Beating the Bushes:

Whatever Became of Joseph?

   Back in 1965, Harvard mathematics professor/topical singer-songwriter Tom Lehrer brought out his classic "That Was the Year That Was."  Included among the 7 cuts on side B was a little ditty entitled "Whatever Became of Hubert?"  Dedicated to then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey, "who used to be a senator," the song asked:

            Whatever became of you Hubert?

            We miss you, so tell us please.        

            Are you sad, are you cross?

            Are you gathering moss 

            While you wait for the boss to sneeze . . .

            Do you dream about staging a coup

            Hubert what happened to you?

   What Lehrer was skewering wasn't so much the then-Vice President's relative unimportance and invisibility, but rather the sad fact that a once prominent progressive had somehow become a political eunuch.  Those who remember the Hubert Humphrey of the mid-1940s through early 1960s will recall that he was a fiery, fearless liberal, a man accustomed to standing on the side of the angels. But then came the election of 1964, which turned him into a political castrati. Indeed, it was only mere months after becoming v.p., that Lehrer would lampoon:

            Once a fiery and liberal spirit,

            Ah, but now when he speaks he must clear it.

            Second fiddle's a hard part, I know,

            When they don't even give you a bow . . .

   Today, nearly 45 years later, many find themselves asking virtually the same questions, albeit with a different name:

            Joseph what happened to you?

  In this case, the query is about Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman.  Now without question, there are several similarities between "Hubert" and "Joseph":

• Both men started out their political careers on a fairly high local level: Humphrey as mayor and Lieberman as state senator.
• Both men suffered defeats early on in their political careers: Humphrey lost a mayoral race in 1943, Lieberman a Congressional race in 1980. 
• Both men carved out reliably progressive records as United States Senators.
• Both men ran for Vice President while in their fifties.

  At this point, we must acknowledge two great dissimilarities:

• Humphrey did become Vice President, while Lieberman remained a senator.     
• Humphrey remained a loyal Democrat -- eventually becoming the Senate's Deputy President pro tempore -- while Lieberman became an independent who merely caucuses with the Democrats.

   Indeed, many are asking that provocative question, "Whatever became of you Joseph?"

   Because of the fact that nearly all current items, stories, photographs or videos about Senator Lieberman usually have him standing alongside Senator John McCain, people presume that he has "gone over to the other side."  Interestingly, this is not necessarily the case.  In doing a bit of research, and comparing Lieberman's voting record to some of his most liberal senate colleagues, a fascinating pattern emerges: with one -- perhaps two -- notable exception[s], he is still voting like a liberal.

   I can hear the catcalls: "How's that?"  "Are you crazy?"  "Been out in the sun too long?"

   No, actually, I've got the facts to back it up.

   When one compares Joseph Lieberman's votes on 12 key issues in the 109th Congress to the votes of the very liberal senators Boxer, Kennedy, Feingold, Clinton and Schumer, one finds that with the exception of a single vote -- S2766 "A Bill expressing the sense of Congress that the president should start to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in June 2006" -- Lieberman voted precisely the same as his aforementioned colleagues.  Like Senators Boxer, Kennedy, Feingold  et al, Senator Lieberman voted:

• To bar drilling in the Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
• Against limiting debate on a bill to repeal the estate tax.
• In favor of raising the minimum wage.
• Against confirming Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Against limiting debate on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
• In favor of stem cell research.
• Against a bill that would make it a crime to take a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion without parental notification, and
• In favor of detainee habeas corpus rights. 

   In other words, when it comes to taxes, civil liberties, the environment and other progressive hot-button issues, the Joseph Lieberman of today is no different from the Joseph Lieberman of yesteryear.  It is in the single area -- and a huge one it is indeed -- of war and peace that Lieberman diverges sharply from most -- if not a vast majority -- of his Democratic colleagues. 

   As they ask in Beverly Hills: vos meinsdie?

   Obviously, this means that for Senator Lieberman, the Iraq war is THE defining issue of our time; that everything else is of secondary -- if not tertiary -- importance.  This means that when it comes to choosing and casting his lot with a presidential candidate, he uses a single criterion; which candidate will best be able to execute the war along the lines which Senator Lieberman deems to be proper, fitting and in America's -- and perhaps Israel's -- best interests.  In other words, it means Lieberman is not all that dissimilar from lots of otherwise progressive voters in America. 

   Although I certainly share Senator Lieberman's concern about our involvement in Iraq and all that it spells for America's ability to return to being a positive influence for good in the world, I cannot in any way, shape or form share his enthusiasm for Senator McCain. In the few instances when I have discovered that I am standing on a different street corner than other members of the party I call home, I always did my level best to change my party's position; I didn't go out and support the other guy's candidate. 

