, frustration and anger are the most prevalent of public emotions?  We see ourselves caught in the gaping maw of insoluble problems -- issues of economy and ecology, of war and of peace -- that are rarely addressed with anything even approaching well-conceived seriousness. Time and again we hear candidates and commentators tell us precisely who or what is the source of our communal challenges and difficulties -- as if the act of identifying a culprit will make the challenges go away.  And as much as we may know that this is simply not the case -- that there are no simple solutions to systemic problems -- many will hold their nose, suspend their belief and anoint yet another messiah who will be labeled a failure within a fortnight. 

   Beyond any partisan political wishes I may have for 2012, I pray that we as a nation engage in more "concentrated thought"; that a strong, active, and purpose-driven majority will finally grow up and quit looking for the one person with the one slogan who promises to make all our problems magically vanish.  Historically, psychology and emotion have always lagged behind advances in technology.  Simply stated, invention is easy, adaptation is not.  If we are ever to put our nation, our economy and our people back on secure footing it will come not through enslaving ourselves to a mythic time when everything worked -- which is utterly ridiculous and counter-intuitive -- but through  adapting to -- and mastering -- the speed of life.

   May the optimism, energy and hopefulness of our founders and pioneers be our inheritance in 2012.         

   As 2011 winds down, permit me to conclude with Grandpa Doc's favorite all-purpose toast: "

Here's to health and happiness . . ."

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Facts: A Cure for Foxification?

Back in December 1770, John Adams, noted in a legal brief ("Argument in Defense of the soldiers in the Massachusetts Massacre Trials") that "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Whenever I come across this quote, I find myself wondering were Adams, the 'Colossus of Independence' alive today, would he disavow his insightful gem? Would he turn on the TV, watch an hour of Fox News and then amend his statement to read "Facts are stupid things" -- which in fact Ronald Reagan would say more than two centuries later?

Today, more than ever, facts have become subjective; more frequently than not they are what the speaker says they are. And here, I am not referring to the interpretation of facts, but rather the deliberate avoidance and ignorance of them. Take as but one example, all those who breathlessly inform their partisans -- despite a welter of statistical evidence to the contrary -- that "Obama's stimulus hasn't created a single job." Standing in opposition to this one subjective "fact" is a set of statistical ones -- provided in a Congressional Budget Office report which concludes that the stimulus "increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, compared with what employment would have been otherwise."

Ah facts . . . such stupid things.

As a partial antidote to what might be called the "Foxification of Facts," I hereby present the following series of stubborn statistics. (The facts presented herein are all gleaned from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Website):

Fox Fact #1: Unemployment is always higher under Democrats:

The reality: Going back to 1953, every time America had 8 or more consecutive years of Republican administrations in the White House, unemployment starts low with them but ends up ABOVE 6% at the end of those eight years. On the other hand, going back to 1953, every time we have had 8 or more consecutive years of Democratic administrations, unemployment starts high (handed to them by the GOP) but then ends BELOW 6%.

Don't believe me? Let's check the facts:

DEMOCRAT – Harry Truman
January 1953: Democrat Harry Truman hands the White House over to Republican Dwight Eisenhower.
Unemployment Rate (January ’53) = 2.9%

REPUBICAN – Dwight Eisenhower
January 1953, Takes White House….. Unemployment Rate that month = 2.9%
January 1961, Leaves White House… Unemployment Rate that month = 6.6%
NOTE: After 8 years, a Republican hands the White House back over to a Democrat with unemployment ABOVE 6%.

DEMOCRATS – John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson
January 1961, Kennedy Takes White House…. Unemployment Rate that month = 6.6%
January 1969, Johnson Leaves White House… Unemployment Rate that month = 3.4%
NOTE: After 8 years, a Democrat hands the White House back over to a Republican with unemployment BELOW 5%.

Republicans -- Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford
January 1969, Nixon Takes White House…. Unemployment Rate that month = 3.4%
January 1977, Ford Leaves White House… Unemployment Rate that month = 7.5%
NOTE: After 8 years, a Republican (again) hands the White House back over to a Democrat with unemployment ABOVE 6%.

DEMOCRAT – Jimmy Carter
January 1977, Carter Takes White House…. Unemployment Rate that month = 7.5%
January 1981, Carter Leaves White House… Unemployment Rate that month = 7.5%

REPUBLICANS – Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (Bush # 1)
January 1981, Reagan Takes White House…. Unemployment Rate that month = 7.5%
January 1993, Bush # 1 Leaves White House… Unemployment Rate that month = 7.3%
NOTE: After 12 years, a Republican (again) hands the White House back over to a Democrat with unemployment ABOVE 6%.

DEMOCRAT – Bill Clinton
January 1993, Clinton Takes White House…. Unemployment Rate that month = 7.3%
January 2001, Clinton Leaves White House… Unemployment Rate that month = 4.2%
NOTE: After 8 years, a Democrat (again) hands the White House back over to a Republican with unemployment BELOW 5%.

REPUBLICAN – George W. Bush (Bush # 2)
January 2001, Bush # 2 Takes White House…. Unemployment Rate that month = 4.2%
January 2009, Bush # 2 Leaves White House… Unemployment Rate that month = 7.8%
NOTE: After 8 years, a Republican (again) hands the White House back over to a Democrat with unemployment ABOVE 6%.

 

Fox Fact #2: "Made-in-America" job creation is always greatest under Republicans than Democrats.

The reality: Looking back 34 years, to 1977, every single Republican we’ve had in the White House has had a NET LOSS in U.S. “Made In America” manufacturing jobs, comparing the manufacturing jobs numbers from the January of the year that they took office with the January of the year that they leave office. By the same token, looking back over the same 34 years, to 1977, every single Democrat we’ve had in the White House has had a NET GAIN in U.S. “Made In America” manufacturing jobs, comparing the manufacturing jobs numbers from the January of the year that they took office with the January of the year that they leave office.

Don't believe me? Here's the actual data from the "Manufacturing Sector Employed" numbers, available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics Website:

Democrat – Jimmy Carter
January 1977, Carter Takes White House…. # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 17,803,000
January 1981, Carter Leaves White House… # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 18,639,000
NET GAIN in “MADE IN AMERICA” manufacturing jobs under this Democrat = +836,000

Republican – Ronald Reagan
January 1981, Reagan Takes White House…. # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 18,639,000
January 1989, Reagan Leaves White House… # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 18,057,000
NET LOSS in “MADE IN AMERICA” manufacturing jobs under this Republican = -582,000

Republican – George H.W. Bush (Bush # 1)
January 1989, Bush # 1 Takes White House…. # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 18,057,000
January 1993, Bush # 1 Leaves White House… # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 16,791,000
NET LOSS in “MADE IN AMERICA” manufacturing jobs under this Republican = -1,266,000

Democrat – Bill Clinton

January 1993, Clinton Takes White House…. # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 16,791,000
January 2001, Clinton Leaves White House… # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 17,114,000
NET GAIN in “MADE IN AMERICA” manufacturing jobs under this Democrat = +323,000

Republican – George W. Bush (Bush # 2)
January 2001, Bush # 2 Takes White House…. # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 17,114,000
January 2009, Bush # 2 Leaves White House… # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 12,559,000
NET LOSS in “MADE IN AMERICA” manufacturing jobs under this Republican = -4,555,000

Democrat -- Barack Obama

2010 — In 2010, for the first time since Bill Clinton, the nation had a NET GAIN of +153,000 “MADE IN AMERICA” manufacturing jobs.

2011 — In 2011 up to this last month’s data (November), for the SECOND TIME since Bill Clinton, the nation has had a NET GAIN in “MADE IN AMERICA” manufacturing jobs equal to +146,000 so far in 2011.

Fox Fact #3: American Trade is healthiest when Republicans control the reins of government.

The reality: Going back to 1977, every time we’ve had the Democrats controlling at least 2-out of-3 of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, the nation’s TRADE DEFICIT shrinks (the USA imports less and exports more). By the same token, going back to 1981, every time we’ve had the Republicans controlling at least 2-out of-3 of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, the nation’s TRADE DEFICIT grows (the USA imports more and exports less).

Don't believe me? Here’s the data, courtesy of the U.S. Census Bureau, which tracks these things:

1977 to 1980, Democrats control 3-of-3, i.e., the White House, Senate and the House of Representatives
U.S. Trade Deficit in 1977 = $27.2 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit in 1980 = $19.4 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit REDUCES by 29% when Democrats controlled 3-of-3.

1981 to 1986, Republicans control 2-of-3, i.e., the White House (Ronald Reagan) and the Senate
U.S. Trade Deficit in 1981 = $ 16.2 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit in 1986 = $138.5 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit INCREASES by 755% when Republicans control 2-of-3.

1987 to 1994, Democrats control 2-of-3, i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives
U.S. Trade Deficit in 1987 = $151.7 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit in 1994 = $ 98.5 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit REDUCES by 35% when Democrats control 2-of-3.

1995 to 2000, Republicans control 2-of-3, i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives
U.S. Trade Deficit in 1995 = $ 96.4 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit in 2000 = $376.7 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit INCREASES by 291% when Republicans control 2-of-3.

2001 to 2006, Republicans control 3-of-3, i.e., the White House (Bush # 2), the Senate, and the House of Representatives.
U.S. Trade Deficit in 2001 = $361.8 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit in 2006 = $753.3 billion

U.S. Trade Deficit INCREASES by 108% when Republicans control 3-of-3.

2007 to 2010, Democrats control 3-of-3…

U.S. Trade Deficit in 2007 = $696.7 billion

U.S. Trade Deficit in 2010 = $500.0 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit REDUCES by 28% when Democrats control 3-of-3.

So there you have it . . . the force of facts, not the fiction of FOX.

In an ideal world, the former would conquer the latter. But this is not an ideal world, and facts, no matter how powerful they are, suffer from a stubborn malady: they simply aren't nearly as entertaining as fiction.

More's the pity . . .

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Mt. Rushmore After Dark

 (The following "conversation" is only partly a product of my imagination; all of the italicized lines represent actual quotes from the four men looking out from Mt. Rushmore . . . )

T. Roosevelt: "Psst . . . Mr. Lincoln . . . Are you awake? In the mood for a chat? I've got a horrific case of insomnia and just know that I'm going to be up all night. I've got a lot on my mind, and can't stand just being idle . . . must do something to wile away the night."

A. Lincoln: "Yes, Mr. Roosevelt, I am also awake, and also have a lot on my mind. I'm always up for a good jawing.  As the saying goes, 'I like talking with a man who likes to talk.'  So, on what topics shall we speak this beautiful moonlit night? And by the way, after all these years, isn't it about time you started calling me 'Abe?'"

T. Roosevelt: "Thanks . . . Abe. And likewise, please call me Teddy . . . it's much more friendly-sounding than 'Theodore.' Now, as to what's on my mind . . . well, to be quite blunt, it's the state of politics . . . indeed, the very direction of these United States.  And when I say 'politics,' I mean not to refer just to the Democrats or our fellow Republicans, although I must say -- and in this I  suspect you shall concur -- it is not at all the party we belonged to and led in our day.  It seems to me we used to be so much more concerned with people than with power . . . with speaking to the point rather than obfuscating the issue. I mean today, a typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues."

A. Lincoln: "Ah, you've noticed that too, have you?  Yes indeed, this current crop of Republicans -- and many Democrats -- when you get down to it, are seemingly incapable of addressing real issues with anything approaching sincerity or conviction.  Or of even speaking the truth.  Nonetheless, I am a firm believer in the people.  If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis.  The great point is to bring them the real facts.  And as for our party -- of which I am proud to have been its first standard-bearer, I remember us being for both the man and the dollar, but in the case of conflict, the man before the dollar.  I am greatly saddened to conclude that this is no longer the case.  These capitalists generally act harmoniously to fleece the people, and our partisans are either totally blind to the fact at best, or in full  agreement at worst."

T. Jefferson: "Excuse me gentlemen: mind if an old Virginian joins in the conversation? I couldn't help but overhearing what you are talking about, and am likewise quite exorcised by the craven mindlessness of our republic's leaders.  Seems to me that your party has been hijacked by a faction whose fuel is anger and fear . . . leavened with a rather large dose of sectarian apocalypticism."

T. Roosevelt: "Ah President Jefferson!  How wonderful having you and your felicitous phraseology enter our conversation . . . hope our chattering did not awaken you."

T. Jefferson: "No, not at all.  You may remember that in life, I rarely slept more than 3 hours at a stretch.  From the time I was a mere lad, I was always of the thought that too
much sleep would likely deprive me of too many experiences . . . In any event, I am  truly concerned about how little the nation's politicians or leaders actually lead or act; of how much they follow or react. And what's more, it seems to be a virtual mania these days to promote ignorance and denigrate knowledge.  If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects that which was never was . . . and never shall be.  Indeed, your party has definitely been taken over by a beast." 

A. Lincoln: "I certainly agree with you there Tom.  As I have often said, When you have an elephant by the hind legs and he's trying to run away, it's best to let him run away.  I think that before too long, our Republican leaders will wake up and see that the faction they nurtured and anointed is, if left unchecked, going to lead them into 40 years of wandering in the political wilderness.  I mean, this notion that by cutting taxes on the wealthiest 1% somehow the 99% will be better off is political alchemy;  I mean, how many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?  Four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg . . ."

T. Roosevelt: "With all due respect, President Jefferson . . . uh . . . Tom . . . As much as I do agree with you on the issue of political ignorance, I'm not so sure about your take on the religious aspect of the problem.  I mean after all, you've never been what might be called a 'believer.'"

T. Jefferson: "Ah, there you have it wrong, my dear Teddy!  As I once wrote my good friend, Dr. Rush, To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus Himself.  I am a Christian, in the only sense in which He wished any one to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to Himself every human excellence; and believing He never claimed any other." I have nothing against religion; it's just that I cannot fathom it playing such a seemingly crucial role in our national political discussion.  The truth is, the greatest enemies of the doctrines of Jesus are calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words.   Nonetheless I remain a thorough-going optimist.  A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolved, and the people recovering their true sight, restoring their government to its true principles . . ."

G. Washington: "Thomas: might your reference to "witches" be an illusion to that young woman from Delaware?  Seems to me that more than concerning ourselves with witches and warlocks hovering about the nation's political arena, we would do well to guard against the postitures of pretended patriotism." 

T. Jefferson: "How delightful having you join our conversation, Mr. President.  I certainly agree that I too am greatly bothered by those whose  patriotic fervor will not permit them to see -- or even consider -- the opinion of another without declaring it to be essentially treasonous.  These modern folks seem to have forgotten that every difference in opinion is not a difference in principle."

G. Washington: "Yes, Thomas.  There you have it right. I remember writing Mr. Hamilton, Differences in political opinions are as unavoidable as, to a certain point, they may perhaps be necessary; but it is exceedingly to be regretted that subjects cannot be discussed with temper on the one hand, or decisions submitted to without having the motives, which led to them, improperly implicated on the other; and this regret borders on chagrin when we find that men of abilities, zealous patriots, having the same general objects in view, and the same upright intentions to prosecute them, will not exercise more charity in deciding on the opinions and actions of one another. . ."

   T. Roosevelt: "Gentlemen: I regret to say that the dawn is breaking, and soon the tourists are going to be gathering and taking all those interminable photos and videos.  Perhaps it will be best for us to continue the conversation in the near future, for there is so very much to discuss.  Next time, perhaps we can get into the  corruption which pervades the entire political process.   Perhaps as we sign off, each of us can ante up a thought in anticipation of our next chat.  For me it would be, When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer "Present" or "Not guilty."  How about you Abe?"

A. Lincoln: "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and cause me to tremble for safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic destroyed."

T. Roosevelt: Tom?

T. Jefferson: "You and I have formerly seen warm debates and high political passions. But gentlemen of different politics would then speak to each other and separate the business of the Senate from that of society. It is not so now. Men who have been intimate all their lives, cross the streets to avoid meeting, and turn their heads another way, lest they should be obliged to touch their hats. This may do for young men with whom passion is enjoyment. But it is afflicting to peaceable minds. Tranquility is the old man's milk."

T. Roosevelt: "The final thought goes to you, General Washington, and then we shall bid adieu to this moonlit night . . ."

G. Washington: "Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder . . ."

T. Roosevelt: "And together, may we all say, Amen . . . "

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

The Hijacking of Israel

This past Thursday, what remains of the Republican presidential field made a visit to a gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition. By the end of the evening, it was hard to tell if the six assembled candidates -- Rep. Ron Paul was absent, having been "disinvited" -- were running for POTUS (President of the United States) or PMOI (Prime Minister of Israel). One after the other, the six sought to portray him/herself as the best, the strongest, the most stalwartly unflinching friend of Israel in the room, if not on the planet. Each in turn gave their tum-lev yisrael (Israeli bona fides) and sought to outdo each other in the actions they promised to take on their first day in the White House.

All that was missing were the stereotypical Israeli shorts, sandals and raful hat.

Senator Rick Santorum received a solid round of applause when he informed the crowd that he and his wife " . . . have been to Israel where we purchased one of those tiles that says 'pray for the peace of Jerusalem' and we have that in our kitchen right above our sink . . ."

Not to be outdone, Governor Rick Perry shared that he and his wife had repeatedly been to the "Holy Land," especially, ". . . the Western Wall, that most sacred symbol of . . . where Jewish pilgrims gather to pray today."

Then came Rep. Michele Bachmann's turn: "The day after I graduated from high school, I got on a plane and went to Israel where I worked on a kibbutz . . ."

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich said that "Within two hours of taking the oath of office, I'll move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem." Not to be outdone on this particular issue, Rep. Bachmann added "I've already raised the money privately for moving the embassy, and I'll recognize any future annexation of settlements by Israel."

   Governor Romney chastised the Obama Administration for "pushing an appeasement policy," pledged that as POTUS, he would make Israel his first foreign destination, and firmly pledged that "Iran's Ayatollahs will not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons on my watch." To listen to Bachmann, Santorum and Gingrich, it would seem that they are more than willing to take America into a war with Iran. While this might make for a good applause line in front of a partisan conservative crowd, it is in reality nothing more than campaign rhetoric. For once a president takes the oath of office, co* (he or she) no longer has the luxury of demagogic independence; now co* must deal with Congress, the Joints Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, DIA, FBI and a thousand-and-one other governmental entities . . . and reality.

  Comedy Central's Jon Stewart skewered the candidates for pandering to the Republican Jewish Coalition with his exceptional satiric sense:

 

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

 

   Jon Stewart aside, there is far more going on here than mere parodic humor. For what these Republican candidates are attempting is nothing short of the hijacking of Israel as a positive political plank. Not only are the Republicans aiming for Jewish votes and dollars; they are also seeking the votes of evangelical Christians who make up large portions of Republican primary voters in South Carolina and caucus-goers in Iowa. They are also wagering that by making themselves out to be "the best friend Israel ever had," and painting President Obama and the Democrats as "blame Israel firsters," they can pick up crucial votes in general election swing states like Pennsylvania and Florida. And, by keeping Jewish voters' hearts and minds riveted on Israel, they hope to keep them from paying too much attention to GOP positions on a whole host of other crucial issues like women's rights, job creation, immigration, the environment, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, tax breaks for the rich and the separation of church and state.

  In hijacking Israel, Republican strategists seem to have reached the cynical conclusion that for Jewish voters, Israel is the main -- if not the sole -- concern they have in determining who they will support for president; that somehow the so-called "pocket book issues" are of secondary or even tertiary importance.

  Here in Jewish voter-rich South Florida that strategy has, to an extent, been working. By repeatedly portraying themselves as more Hawkish than Moshe Dayan -- as opposed to President Obama, whom they portray as more than ready to "throw Israel under the bus" -- the Republicans have indeed been making some inroads.

   The other day, I was giving a lecture before a fairly large group of Jewish seniors. During the Q&A at the end of the lecture one elderly woman asked me "What do you think about President Obama when it comes to Israel?"

 "What do you think?" I asked her.

 "He's the worst president we've ever had. When it comes to Israel, he's on the side of the Palestinians. He wants Israel to go back to the pre-1967 borders . . . and, he's always apologizing for America to the Arabs."

   "Actually," I began in response, "President Obama never said he wanted to 'go back to the pre-1967 borders.' Rather, he said . . ."

  "That's not true," the woman interrupted. "He did say that!"

  "And where did you get that bit of misinformation?" I asked.

  "It's . . . it's just true!" the woman shouted.

  "And how many of you here this afternoon agree with our friend?" I asked.

  About a third of those in front of me raised their hands. I had my work cut out for me . . .

  "In reality," I said, President Obama called for using the pre-1967 borders with 'mutually agreed-upon swaps' as the basis for future negotiations. And in that, he was saying the same thing as Presidents Clinton, and George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu . . ."

  "That's not true," a man answered. "That's just not true. The Israelis hate Obama . . ."

  I then went through a brief laundry list of things this president and his administration have done for Israel:

• Sent Israel the largest-ever security package ($2.775 billion) in 2010.
• Surpassed the 2010 package with a $3 billion package in 2011.
• Repeatedly opposed unilateral efforts at a Palestinian state.
• Provided Israel with the most sophisticated missile defense system in the world.
• Vetoed the 2010 Security Council resolution criticizing Israel's construction of settlements,
• Ordered the largest-ever joint US-Israel military exercises in history, and
• Supported, along with 10 other nations, the Gaza Counter-Arms Smuggling Program.

  I also informed them that according to a poll released just this week by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, 54% of the Israeli public says they have a favorable view of President Obama, as opposed to just 41% a year ago.

   "That's not true," a woman responded.