  But this is precisely what Senator Lieberman has done. Despite the fact that he has been publicly joined at the hip to Senator McCain for God knows how long, Lieberman continues to caucus with the Democrats.  If not, he would lose all his accumulated senate seniority.  And that would be an awful lot to lose.  For in the 110th Congress, Senator Joseph Lieberman is: 

• 4th on Armed Services,
• Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee's subcommittee on Consumer Solutions to Global Warming, and
• Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

   Joseph Lieberman's seat isn't up until 2012, at which time he will be 70 years old.  Whether or not he will have to continue his political high-wire act in order to survive at the polls is anyone's guess.  [Remember, he lost the 2006 Democratic primary to Ned Lamont 52%-48%, and was only able to defeat Lamont in the general election with the help of Connecticut's Republican voters.] 

   Don't get me wrong; Joseph Lieberman is a good man for whom I have a lot of admiration and personal affection.  It's just that in this case, he's hitched his horses to a powerfully wrong wagon; one that will undoubtedly continue plodding along the same path it has traveled for the past eight years.

   Indeed Joseph, whatever happened to you?

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

For [Anti-] Christ's Sake!

   In a couple of days, Annie and I will be taking off for the mountains of North Carolina, where I am scheduled to give a bunch lectures in a hamlet with the delightful name "Little Switzerland."  Among the lecture topics the sponsors have selected are:

• "Is God a Democrat or a Republican?"
• "But is it Good For Israel?: Jewish Voting Habits in America," and
• "The History of a Lie: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

   This last topic has been a pet interest of mine for nearly four decades.  As an undergraduate, I wrote my senior thesis on "McCarthyism and the Historic Roots of Political Paranoia."  While conducting the research, I landed smack dab in the middle of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the granddaddy of all paranoid forgeries. In the more than 100 years since this mendacious travesty was first published, the wickedly anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion have been used to "prove" or "verify" the paranoid, anti-Semitic world-view of madmen ranging from Tsar Nicholas II and Joseph Goebbels to King Faud, Louis Farrakhan and Sheikh Ekrima Sa'id Sabri, the current Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

   For those not familiar with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it is a series of 24 essays -- or "protocols" --  purporting to be minutes of a  solemn meeting held in a cemetery at the dead of midnight.  At this secret gathering, representatives of each of the 12 tribes of Israel report to their "boss" (presumably the Antichrist) on what they have done -- both individually and collectively -- to further their goal of total world domination.  Each tribe is responsible for undermining and dominating one aspect of the globe, whether it be the world's financial markets, alcohol, agriculture, manufacturing, etc. The whole thing would be laughable in the extreme were if not for the fact that:

• The Protocols have such an incredibly sordid history.
• So many tens -- perhaps hundreds -- of millions of people have been taken in by its base lies.
• Aspects of it are alive and well even in the United States in August 2008.

     This last point may be throwing some of you for a loop, but it's actually, really, and disturbingly true. One of the major pillars propping up the Protocols is the Antichrist, the irremediably wicked individual whom the Bible prophecies will oppose the Christian Messiah and substitute him/herself in Christ's stead. References to the Antichrist --some overt, others subtle or oblique -- can be found in the [Christian]Biblical books of, Mark, Matthew, and 2 Thessalonians, both the First and Second Epistles of John, and of course, the Book of Revelations.  Additionally, many Christians see allusions to the Antichrist as well in the [Hebrew] Biblical book of Daniel. 

    Make no mistake about it: Biblical literalists are ever vigilant, ever watchful, ever wary of the Antichrist -- He who will blasphemously refer to himself as simply "The One." He/she, we are told, will be an individual of great charm and charisma, a powerful orator and motivator; one who will capture the rapt attention of people all over the globe.  He or she will also be a creature of utter self-certainty, one devoid of even a scintilla of doubt, and a hypnotic spell-binder to boot.  Nonetheless -- and this is central to the true believer -- the Antichrist will be an utter fraud, a master of malevolence., one bent on leading the world far, far astray.

   And here's where things start getting really spooky . . .