   "OK," I said. "The hour's getting late and I have to be leaving. But before I go, let me ask you a question: If President Obama's so bad for Israel, who are you going to vote for? Are you going to be happy voting for someone who wants to privatize Social Security, cut Medicare, eliminate a woman's right to choose and erase the line separating church and state? Please, do yourselves a favor and think about it."

   Indeed, think about it . . .

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

There's Something About the Name

   For nearly a half-century, I have been slowly, surely, inexorably making my way through the entire Dickens literary corpus; all twenty novels, four short story collections, plus nine additional works of non-fiction, poetry and plays. Some, like Great Expectations, A Tale of Two Cities and David Copperfield, I have already read five or six times. Others, like Dombey and Sons, Little Dorrit and Our Mutual Friend, I have  read only once. I've yet to crack the cover of The Uncommercial Traveller, Mugby Junction or The Frozen Deep, Dickens one and only play. But I'll get to these any day now . . .

   Besides being hands down the greatest prose writer in the history of the English language, Charles Dickens was an activist who used his novels as vehicles for underscoring some of English society's most egregious wrongs. Along the way, he also managed to imbue hundreds upon hundreds of characters with the most delightfully whimsical and telling names.  Among my all-time favorites are:

• Serjeant Buzfuz, a barrister in The Pickwick Papers.
• Mr. M'Choakumchild, the nasty teacher in Hard Times.
• Thomas Gradgrind, a retired mill owner, also in Hard Times.
• Abel Magwitch, the convict who was Pip's benefactor in Great Expectations.
• Newman Noggs, the impoverished clerk in Nicholas Nickleby
• Seth Pecksniff, the architect who "never built anything" in Martin Chuzzlewit.
• Wackford Squeers, the proprietor of Dothboy's Hall in Nicholas Nickelby.
  
• Prince Turveydrop, the dance school proprietor in Bleak House, and
  
• Alfred and Sophronia Laemlle, the deluded society couple in Our Mutual Friend.
  

   You just don't run across such fantastic names in novels -- let alone everyday life -- anymore, and for one obvious reason: Charles Dickens has been dead for more than 140 years.

   But wait: What about Newton Leroy Gingrich?  Although the name was obviously not dreamed up by Dickens, it nonetheless does carry the onomatopoetic whimsicality for which "Boz" was famous.  And if the name Newton Gingrich is  purely Dickensian in sound, so too, in many ways is the man in reality.  Who but a Dickens character would come up with the idea of repealing child labor laws and making 9-year olds clean toilets in public schools, or resurrecting orphanages for the purpose of housing the children of welfare recipients? (It is somewhat ironic that the one fellow who is offering the loudest, most resounding defense of Gingrich these days has an even more Dickensian-sounding name and persona than he: Rush Limbaugh.) 

   Who but a creature of Dickens could be so pompously self-important or motivated by the all-mighty dollar? How about Hard Times' Josiah Bounderby and Martin Chuzzlewit's Tigg Montague?    Then there is the monumental hypocrisy of the man: Gingrich is the fellow who actually sought to convict President Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual dalliance with a White House intern at the precise moment that he -- Gingrich -- was cheating on his second wife with a junior member of his House office staff . . . who would become his third wife.  How reminiscent of Dickens' most hypocritical creation, Seth Pecksniff, whom Boz likened to ". . . a direction-post, which is always telling the way to a place, and never goes there." 

   Then too, Gingrich is the fellow, who when asked last month about precisely what advice he gave to Freddie Mac back in 2006-07 in his role as a "historian" that was worth more than $1.6 million, responded:

   "My advice as a historian, when they walked in and said to me, "We are now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that's what the government wants us to do," as I said to them at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible."

   And yet, in the best Pecksniffian tradition, in an April 2007, interview promoting the virtues of Freddie Mac, Gingrich said:

    "I think it is telling that there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining the GSE (Government-Sponsored Enterprise) model in housing. There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And I think it’s clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to home ownership and the housing finance system . . . . Millions of people have entered the middle class through building wealth in their homes, and there is a lot of evidence that home ownership contributes to stable families and communities. These are results I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as possible. So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself."

   In this, the former Speaker reminds one of Dickens' Professor Redlaw (The Haunted Man and the Ghost's Bargain), who, visited by a phantom on Christmas Eve, is given the "gift" of forgetting the past.  The gift turns out to be a curse as it is passed on to all those Redlaw touches.  For Gingrich, this would be nirvana -- if everyone he touched were to forget what he did or said in the past.  Fortunately, Professor Redlaw -- and his curse are pure fiction.  Oh that Newt were so.

   Newt Gingrich has been in the media crosshairs for so many decades that, as one pundit noted, " . . . even his baggage has baggage."  Most believe that his initial impetus for getting into the race was not becoming president, but rather extending the reach -- not to mention the profitability -- of "Gingrich, Inc."  Now that he is experiencing the phenomenon that goes variously by the name "Flavor-of-the-Moment," and "Anybody But Mitt," he is taking his candidacy seriously.  And that is why he is spewing even more "transformational ideas" than normal; it keeps him in the headlines.  Gingrich has just enough political smarts to know that in the event he actually manages to capture the Republican nomination, many of his current statements  are going to come back to bite him on the rear.  Statements like:

• "Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it’s illegal.”
• "I am much like Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, I'm such an unconventional political figure . . ."
• "I was not a presider, I was the leader . . . . I think Henry Clay's probably the only other speaker to have been a national leader and a speaker of the House simultaneously."

   Gingrich, like Dickens' most infamous candidate for political office -- Horatio Fizkin of Pickwick Papers fame -- is never going to be elected.  As the New Republic's Jonathan Bernstein notes, "He’s still the same candidate with all the same baggage. He’s still got his history of deviations from party orthodoxy on practically every issue, and the ethics violations, and the marital problems. He’s still the same guy who wound up not being trusted at all by those who worked with him when he was in office. And he’s still got a long history of just not being very popular with anyone outside of the most intense of intense partisans . . ."

    I would recommend that if Newt Gingrich -- who seems to believe that he is the equal of history's great men and women -- wants to do something truly transformational, he should memorize the fictional Sidney Carton's exit line from A Tale of Two Cities, and then simply fade away.

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

This Week's Guest Columnist: God

An introductory note: Lest anyone feel the necessity of getting their knickers in a twist over this week's piece, please note before reading that it is satire, herein defined as "a literary composition in verse or prose, in which human folly or vice are held up to scorn, derision or ridicule." It will be left to the individual reader's determination as to whether the piece is literary . . . or literate.

 

It seems that once again, President Obama is in deep water with many of those who claim to be my most loyal adherents. From what I read and hear, these children of mine are acting . . . well, very childishly. They are all terribly exorcised over the fact that the president did not mention me during his brief Thanksgiving address last Thursday (Although he did end his message with "And may God bless you" and did issue thanks in an earlier speech while pardoning a turkey). "Somebody ought to remind Obama that when Americans sit down around a meal today and give thanks, they give thanks to God," one columnist acidly noted. A Fox News personality complained that the president's "remarks were void of any religious references although Thanksgiving is a holiday traditionally steeped in giving thanks and praise to God." Yet a third -- one Ben Shapiro -- tweeted "Unreal that Obama doesn't mention God in Thanksgiving message. Militant atheist. To whom does he think we are giving thanks?"

For the love of God! (Or should I say "For the love of Me?") With all the unemployment, gross income inequality, global warming and international chaos going on around the planet, this is the best they can come up with? This is the most important issue to discuss? If giving me my due in public is so all fired important, why didn't these same folks go after Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum -- none of whom mentioned me in their Thanksgiving messages? Its all rather silly and puerile, and brings to mind a couple of quotes from two of my most gifted children: William Shakespeare and King Solomon. The first two come from Willie -- "Much Ado About Nothing," and "What a piece of work is a man . . ." The second is from the quill of King Shlomo who, writing under the pen name of Koheleth (that's Ecclesiastes to my non-Jewish children) noted "There's nothing new under the sun."

Do all those currently deriding Barack Obama for failing to mention me really believe they've hit on something new? Stuff and nonsense! More importantly, are they really all that outraged and offended by his omission? Likely not, but hey, anything they can tar the man with they see as fair game.

How well I remember the political food fight between Adams and Jefferson back in 1800. To me, it seems like only yesterday. First, campaigners for the young "Sage of Monticello" accused "Old Sink or Swim" of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." In response, Adams' surrogates called Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father . . . a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward!" One thing you've got to hand them: back then calumnies had a lot more linguistic "oopmh" then they do today.

Now, did Jefferson's mouthpieces really, truly believe that Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical creature?" Of course not, although it did make for a pretty nifty alliteration. Likewise, I can tell you that none of Adams' handlers went to bed at night thinking "Jefferson is a half-breed atheist." So why did they even bother giving voice to these slurs? Politics and the art of winning, plain and simple. Indeed, there is "Nothing new under the sun." I told you King Sol was one gifted son-of-a-gun . . .

Personally, I can tell you that I get more than my share of thanks from people attending churches, synagogues, mosques and other assorted houses of worship. I don't need -- nor particularly want -- thanks from politicians on the hustings. I am humbled by all those invoking my name and giving thanks before meals; I am delighted whenever anyone engages in feeding the poor, clothing the naked or caring for the orphaned, the homeless or the sick. I am not in the least offended when people take the time to question my existence or wonder aloud why bad things happen to good people. Doing justice, loving mercy and walking with humility; these have always been my three highest priorities for all of you.

On the other hand, I am really stupefied by all those who use my name -- or worse, call upon me -- to justify acts of violence, bigotry, destruction or utter selfishness. Please be forewarned: claiming to know my will better than the next guy is not a good way to earn divine points; proclaiming that you are more pious or beloved than the next guy is the precise opposite of piety or divine love. How person X, Y, or Z will be judged in the end of days -- and when that end will come -- is my business, not yours.

Now, with regards to politics in the United States, let me state emphatically that I lean toward neither the Democrats nor the Republicans; I favor neither the Tea Party nor the Occupy Wall Street Crowd; that I can just as easily love and bless a conservative as a Communist. As the one whose very essence is existence, I transcend all labels. If you wish to know something of my political ideals, study the Bible; don't just quote it from memory -- really, truly study it along with as many commentaries as you can comprehend. There you will discover that I am on the side of the poor and downtrodden; that I loathe war and baseless hatred; that I really, truly have created you to be each others keepers. What you will not find is that I have a position on Capital Gains taxes, Oil Depletion Allowances, prayer in the public schools, carrying concealed weapons are a thousand-and-one other temporal issues. (Although I must say, having paid a great deal of attention to how my children are treated in the workplace, I am far more pro-labor than management.) Do not -- I repeat DO NOT -- use my name to justify your political platforms; I am not here to endorse anyone's candidacy. For you see, my dear children, I really, truly do believe in the separation of church -- and synagogue and mosque -- and state. I mean after all, it is I who created Thomas Jefferson.

Personally, I could care less if President Obama mentions me in a Thanksgiving address. That is mere verbiage. What I do care about is how he -- and his administration and the Congress and the nation he tries to lead act -- not what they say.

So roll up your sleeves, park your arch pettiness by the side of the road, and try working together for the common good -- not just the enrichment of the already rich.

That will be thanks enough . . .

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Mitt Romney: Campaigning in Poetry

   Years ago, Governor Mario Cuomo distilled the essence of the political process into precisely eight insightful words: “You campaign in poetry; you govern in prose.” By this, Cuomo sought to instruct future generations of office-seekers about the perverse dichotomy that exists between the theater of words and the reality of deeds. In a perfect world no such dichotomy would exist; the soaring promises one made during a campaign would be soon become the law of the land.  But this is far from a perfect world; the gap between what candidates may proclaim and then as office holders can do is indeed vast. And woe to the man or woman who forgets where they stood last year as opposed to this week . . .

   The current crop of Republican presidential aspirants would do well to heed Cuomo’s dictum – none more so than former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

     Over the years, Governor Romney – who seemingly has been running for president most of his adult life – has been characterized by both friend and foe alike as a man who “never met a position he could not espouse.” Whether it is on issues as diverse as war and peace, healthcare, abortion and stem-cell research, taxes, terrorism or nuclear weapons, Romney has been all over the map.  To watch Romney denigrate and disown the very healthcare program he instituted in Massachusetts – in order to deride and defame the president’s program – is to witness a man sinking in quicksand yet declaring it solid ground.

   Even more glaringly apparent are Romney’s flip flops and position changes on Iran.  In late October 2007, shortly after President George W. Bush announced tougher economic sanctions against Iran, then-candidate Romney applauded the president’s action.  Nonetheless, he was quoted at the time as saying, ‘If for some reasons they continue down their course of folly toward nuclear ambition, then I would take military action if that's available to us,’ He further suggested that as president, he would “. . . advocate a military blockade or ‘bombardment of some kind'' if Iran did not yield to diplomatic and economic pressure to give up its nuclear program.” Fascinatingly, when asked in 2007 whether he would need Congressional consent for a military raid on Iran, Romney said that he would have to pass the issue by his lawyers first – perfectly understandable for a CEO, perfectly unthinkable for a Commander-in-Chief.  "You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do,” Romney said at the time.  Responding to this, a Wall Street Journal editorial wryly noted, “Egad. Call in the attorneys? Perhaps it is Mr. Romney’s experience in business that taught him to want lawyers at his elbow, given that no CEO can survive without them these days . . . . [D]eferring to lawyers to tell a President when he can and cannot use force to defend the country is not the proper understanding of executive power under the Constitution, and it is dangerous if it is the first instinct of a Commander in Chief. Mr. Romney should have said that a President’s first duty is to do whatever it takes to protect the United States, and that he’d have the Constitutional authority to use military force to do so . . . . Mr. Romney doesn’t need a lawyer; he needs to reread the Federalist Papers.”

   In November 2011, still-candidate Romney has toned down the bellicosity.  In a piece he published recently in the Wall Street Journal¸ Romney now declares, “I want peace. And if I am president, I will begin by imposing a new round of far tougher economic sanctions on Iran. I will do this together with the world if we can, unilaterally if we must. I will speak out forcefully on behalf of Iranian dissidents.  By this, he clearly means to imply that President Obama has failed to impose “tough economic sanctions” and has not “sp[oken] out forcefully on behalf of Iranian dissidents.” Truth to tell, President Obama has rallied the international community and isolated Iran. Moreover, the cooperation of our international partners has allowed us to impose the most aggressive set of sanctions that Iran has ever faced, including persuading the U.N. to impose a fourth round of sanctions in 2010 and signing tough legislation a month later.  With regards to supporting Iranian dissidents, as far back as 2009, President Obama “strongly condemned” what he characterized as the “unjust actions” in response to Iranian protesters.  He described the American government as being “appalled and outraged.”

   Governor Romney has further promised “I will back up American diplomacy with a very real and very credible military option. I will restore the regular presence of aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. I will increase military assistance to Israel and coordination with all of our allies in the region.”  One wonders whether Romney understands Mario Cuomo’s distinction between poetry and prose.  If he did, he would quickly recognize that his promises are, to use an old expression, “A day late and a dollar short.”  While the Obama Administration is pursuing a diplomatic channel – which Romney and the other Republican aspirants view as a weakness -- it has consistently refused to take any options off the table.  Whether Governor Romney knows it or not there already is a full-time carrier presence in the Persian Gulf, and carriers are frequently present in the Mediterranean to support deployments in the Middle East. The record shows that President Obama has sought unprecedented levels of security assistance for Israel, significantly increasing U.S. military aid to Israel, conducting military exercises, and financing the “Iron Dome” mortar and rocket defense system. As the Washington Post put it, “Obama has also greatly strengthened security and military ties with the Jewish state and defended Israel repeatedly at the United Nations.

    It is an axiom of modern campaign politics that Republican hopefuls must run as far to the right of center as they dare during primary season and then, once nominated, gravitate towards the center for November. It is clear that on domestic issues and questions such as abortion, the beginning of life and healthcare – to name but three – Mitt Romney is far, far further to the right in 2011 than he was in 2006 -- or ‘07, ‘08, ‘09 or ‘10.  And when it comes to foreign policy and defense issues, he is unaware or out of touch with what the Obama Administration has accomplished.  He is merely reciting poetry while the president is governing in prose.

   Not only does Mitt Romney need to “reread the Federalist Papers”; he should familiarize himself with the wisdom of Mario Cuomo . . .     

 ©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Cain Ain't Able . . . And Neither Are Perry, Paul, Gingrich et al

   Writing a column on the ups-and-downs, the tumbles and stumbles of all those seeking the Republican presidential nomination is not easy.  It seems about as pointless as writing a piece on a tennis match while it's in progress; in the time it takes to shape a thought or identify an apt expression, the ball can easily have crossed the net a dozen times or more, the advantage shifting with each volley, lob or smash.  So too with the Republican field: each day brings new polls which may proclaim a new "leader of the pack."  He who is in first on Monday, can easily rank third on Thursday.  (n.b. My use of the pronoun "he" is deliberate; Michele Bachmann hasn't been a factor since August 14 -- the day after she won the Ames Straw Poll.)

   This past week, the lion's share of ink has gone to Herman Cain and Rick Perry; the former because of his inability to address charges of sexual harassment with any honesty, consistency or professionalism; the latter because of an "Oops!" moment in which he could not recall the names of all three federal cabinet agencies he -- like most Republican hopefuls -- has pledged to eliminate. 

   As of today, it appears that the harassment charges against Herman Cain have yet to deal his candidacy a fatal blow.  His core constituency is still, for the most part, with him; they are willing to look beyond both the charges and the candidate's various -- and varying -- counter-charges ("It's all a lie!" "It is a smear perpetrated by the Perry campaign!"  "It is a conspiracy on the part of the liberal media!") and applaud him for his down-home, "common-sense" approach to addressing the nation's challenges and ills. At the same time, it must be stated that Herman Cain is never -- repeat never -- going to be the Republican standard bearer.  From day one, his has been a campaign based mostly on personality.  That he lacks a professional organization capable of going the distance is obvious; one of the first things a seasoned campaign staff does is a complete and scrupulous vetting of their own candidate, so that hopefully, there won't be any surprises.  One of the first rules in a serious campaign is that you have to know even more about your candidate's foibles than his or her opponents do.  Cain's campaign staff clearly did not do their job.  The second rule is to school your candidate on as many issues as humanly possible.  By now it is clear that Herman Cain is the master of misstatement.  But despite all this, he is still the front-runner -- for whatever that's worth -- in Florida.  Look for Herman Cain to secure a show on Fox sometime next year . . .

   Herman Cain's appeal has been his "plain-speaking," his "common-sense approach to the issues," and the fact that he's a political neophyte who comes from the world of business. His gaffs, misstatements and untruths have served to merely prop up and reify that appeal.  Perry's appeal, on the other hand, has been his "good-old-boy" Acme-booted Texas swagger; that he was barely a "C student" at a Texas aggie college is actually a plus with his core supporters.  At least he isn't some sort of effete Ivy League snob like Barack Obama . . . or George W. Bush.  

   Like Cain, Governor Rick Perry is never going to become the Republican nominee -- and not merely because he forgot to name the Department of Energy.  Like Herman Cain, Rick Perry is simply "Not ready for prime time." This week's "junior moment" turns out to be merely the latest in a series of gaffs, misstatements and spells of gross inarticulateness.  Seeing Perry do self-parody on Letterman has served to take a ton of steam out of the swagger. Although being able to hold one's own in a debate is not necessarily a criterion for being leader of the Free World, it sure helps one to be taken seriously as a potential candidate.  

   Whether they know it or not, both Cain and Perry are toast . . .

   With the possible exception of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (recently referred to as "The Great White Nope") and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman (who has pretty much pinned all his hopes on New Hampshire), the rest of the Republican field -- Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich -- is definitely made up of third-stringers. Romney and Huntsman -- both of whom are Mormons, which is a problem with many on the Christian right -- possess a measure of polish and grativas which the "simple six" clearly lack.  Governor Romney is despised by many in the G.O.P., who consider him a "Republican in Name Only" (RINO) and continually flail him for being on every side of every issue. Huntsman is suspect not only because he served as President Obama's Ambassador to China, but because he has the audacity to state that manmade global warming is a reality.  Should Romney become his party's nominee (highly likely), look for the Obama campaign to remind voters that as the founder and head of Bain Capital ($65 billion in assets as of 2010) he made a 9-figure fortune by purchasing companies and then selling off assets, which put literally tens of thousands of people out of work. Should  Huntsman become his party's nominee (highly unlikely) look for the president to thank him again and again and again for his dedicated service in China.  

   This past week, former Speaker Newt Gingrich has seen his poll numbers on the rise.  This is due in part because in comparison to Cain and Perry, Gingrich comes off as a "deep thinker" who "knows and understands the issues."  Anyone who has read any of his books or given a serious listen to any of his speeches, will know that Mr. Gingrich is a charlatan; a pompously corrupt, self-merchandising corporation posing as a man with a plan.

   Back on December 31, 2010, I published a piece entitled And You Thought Tomorrow Begins 2011.  In it, I wrote about five potential Republican candidates for president: Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee.  I also suggested that it was likely that none of them would garner enough enthusiasm to be considered a viable challenger to President Obama.  At the tail end of the article I went out on a limb and suggested that perhaps the party would, after finding fault with virtually every other candidate, draft former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.  Stranger things have been known to happen.  Will it happen?  I just don't know . . .

   One thing I do know: when it comes to choosing a president, I want and expect someone who is a lot smarter, better educated and more polished than I.

    And from where I sit, that person is still Barack Obama. 

    ©2011 Kurt F. Stone

PRE-Occupied

   The Occupy Wall Street wave seems to have struck a raw nerve among the "1%" and their cheerleaders.  Why else would they be characterizing the so-called "99%" of being an "unruly mob" made up of "Communists," and "anti-Semites," who "haven't found jobs" because of their "tattooed necks, gauged ears, facial piercings and dirty dreadlocks?" Reading, watching or listening to the comments of such conservative stalwarts as Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol Maybeth Hicks and the Emergency Committee For Israel (created by the Weekly Standard's Mr. Kristol) is to get the eerie feeling that Yogi Berra called "deja vu all over again" -- a return to the late 1960s/early 1970s when the "New Left" was tarred with pretty much the same noxious brush.  Back then, we were accused of being "atheistic Communists" who should "take a bath, get a haircut, get a job" and "go back to Russia where you belong."  

   40 years ago, the issues causing so many to march and to gather were war, peace, and economic justice; not so terribly dissimilar from that which undergirds the current wave of angry young Americans.  Back then, we were accused of being spoiled brats; unpatriotic misfits who should "love it or leave it."  And, truth to tell, many of us were rather spoiled; tuition was low, rent was cheap, gas cost about 35¢ a gallon and  CEOs were paid nearly 30 times more than an average worker.  Today's wave is faced with a far more difficult world; one in which debt is endemic, the cost of living is stratospheric and a CEO is now making more than 450 times that of an average worker.  40 years ago, despite protests, the future seemed like a limitless horizon; today, the deck is stacked against most.  Back then, the political process was still viewed as a viable avenue for progressive change; today, utter distrust of that process is a given -- by both the left and the right.  And by that, we refer to the Occupy Wall Street wave and the Tea Party movement.

   Both sides are stimulated by anger at a system which seems to exist only for the sake of its financial backers. Both sides are furious that the will of the people has been completely usurped by the wallet of the powerful.  And yet, there are a couple of fascinating differences:

• In comparison to the Tea Party, the OWS folks are far more diverse.  A typical OWS gathering includes people of all ages, colors, religions (or lack thereof) and political philosophies.  Although there are undoubtedly some members of religious and ethnic minorities within the Tea Party ranks, the movement gives the impression of being overwhelmingly white and Christian.
• The structure (or again, lack thereof) of OWS is such that it all but defies cooptation.  It is difficult to imagine OWS endorsing insurgent candidates, let being taken over by the Democratic Party in the way that the Tea Party now controls the G.O.P.'s far-right flank.
• In their speeches, arguments and exhortations, Tea Party luminaries aim for the gut; their platform can be embroidered on a tea towel -- "Lower taxes, less regulation, more freedom."  OWS speakers, by comparison aim far more often for the head; their platform -- the  "99% Declaration" (some of which is highly debatable and overly naive) -- reads more like a treatise than a series of slogans.  (I wrote about this left-right dichotomy back in April 2010 in a piece entitled "Head and Heart").  Additionally, for what it's worth, to me, OWS speakers sound more articulate . . .

   When the Tea Party movement first came to the public's attention back in 2008-9, they were accused of being  a racist faction filled with people who were against abortion, birth-control, public education and the teaching of Evolution; brandished weapons and believed President Obama was a foreign-born Muslim; and supported a whole host of far, far right loony-tune ideas.  Immediately -- and understandably -- there was a cacophonous roar from the folks at Fox, the Washington Times and the G.O.P. itself, who screamed "How dare you characterize an entire movement because of the beliefs of a mere handful?  They do not represent what the Tea Party movement is all about! And besides, what ever happened to free speech?"

   Seems to me that in proclaiming the Occupy Wall Street wave to both anti-Semitic and anti-Israel, people like Bill Kristol, Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin  and the "Emergency Committee for Israel" -- among many others -- are doing precisely that which they hated having done to their side: characterizing an entire movement or wave because of the actions or statements of a handful.  The expression "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" comes to mind.  Without question, there are people on the left who are pro-Palestinian; some of them are attending OWS gatherings.  And yes, we have seen photos of people holding up anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist signs at OWS rallies. Investigating these claims of anti-Jewish, anti-Israel sentiments, the Anti Defamation League found them to be highly overstated and not worthy of further comment . . . to which they were accused of being a "mere arm of the Obama White House."  Talk about chutzpah . . .

   In truth, a sizeable percentage of the OSW wave is Jewish.  There were actually well-attended services on Yom Kippur and a haimesche succah in the park, where Jews, Christians and Muslims came by for some shade, a snack and a singalong.

   Just about everyone accusing the OWS wave of being in thrall to the anti-Semites has quoted the same L.A. protester -- a woman named Patricia McAllister: "I think that the Zionist Jews, who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government . . . they need to be run out of this country."  Or they have noted that on the American Nazi Party website, ". . . leader Rocky Suhayda has voiced support for Occupy Wall St. and asked 'Who hold the wealth and power in this country?  The Judeo-Capitalists . . .'"  

  It's all so terribly familiar.  Back in the 60s and early 70s, the Establishment press first attacked the New Left for being dirty, bearded, pot-smoking hedonists.  Then they labeled them "Communists,"  "Socialists," and "Anarchists" (as if the terms were synonymous) and warned that unless stopped, they would attempt to take over the United States by violent means.  Those of us who were part of the New Left felt a measure of vindication; that in pointing out a series of injustices within the American political system -- and in pushing for peace and greater economic justice -- we had hit a raw nerve.  Perhaps the same can be said of the Occupy Wall Street wave; that they too have hit a raw nerve by repeatedly pointing out some very difficult truths.

   More power to you!

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

    

A Goat Also Has a Beard . . .

   The humorist Sam Levinson once quipped, "A goat also has a beard, but that doesn't make him a rabbi." Lurking about a half-centimeter beneath the drollery was an obvious bit of wisdom: that looks can be deceiving; that form can easily obfuscate substance.

   Never has Levinson's one-liner been more telling than today, the era of mass mendacity.  To wit, just because a "fact" winds up in eighty bazillion e-mailboxes doesn't make it true.  And yet, for many, the mere fact that the same "fact" or set of "facts" appears on hundreds -- if not thousands or tens of thousands -- of internet sites gives it at least the patina or veneer of verisimilitude.  And, if one begins receiving the same email, breathlessly recounting the same "fact" or set of "facts" over and over and over, that patina can easily metamorphose into reality.

    Case in point: the so-called "28th Amendment to the U .S. Constitution."

 

   Over the past two years, I have received the following email from no fewer than 75 people:

   Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

   "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.

 The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it.That was in 1971... before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.

 Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

 

*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*
  

1. TERM LIMITS:

     12 years only, one of several possibilities:

     A. Two Six-year Senate terms

     B. Six Two-Year House Terms

     C. One Six-Year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms.

 2. NO TENURE/NO PENSION:

   A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. CONGRESS (PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE) PARTICIPATES IN SOCIAL SECURITY:

   All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

4.  CONGRESS CAN PURCHASE THEIR OWN RETIREMENT PLAN, JUST AS ALL AMERICANS DO.

5. CONGRESS WILL NO LONGER VOTE THEMSELES A PAY RAISE:

    Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. CONGRESS LOSES THEIR CURRENT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND PARTICIPATES IN THE SAME HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
 

7.  CONGRESS MUST EQUALLY ABIDE BY ALL LAWS THEY IMPOSE ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

8.  ALL CONTRACTS WITH PAST AND PRESENT CONGRESSMEN ARE VOID EFFECTIVE 1/1/12.

   The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work. If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

 Wow . . . where to begin?  I have responded to this email more than two dozen times, generally beginning by saying that it has "more holes than a pound of Swiss Cheese. " Permit me to "shave the goat's beard," thus proving that we are not dealing with a "rabbi." 

   The one bit of truth in the above is that Warren Buffett, in a July 7, 2011 interview with CNBC  conducted by Becky Quick did indeed voice the quote about "ending the deficit in about five minutes."  However, the rest of the email that so many of us have been receiving again and again and again, has virtually nothing to do with Mr. Buffett.  He has never asked "each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people . . ."

   What is now being called "The Congressional Reform Act of 2011," has been circulating on the Internet for the past two years.  It was originally called "The Congressional Reform Act of 2009."  Despite the fact that it is presented as a proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it has never been put forward by a single member of Congress.  It is merely a form of Internet-based politicking -- a bearded goat masquerading as a rabbi.

  Let's take a look at some of the specifics:

  First and foremost, although a Constitutional Amendment could conceivably be passed without Congress voting on it (see Article 5), the chances of such an omnibus measure being enacted are precisely two: absolutely none and a lot less than that.

   The issue about term limits, although understandable given the public's almost total disdain for our legislative branch, is a truly bad idea.  The workings of Congress are not easily learned.  Heck, it takes a couple of months to learn the quickest way from one's office to the House or Senate floor, let alone how to draft a bill, the proper procedures in floor debate, and the difference, say, between a "continuing resolution" and a "private petition."  Under terms of the so-called "28th Amendment," Congress would wind up being run by the staff; they would be the only ones on the Hill to possess both the know-how and the institutional memory.  And, being unelected, they are even less sensitive to the will of the people.  Additionally enacting strict term limits pretty much guarantees that an even higher percentage of those running for office will be the truly wealthy -- those who can afford to self-finance . . .

   No Tenure/No Pension: The truth is that members of Congress cannot retire with full pension after serving merely one term.  Period!  The size of one's Congressional pension is determined by a number of factors, the most important of which is the length of one's service.  There are a handful of cases in which a person was elected to congress at a very young age, served several decades and then retired (or was defeated) while still relatively young.  They will  collect quite a bit in terms of retirement benefits over the rest of their natural life.  However, this is the extreme exception, not the rule.

  Paying into Social Security: Since 1984, all members of Congress have been required to pay into Social Security.  (There are a few exceptions both inside and outside of government, but not for members of Congress.)  Prior to 1984, the members of Congress did not pay into the Social Security Fund because they participated in a separate program for civil servants.  That all changed in 1983 with the passage of Public Law 98-21.

   Some members of Congress participated in the older Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS); others in the newer Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS).  Regardless of which system they participate in, their pensions are funded by a combination of tax provisions and contributions from the participants.  Members of Congress in the FERS plan must pay 6.2% of their salaries (up to the Social Security wage base of $106.800) into Social Security, as well as 1.3% of their full salary (currently $174,000 into the Civil Service and Retirement Disability Fund.

  Congressional Health Plans: Members of Congress do purchase their own health plans.  At the time of the most recent health care debate, there was an erroneous assumption that congressional efforts to establish a "public option" for health insurance would have required everyone (except members of Congress) to participate in a new federal insurance plan.  The proposed legislation (which eventually failed) would merely have required everyone (including members of Congress) to have health insurance that met minimum benefit standards.  The bill that did pass in March 2010 stated that "Members of Congress and congressional staff" will only have access to plans they created by the health care bill or offered through the exchanges established by the bill.  In other words, they are pretty much in the same boat as everyone else . . .

 Congress Must Abide By All Laws: Public Law 104-1 (the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995) made a variety of laws related to civil rights and workplace regulations applicable to the legislative branch of the federal government.  Section 201 specifically prohibits sexual harassment, as well as harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.  Nonetheless, there are many emails which posit that members of Congress cannot be arrested for sexual harassment.  There are also rumors that the children of members of Congress are exempt from paying back students loans.  This is also a fabrication.

   All contracts past and present are null and void as of 1/1/12: This is patent nonsense; Congress (and perhaps the Supreme Court under truly unique circumstances) is the only body empowered to make past contracts "null and void."  The only way "all contracts past and present" could be overturned is if an entirely new House and Senate -- one having little institutional memory -- were to be elected.  And as things go, that is simply never going to happen.

   And so, the next time you receive the email about Warren Buffett urging everyone to pass along the proposed "28th Amendment" you might remember the words of Sam Levinson: "A goat also has a beard, but that doesn't make him a rabbi."  Just because its on the Internet, that doesn't mean it's true. 

  Additionally, you may just wish to send out a link to this article . . .

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

 

With Apologies to Boz

   Permit me to badly paraphrase Charles Dickens: "It was the best of weeks, it was the weirdest of weeks, it was a time of fascinating possibilities, it was a time of unfathomable lunacy . . ."

   First, that which was "best" and carried with it "fascinating possibilities":

• After more than five years as a prisoner of Hamas, Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was finally set free, in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian criminals, -- many of them terrorists and mass murderers serving life sentences in Israeli prisons.  And despite the extraordinary one-sidedness of the prisoner exchange, nearly 80% of the Israeli public stood behind the Egyptian-brokered deal.  For more than five years, Shalit name, face and plight has been kept alive on a daily basis -- not only in Israel, but in synagogues and non-Jewish houses of worship around the world.  Many have questioned what Israel truly gains by securing the freedom of one soldier in exchange for more than one thousand terrorists -- many of whom have pledged themselves to future acts of violence?  Although this is a question without a simple, straightforward answer, Israel's actions are not at all surprising.  There exists within the great corpus of Jewish law (halacha), the principle known as pidyon sh'vuyim -- literally, "Redemption of Captives."  Indeed, the Talmud calls pidyon sh'vuyim a mitzvah rabah -- literally, "a great commandment."  In Jewish law, captivity is viewed as being even worse than starvation and death; hence the command to redeem all captives. Might this lopsided prisoner exchange signal a change in relations between Palestinians and the Jewish State?  Likely not, for Hamas still has the utter destruction of both Israel and the Jewish people as the central focus of their charter.  Nonetheless, its great that Gilad Shalit is back home . . .
• This week saw yet another of the world's most disgusting, psychopathic despots come to a violent end: Libyan dictator Moammar Kadhafi.  Few -- if any -- mourn his passing.  President Obama proclaimed that "The dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted."  UN General Secretary Ban ki-Moon said that Kadhafi's death "marks an historic change" and warned that the "road ahead for Libya and its people will be filled with challenges." Alone among world leaders, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called Kadhafi's death "an outrage," saying that the ousted Libyan mass murderer would be remembered "our whole lives as a great fighter, a revolutionary and a martyr." (Thereby proving that psychopaths are different from you and me . . .) What will become of Libya now that Kadhafi is dead is anyone's guess.  In any event, his death is a definite step forward for a people, a country long imprisoned.
  
• Lastly, just this past Friday President Obama announced that the 40,000 American troops remaining in Iraq will be "home for the holidays," thus fulfilling a campaign promise and acceding to the reality of a depleted treasury and overwhelming public opinion. In more than eight years, the war has cost a minimum of $1 trillion, and brought 4,400 American and more than 100,000 Iraqi deaths.) Predictably, the announcement has met with broad support within Democratic circles, and derisive commentary on the part of the G.O.P. (Mitt Romney: "President Obama's astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women.") And while American forces leave behind what one journalist called "a stumbling democracy, still beset by sectarian violence and tilting closer to its neighbor Iran," it is a likely sign that the Obama Administration has finally learned an important lesson: that if the U.S. is to transform the Middle East, it cannot be done through military might.  Better to bring the troops home and begin to work on solving crises here at home.

   Next, that which was "weird" and suffused with "unfathomable lunacy":

• During the most recent Republican presidential debate Texas Governor attacked former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for once knowingly hiring a landscape firm that hired illegal immigrants.  "The idea that you stand here before us and talk about that you're strong on immigration is, on its face, the height of hypocrisy," Perry scolded, wagging a finger at the erstwhile Republican frontrunner.  "What's so weird about that?" one might well ask.  Two things: first, this precise issue was raised again and again when Romney ran for the Republican nomination in 2008; second, when America's unemployment rate is above 9%, whether or not Romney had an illegal pulling weeds in his backyard isn't terribly on point.  The plain fact is that most Americans who employ gardeners or landscaping services, go to the car wash, hire roofers to make repairs, or eat California-grown lettuce are benefitting from the labor of illegal aliens.
  
• Just hours after he stood next to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and accused Pakistan of harboring the enemies of his government, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said his country would support Pakistan if it ever went to war with the United States.  This is the very definition of weird.  In making this bizarre statement, it's almost as if Mr. Karzai were unaware that without the the United States -- and other Western allies -- he wouldn't be President of Afghanistan.  He seems to have conveniently forgotten just who has been shoring up his administration with tens upon tens of billions of dollars and military support over the past decade. 
  
• But the prize for unfathomable lunacy goes to Florida Governor Rick Scott, who has seen fit to post the salaries of tens of thousands university professors online.  This move comes on the very eve of his going to the legislature and pushing substantial higher education reforms.  Having already dramatically shortchanged public in favor of charter schools, eliminating tenure for K-12 teachers and basing their salaries on how well students perform on an as-yet-to-be revamped standardized test, the nation's least popular governor is now going after university professors -- whom he wants voters to believe are vastly overpaid and thus, represent a serious roadblock on Florida's highway to economic recovery. In defending the governor's move, his spokesman said "it's just part of [his] effort to enhance the transparency of state government."  At the same time, Scott has expressed interest in ending university tenure and "weeding out unproductive professors."  (Note: as a longtime adjunct professor at both Florida Atlantic University and Florida International University, I can tell you that many of my colleagues are funded primarily through outside grant dollars, and not through the state.)  Interestingly, while Scott has put the salaries of more than 50,000 professors out there for all to see, his office has yet -- despite repeated requests -- to release the names of companies that got taxpayer dollars over the past decade to create jobs that never materialized.  The head of Scott's Department of Economic Opportunity said requests for the names of six companies paid $38 million despite not creating a single job posed a "quandary" to him.  "The governor's office," he said, "doesn't want to embarrass them by releasing their names." Such unfathomable lunacy!
  

 Perhaps good old Boz was right:

"Vengeance and retribution take a long time; it is the rule!"

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Herman & Hillary: The Simple Solution vs. The Hard Truth

  During last week's Washington Post-Bloomberg Republican debate, former Godfather's Pizza CEOHerman Cain unveiled 9-9-9 -- his utterly simple (and utterly simplistic) solution to curing the nation's economic woes.  Based on the notion that America's Byzantine tax code must be overhauled, if not totally scrapped, Cain's 9-9-9 -- which both political and economic cognoscenti have proclaimed "Dead On Arrival" -- would eventually repeal and temporarily replace said code with:

• A 9% tax on income
• A 9% business transactions tax, and
• A 9% federal sales (AKA "flat") tax
  

   Regardless of whether or not 9-9-9 has legs, it has propelled Herman Cain to the top of the Republican presidential heap -- at least for now.  In a sense, he has become the newest "flavor-of-the-week."

   When asked the day after the debate who or what the genesis of 9-9-9 was, Cain (an ardent support of Steve Forbes and his flat tax proposal back in 2000) named Rich Lowrie of Cleveland, whom the charismatic candidate characterized as "my lead economist."  

   Not so fast, Mr. Cain.

  According to Mr. Lowrie's Linkedin profile he has a B.A. in accountancy from Case Western Reserve University, not economics. When questioned by the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler, Lowrie said he did not consider himself to be an economist.  In his piece on Cain's 9-9-9, Kessler wryly noted, "It almost sounds like something out of the movie 'Dave,' in which  the accidental president [Kevin Klein] enlists his accountant friend. Murray Blum [Charles Grodin], to help him figure out the federal budget." 

   According to Lowrie, Cain's 9-9-9 is " . . .  an attempt to shift the tax burden away from production and towards consumption to balance the load."  He explains that by "ripping out a whole bunch of taxes," prices of goods  will fall, U.S. exports will be more competitive  and business will thrive.  He also claims that once enacted, 9-9-9 will create 6 million new jobs as business becomes more competitive.

   Right.  And next year's World Series will pit the Houston Astros against the Minnesota Twins . . .

   As noted above, the vast majority of economists, business people and political pros have seen Cain's 9-9-9 for what it really is: an easily trumpeted campaign slogan masquerading as a serious solution to the nation's dire straits. To the extent that it is really little more than a campaign slogan, it has worked brilliantly; "Herman Cain" and "9-9-9" have been front page news for nearly a week. Tens of millions of people who are likely unaware of what a 9% national sales tax would mean to their pocketbooks say they support it.  

     It is yet another stunning example of how the press can turn its 500,000 megawatt spotlight on an amoeba, thereby making it appear to be a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

   The truth is, if ever instituted 9-9-9 would impose new taxes on easily more than half the American public, and, in essence, rob the seriously imperiled Peter to pay the already prosperous Paul.  It never ceases to amaze what supposedly serious candidates will do, say or propose in order to get noticed.  Don't people like Herman Cain understand that the restoration of America's economic health -- and with it our status in the world -- will require far, far more than "simple solutions" and pithy slogans?

   Apparently not.

   While the press has been busily turning Herman Cain and 9-9-9 into the latest and greatest symbol of national salvation, it has, sadly, given precious little coverage to a  hard truth presented by another person with the initials "H.C." -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  In a speech last Friday before the Economic Club of New York, Secretary Clinton said something of surpassing importance which by comparison, makes Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan even  more obviously simpleminded:

   "Today our foreign and economic relations remain indivisible.  Only now, our great challenge is not deterring any single military foe, but advancing our global leadership at a time when power is more often measured and exercised in economic terms."

    In other words, in today's world, economic power counts far more than military punch.

   This is a point that most world leaders have grasped since the end of the Cold War more than 20 years ago.  But it does not seem to have registered in Washington. As journalist Leslie Gelb wrote in a piece on Secretary Clinton's speech, "There in the home of the non-sequiteur, the inaccurate fact, the seven-second 'truth bite,' and the economics-challenged, the talk is about how much will be cut from the precious Pentagon budget over the next ten years."  The Pentagon budget is all the legislators on Capitol Hill and the media covering them know or understand about America's fiscal house of horrors.  Again, to quote Mr. Gelb, "For legislators, it's their political honey pot.  For foreign-policy experts, it's their way to show their toughness. For media, the planes and tanks are visual lollipops."

   Today, China is the first global power in history not to be a global military power.  Its military might is pretty much restricted to its own borders; its money travels everywhere.  Today, Brazil, India and Turkey top the list of emerging powers.  Why?  Not because any of them is a regional military superpower, but because they can carry what economists refer to as "market weight."  As Secretary Clinton put it in her speech to the Economic Club, "And everywhere I travel, I see countries gaining influence less because of the size of their armies than because of the growth of their economies. . ."

   In concluding her speech, Secretary Clinton noted, "A strong economy has been a quiet pillar of American power in the world.  It gives us the leverage we need to exert influence and advance our interests.  It gives other countries confidence in our leadership and a great stake in partnering with us."  

   Talk about delivering a hard truth!  In comparison to the trenchant message delivered by the Secretary of State, candidate Cain's 9-9-9 proposal has all the reality of a parlor silhouette; a shifting of tectonic plates as compared to a hiccup.  Although Clinton and Cain are ostensibly speaking on the same subject, they approach it from a position of bipolar temporality: -- Cain's righting the revenue stream for the sake of getting elected, vs. Clinton's rethinking the entire federal budget for the sake of America's future in the a radically changing world.  We've become so accustomed to simple solutions that do not and cannot work, even while turning a blind eye and deaf ear towards hard truths that we will ultimately have to face.  Simply stated, this cannot bode well for the future of our country.

   It's the difference between presenting a simple solution and propounding a hard truth.  Herman Cain has chosen the former; Hillary Clinton the latter. 

   The former, like junk food, looks and tastes great but ultimately contains little of nutritional value.

    The latter, like a diet of fruits, vegetables and plenty of water, may be less tasty and hard to get used to, but ultimately leads to a longer, stronger, and healthier life.      

 ©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Whose Values?

  The recently concluded "Values Voters Summit" was a less than edifying -- or religiously tolerant -- event. Of the 1983 voters casting ballots in the Summit's Family Research Council-sponsored straw poll, Rep. Ron Paul came in first with 734 votes (37%), followed by:

• Herman Cain 23%
• Rick Santorum 16%
• Rick Perry 8%
• Michele Bachmann 8%
• Mitt Romney 4%
• Newt Gingrich 3%
• Undecided 1%
• Jon Huntsman 0%

  That Rep. Paul should win the straw poll going away is as much an indication of how well-organized his supporters are as how enamored Christian conservatives are with the Texas Libertarian.  It should be noted that most Paul supporters arrived at the conference just before the vote and departed almost immediately thereafter.  During his presentation to the  3,406 registered attendees, Paul likened the sprawling federal government to the king sought by the Israelites in the book of Samuel.  "We have too long relied upon our king in Washington and we have to change that."  Paul went on to indict the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, stating that "one of the most greatest threats (sic) to the family is war.  It undermines the family."  He concluded his indictment with Jesus' quote "Blessed are the peacemakers."

  That former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum should receive double the vote of such icons as Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann shows two things:

1. That "Values Voters" delegates are extremely conservative, and that
   
2. Whoever the eventual Republican nominee is, he (or she) will have to walk a fine line between the positions of the Christian right and the politics of  victory.
   

   During the summit, one Rick Perry supporter, Dallas pastor Robert Jeffries equated Mormanism with a "cult."   Conservative radio host and former Reagan official William Bennett condemned Jeffries "bigorty."  Obliquely responding to Jeffries' assertion, Romney told the audience that "decency and civility are values, too," castigating the pastor (within naming him) for "poisonous language that does not advance our cause."  "The blessings of faith," the former Massachusetts governed told the summit, "carry the responsibility of civil and respectful debate.  The task before us is to focus on conservative  beliefs and values that unite us -- let no agenda, narrow our division or drive us apart . . ."

   A couple of questions come to mind:  

• Precisely whose values were the delegates endorsing? 
  
• Whose interpretation of Holy Writ do they follow? and
• What gives these people the right to determine precisely who is moral and religious?
  

     My answer to these questions comes in the form of an invocation I delivered before a session of the Florida Legislature this past spring. (One should understand that conservative Republicans -- many of whom are supporters of the Family Research Council -- hold a super majority in this body):

  Master of the Universe:

  We call you by a hundred different names, and call upon you in a thousand differents ways.  And yet, whether we address you as God, Jesus, Ha-Shem, Allah, Vishnu, Sh'chinah, Rama or Yawheh; whether we stand, kneel or fall prostrate on the ground; whether we recite prayers are written from left to right, right to left or top to bottom, we are all essentially addressing the one who creates and sustains, who exalts and judges, who blesses and enables that which is the best in each of us. 

  Throught the very act of invoking your name, we seek your guidance, your approval, and above all, your strength and blessing.

   Unquestionably, you have already bestowed manifold blessings upon the members of this august legislative body–  blessings that have permitted them to become leaders in this great state.  We pray that they be ever mindful of the awesome responsibility that comes from being so gifted; that they constantly pause to reflect upon the very nature of communal responsibility.  May they keep uppermost in their hearts and minds the most basic and purposive reasons any of us are here on earth: to feed the hungry and clothe the naked; to exercise stewardship over all the natural glories which you have created; to educate, to elevate and to advocate.

   May they, who have been given so many blessing, be ever cognizant of the fact that many paths can lead to the same destination.  May these men and women –  they who call each other "Honorable" -- "Distinguished" and "My Good Friend" -- realize that you, dear God, have given us two ears with which to hear and but one mouth with which to speak. May we all understand that although there are undoubtedly many paths to the gates of glory, there is but one gatekeeper -- you and you alone.  As a result, none has the right to presume that his path must be my path, that her belief must be my belief.

   May you bless us and keep us.

   May you cause your great countenance to shine upon us and be gracious unto us.

   May you lift up the light of your countenance and grant us the most precious of all your abundant blessings -- the blessing of peace.

   Amen!

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

They Shoot Americans, Don't They?

Back in 1972 then-President Richard Nixon went to China and met with Chairman Mao. As a result of that historic act, the political world obtained a new, highly-charged metaphor: "Nixon goes to China." Just beneath the surface of these four easily grasped words lurked a profound political truth: That only a person like Richard Nixon -- a man of impeccable, unquestionable anti-Communist credentials -- could have "gotten away with" going to "Red China" and shaking hands with Chairman Mao. Just about anyone else in the world of politics or diplomacy would have been accused of cowardice, complicity or worse . . . treason. But not Richard Nixon; after all, hadn't he played a pivotal role in uncovering the treachery of Alger Hiss? Wasn't he more rabidly anti-Red than J. Edgar Hoover?

The metaphor "Nixon goes to China" has long since been understood to refer to the ability of a politician with an unassailable reputation among his or her supporters for representing and defending their values to take actions that would draw criticism and even stern opposition if taken by someone without those credentials. Although the most common examples of the "Nixon goes to China" metaphor involve hawks making moves towards peace with traditional, implacable foes, it can also, on occasion refer to a "white-shoe diplomatist" defying expectations by taking aggressive military action -- a "shoot first and ask questions later," approach, so to speak.

Which brings us to President Barack Obama and the targeted killings of two American-born terrorists in Yemen: Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Kahn. There is no question that the New Mexico-born al-Awlaki was a warrior in the terrorist battle against America and the West. Just how central and effective a warrior he was in that battle is a matter for debate. One former U.S. intelligence officer referred to him as Al Qaeda's "ideological leader"; another simply referred to him as "a big fish." Others weren't so sure of his overall importance or standing within the terrorist organization.

What is clear is that al-Awlaki was included on a list of Americans the president ordered assassinated without due process of law -- something not done since the days of Abraham Lincoln. The Washington Post's Dana Priest first reported on the administration's "hit list" back in January 2010: "The Administration's stance is that if a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda . . . they are then part of the enemy . . . Both the CIA and the JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) maintain lists of individuals called "High Value Targets" and "High Value individuals," whom they seek to kill or capture. The JSOC list includes three Americans, including [New Mexico-born Islamic cleric Anwar] Aulaqi [sic]"

What is also clear is that the Obama Administration did not assemble its list of "High Value Targets" without a great deal of internal debate. According to the Daily Beast's Richard Miniter, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA Director Leon Panetta formed the "war-wing," taking the ". . . hard-line view that Americans who seek to kill other Americans can themselves be killed so save lives." According to Miniter's report, Attorney General Eric Holder and other lawyers in the DOJ held to a much narrower interpretation; that Congress had authorized war in Afghanistan, not Yemen. Consequently, the "battlefield exception" did not apply to people like al-Awlaki and Kahn. And, they noted, "killing a U.S. citizen was wrong."

Much of the reportage on the al-Awlaki killing has noted his ". . . key role in propagandizing non-Arabic speakers to join the jihad against America." Most articles noted his proven links to Major Nidal Hasan (the Ft. Hood shooter), Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab, the so-called "underpants bomber," and the Times Square bomber. Without question then, the man was both a menace and a danger who counseled and urged the deaths of innocent Americans.

But the very deep and thorny question remains as to whether, as an American citizen, this dangerous menace could be "taken out" legally without even a semblance of due process. The administration argues that al-Awlaki represented an "imminent threat" to the lives of Americans and our allies. Moreover, the president holds, as "a leader in an enemy organization that was actively attacking the United States," there is "ample constitutional precedent for killing enemy leaders in war time, even if they are U.S. citizens."

(The "ample constitutional precedent": In late April 1861, President Lincoln suspended writs of habeas corpus. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Ex Parte Merryman. In September 1862, Lincoln again suspended habeas corpus on his own authority. On October 17, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the "Military Commissions Act of 2006," a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant in the Global War on Terror.")

Many applaud the targeted killings of Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Kahn, and view them as President Obama's "Nixon goes to China" moment. By this they mean to say, who would have thought that the soaring wordsmith, the professor of constitutional law, would be capable of pulling off that which the Texas cowboy, George W. Bush, could not . . . the assassination and decimation of Al Qaeda's most murderous leaders? Ironically, many who are today standing and cheering over the summary executions of al-Awlaki and Kahn were just last week expressing their deep mortification over all those who crassly cheered the more than 230 people executed during the decade-long tenure of Texas Governor Rick Perry -- criminals who, in the words of Salon.com's Glen Greenwald, ". . . were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed."

Let us be clear: keeping America safe from terrorist attacks is of paramount importance; placing lethally insurmountable stumbling blocks in the path of our mortal enemies is essential. But, if in order to accomplish these essential tasks we must first eviscerate the Constitution by denying due process of law, what have we truly gained? Is an American citizen to have his or her rights -- not to mention life -- summarily eliminated once they have become traitors? Must we resort to the "star chamber" brand of injustice in order to keep ourselves safe and secure?

These questions -- and their answers -- are at the very heart of what many refer to as "American exceptionalism." Anyone, it seems to me, who sees the questions and answers as being black-and-white, is fooling himself. For indeed, this is going to turn out to be one of the most difficult -- and important -- of all national debates.

The question is, will we as a nation have our "Nixon goes to China" moment and figure out how to preserve our safety without destroying our integrity?

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

From Telegraph to Twitter: A Ray of Hope at the New Year

   A little over a year ago -- just before the Jewish New Year -- I published a piece entitled With the New Year Comes Hope. In it, I discussed President Obama's push to get the Israelis and Palestinians to sit down and talk seriously with one another, the prospect for peace in the Middle East and the fact that at the time of a new year, there is always room for hope. 

   Well, here we are, more than a year later, and some things are a bit better, some a bit worse, but for the most part, things are pretty much the same: 

• Nothing came of the much-hyped direct talks between Abbas, Netanyahu and the Obama Administration;
  
• Despite pressure from both the American Administration, and members of his own government, Netanyahu refused to extend an embargo on new construction projects in disputed areas --  a major sticking point with the Palestinians;
• President Obama got himself into a firestorm of controversy when, in giving a speech at the Pentagon, he mentioned "pre-1967 borders" as an aspect of future negotiations;
• Hamas and Fatah -- heretofore the alpha and omega of Palestinian political factions -- affected a "reconciliation," agreeing to form an interim government; 
• Oppressive Arab regimes fell in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, while Syrians and Yeminis took to the streets with their demands, and Saudi King Abdullah proclaimed that women will have the right to vote beginning in 2015.
  
• Young Egyptians surrounded the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, thus necessitating the emergency evacuation of all Israeli diplomats -- with an able assist from the Obama Administration.
• Despite an official UN determination that the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza was both "legal" and "a legitimate security measure," the Turkish government expelled the Israeli Ambassador.  In announcing his government's actions, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said, "The time has come for Israel to pay for its stance that sees it above international  laws and disregards human conscience. The first and foremost result is that Israel is going to be devoid of Turky's friendship."
  
• The 2012 presidential campaign got underway in earnest, with virtually every Republican hopeful trying to sound like the second coming of Ze'ev Jabotinsky while simultaneously portraying Barack Obama as a Muslim appeaser who doesn't know the difference between a katyusha and a falafal;
• Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas went before the United Nations seeking statehood; President Obama flatly stated that the United States would veto any such resolution in the Security Council.  Despite what many saw as a brave and supportive stance, the president was once again pilloried -- even prior to making his speech -- for being both naive and an enemy of the Jewish State.

   Yes, it's been quite a year.

   In response to the Palestinian statehood proposal, the so-called "Middle East Quartet" (the U.S., the U.N., the European Union and Russia) strongly urged that Israel and the Palestinians resume peace talks with the goal of making a deal by the end of 2012.  Almost immediately, President Abbas said that while he would review the Middle East Quartet's idea for peace talks to start within a month, he is both firmly and irrevocably against any plan that does not require Israel to stop building settlements:  "We will not deal with any initiative that does not contain a halt to settlement or the '67 borders."

   Sound familiar?

   Who amongst us can remember the last time two or more sides agreed to sit down and seriously discuss the issues which divided them without first etching prior demands into case-hardened concrete? What sense does it make to say "I will gladly talk to you just so long as you give in to me before we begin our discussion?" Yes, I recognize that a lot of this is political posturing, plain and simple; throwing some raw meat to the base, so to speak.  And yet, we see this "agreement-must-precede-discussion" nonsense not only on the international stage, but in virtually every issue arising in Congress; in our local, state and national elections; in negotiations between management and labor; and certainly in most international disputes.  And what makes matters worse  -- regardless of whether the venue is Congress, the United Nations or the court of public opinion -- is that one side views the other -- and its attendant world view, opinions, and claims -- as being flat-out wrong . . . a mendacious evil to be denied at any and all costs.  

   It would appear that the further we progress -- if indeed, "progress" be the correct term -- the more our points of view are not, in fact, the products of education, experience, knowledge and contemplation, but rather believed to be matters of "divine revelation."  And that which is believed to have emanated from some historic mount -- whether it be Sinai, Gerizim, Gilboa, Nebo, Ararat or Jabal Musa -- or through the mouth of God's anointed prophet -- whoever he or she may be -- is, by definition,  sacred, immutable and beyond question.  In a world increasingly given over to fanaticism, is the inability to reach compromise or rapprochement -- let alone even consider it -- all that shocking?   

   In political economics, those who favor increased government spending are accused by those who insist on cutting taxes and regulations of being Socialists; those who wish nothing more than to wreck the capitalist system.  Conversely, those who insist that cutting government spending is the only way to save the American economy are tarred with the brush of heartless misanthropy; those who would steal the coal from Tiny Tim's Christmas stocking.

   Likewise with the Middle East: each side sees the other as being conscious agents of evil who are incapable of perceiving even an ounce of humanity in their enemy.  Both sides accuse the other of unspeakable crimes against humanity -- regardless of what the historic record may prove.  How can one even hope to reach settlement when both sides say "You are wrong, wrong, wrong!"  Truth to tell, there is plenty on the record to prove that over the years, Israel has gone the extra mile -- and more than once -- to accept Palestinian Statehood.  And yet, for many, that record is non existent, because it was "created" by an evil people for their own evil purposes. 

   Back in 1848-1849, Europe went through a period known to history variously as the Spring of Nations, Springtime of the Peoples  or the Year of Revolution.  From late February 1848 through early 1849, people's revolutions spread like wildfire from France to the German States, to the Austrian Empire, the Italian States, Denmark, and many other places.  In all more than 50 countries were affected.  And yet, despite the fact that many of the revolutions failed in the short-run, they did set the wheels in motion for a new Europe.  One of the unsung "fathers" of that continent-wide uprising was Samuel F.B. Morse, whose telegraph made it possible for people from Paris to Budapest and from Amsterdam to Warsaw, to be in contact with one another.  One thing they were able to learn -- for perhaps the first time in history -- was how very similar they were in their wants, their needs and their desires.  This knowledge, if nothing else, gave them hope.

   Fast forward to the Arab Spring of 2011.  It is possible that when the history of this era will one day be written, that the name of Christopher Isaac "Biz" Stone, the co-founder and Creative Director of Twitter will be writ large as one of the unsung "fathers" of that movement.  For just as Morse's telegraph made it possible for people throughout Europe to discover how much they had in common, Stone's social networking sites are providing Muslims and Jews, Arabs and Israelis, Socialists and Capitalists, an opportunity to go a bit beyond politics and get to know one another as human beings.

   If the new year brings renewed hope -- and I for one believe it does -- then perhaps this is where it will be at ... with young people breaking down the barriers raised by their elders and finally discovering that just beneath the surface, we are all pretty much the same . . .

   Here's to hope in 5772!

   ©2011 Kurt F. Stone

  

 

Why Not Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street?

   As most readers of this blog are painfully aware, the vast majority of Republicans -- and virtually every newly-elected Teapartier in the 112th Congress - is a signatory of Grover Norquist's"I-will-never-ever-under-any-circumstances-even-at-the-point-of-an-AK-47-vote-for-any-tax-increase" pledge.  Likewise, most of us are also painfully aware that many members of Congress signed on to the Norquist pledge even prior to taking their official oath of office -- the one in which they swear to " . . . support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. . ." 

  I don't know about you, but I think there ought to be a law against this sort of thing.  Hey, come to think of it, there is a law against this sort of thing; for  does not the Bible clearly state not once, but twice (Ex. 20:3-5 Deut. 5:7-9) that it is a massive wrong to make or bow down to any idol or false god?  To "engrave" Mr. Norquist's "no taxes, no how" commandment onto the tablet of a political career is, in my estimation, as blasphemous as worshipping at the altar of Baal.

   Over the past few days, President Obama has, like Abraham of old, taken an axe to the idols of Terach; with stiffened spine, he has unequivocally stated that in order to create jobs and begin fixing a broken economy, it will be absolutely necessary to spend money AND to raise taxes on the wealthy.  In throwing down the gauntlet and picking up the axe, the president has, for the first time in a long time, started sounding like a Democrat.  Not surprisingly, those who are committed to praying at the anti-tax "high places of wickedness" (c.f. Hosea 10:8) believe that the president has signed his political death notice; that the public shares their "no taxes" orthodoxy.

   Once wonders . . .

  Recent polling indicates that the great unwashed public is fed up with both Republicans and Democrats.  They are beginning to understand that President Obama and the Democrats are not nearly as responsible for the economic nightmare on Main Street as the speculators, manipulators and banksters of Wall Street. The public is also beginning to understand that any country that can fund wars of whim and back bailouts and tax breaks for billionaires is not broke.  As John Nichols noted in this week's The Nation, "There is money. It's just misallocated. The demand for jobs must be coupled with demands for better budgeting and new sources of revenue." 

   That's precisely what the president is talking about of late . . .

   One proposed source of new revenue is a minuscule (less than .05%) tax on Wall Street trading of stocks, derivatives, currencies, credit default swaps and futures -- the same speculative financial instruments that got us into our mess in the first place.  There is already a legislative proposal (H.R. 4191) before Congress that has collected more than 5 dozen cosponsors. Co-authored by Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio and Iowa Senator Tom Harkin H.R. 4191, the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" was originally submitted in 2009.  It has garnered the support of economists, Wall Street investors, labor organizations and consumer groups. By one conservative estimate this transaction tax could raise a minimum of $150 billion in new revenue, thus forcing the banksters of Wall Street to pay for at least some of the devastation they caused to the folks on Main Street.  (Not surprisingly, DeFazio's bill has also drawn fire from many others, who claim that it will kill jobs by placing yet another layer of regulation on an already over-regulated financial world.)

   The DeFazio bill is written in such a way as to ensure that the tax is targeted at speculators, and "has no impact on the average investor and pension fund."  The tax will be refunded  for:

• Tax-favored retirement accounts
• 401(k)s
• Mutual funds
• Education Savings Accounts
• Health Savings Accounts, and
• The first $100,000 of transactions annually that are not already exempted.
  

   In a recent New York Times article, University of Massachusetts economics professor Nancy Folbre came out in support of the initiative: "Purchases of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments in the United States go untaxed but for a tiny fee (less than a half-cent) on stock trades that helps finance the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In Britain, by contrast," Professor Folbre wrote, ". . . a 0.5 percent tax on stock transactions raises about $40 billion a year.  President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany recently announced plans to introduce a similar tax in the 27 nations of the European Community. Our current tax policies favor speculative investment in financial instruments over productive investments in human capabilities. . . "

   On September 1, thousands of members of "National Nurses United" flocked to Capitol Hill, lobbying more than 5 dozen members of Congress.  They called it the "National Day of Action to Tax Wall Street."  Representatives were urged to sign a pledge in support of the Wall Street transaction tax. Unlike the Norquist pledge -- a sweeping across-the-board anti-tax stance signed by virtually every member of the GOP -- this one was in support of a single piece of legislation whose affect would be felt not on Wall Street, but rather on Main Street. 

   Without question, jobs and unemployment are going to be the major issues of the 2012 election.  If the president and the Democrats will continue holding firm and show by both word and deed that they are fighting on behalf of Main Street, they may just pull off a major victory over Wall Street.  The "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street" bill is one weapon in their arsenal.  And whether or not it passes Congress (it will not) is actually irrelevant; it serves to underscore just who is fighting for the middle class . . .

©2011 Kurt F. Stone