   Recently, the McCain campaign ran a commercial entitled "The One."  To the "unenlightened," it would seem to be merely scoring Senator Obama for being both overly hubristic and wet behind the ears.  Ah, but to Evangelical Christians -- those for whom the commercial is both consciously and deliberately aimed -- it has a very different message: Beware of Barack Obama because "He is The One . . . He is the Antichrist."  If you don't believe me take a gander for yourself:

  

    As you can see, the McCain spot opens with a ballsy-voiced announcer proclaiming: "It shall be known that in 2008 the world will be blessed.  They will call him 'The One.'" The spot is utterly diabolic in its brilliance. It employs a combination of methods and images:

• Wink-and-nod buzz words: "He has anointed himself, ready to carry the burden of the world." 
• Visuals: a glorious rainbow stretching across the heavens.
• Dramatic gestures: the outstretched arms of one giving their version of the "Sermon on the Mount." 

    Through these visual/aural weapons, the McCain brain trust is obviously attempting to convince a certain cadre of viewers that Senator Obama, far from being unsuitable because of a mere lack of qualifications or experience is, in fact, "The One" -- the Antichrist of whom the Bible has long warned the faithful to be on guard against. To an evangelical, this commercial is more than a pro-McCain, Anti-Obama spot; it is a clarion call to arms, a war-whoop for the inevitability of End Times.

    The spot continues with scenes of Senator Obama speaking before vast audiences of swooning adoring acolytes, shows him to be a man without a scintilla of doubt -- just like the Antichrist! -- and then superimposes his words over an iconic clip of Charlton Heston's Moses as he -- Heston/Moses -- stretches forth his staff and parts the Sea of Reeds.

   Does Senator McCain really believe that Barack Obama is the Antichrist? 

   Of course not.

   Then does this mean that, in the words of Keith Olbermann, that "John McCain doesn't speak for the McCain campaign?"

   Can't really say.

   There are, however, two things we can say with utter certainty:

1. Senator Barack is not the Antichrist;
2. The "Obama is The One" ad proves that McCain isn't doing too well with the Evangelicals. 

   Ever since 1980, the Republican presidential candidate has captured anywhere from 60-75% of the self-proclaimed Evangelical vote.  It should be noted that Bill Clinton -- the only Democrat elected president between 1980 and 2008 -- achieved a high-water mark of slightly more than 30% of the Evangelical vote in 1992.  In 2004, John Kerry got barely 20% of their vote with George W. Bush capturing nearly three-quarters.  The latest polls show that about one-quarter of Evangelical Christians are intending to vote for Senator Obama, nearly half for Senator McCain, with nearly one-quarter are undecided.  The last two figures do not bode well for the presumptive Republican nominee. In other words, John McCain doesn't score all that well with the Evangelical community.  They just aren't all that sold on him being their kind of Christian.

   Hence the "Obama as Antichrist" commercial.

   But wait, there is more!

   The Blogosphere is cackling with articles, op-eds and crisscross discussions on the Obama/Antichrist issue.  Even Sean Hannatty has entertained the notion on his radio program. Many would be amazed just how robust -- and emotionally-charged -- the discussions are.  There is a very real fear -- no doubt being stoked by that which was heretofore called "The Religious Right" -- that an Obama presidency would literally open up the gates of Gehenna in order to let the Devil hold sway.

   Indeed, after reading so many of these fearful diatribes, I was reminded of a pearl from Ovid's Metamorphoses:

                Quantum mortalia pectoral caecae notcis habent . . .

   Namely, "How much blind night there is in the hearts of men!

   Whoever is ultimately responsible for the Obama/Antichrist commercial and campaign-of-chitchat is both dangerous and incredibly divisive.  They -- whoever they are -- deserve our scorn and ridicule, for they are seeking to win an election by reviving the Dark Ages.  But then again, America is just about to conclude eight long, dark years of a president and an administration whose policies and pronouncements seem geared to bring about the end of the world.  Indeed, the past eight years have been the antithesis of a Hebrew term Senator Obama has been known to use correctly: tikkun olam, "Repairing the world."

   If Obama's detractors stereotype him as "The One," and refer to him as "A man without doubt," what might we conclude about a president who calls himself "The Decider," and when asked to name just one time he was in error, can't think of anything to say?  You tell me, what's worse: entertaining the idea of conversing with our enemies, or threatening a military action that could bring on the end of the world? 

   In other words, how can anyone seeking to continue some of the most dangerous of George W. Bush's policies -- like Senator McCain -- have the temerity to wonder aloud if maybe Barack Obama is the Antichrist?  How can a man who wants nothing so much but to follow, ridicule a man who wants nothing so much but to lead?

   So, be neither surprised nor downhearted if Senator Obama speaks more and more to the issue of faith as the campaign progresses.  And be neither affrighted nor downhearted when he speaks in lofty cadences.

   He is not the Antichrist. 

   What he is -- God willing -- is the next President of the United States.

   ©2008 Kurt F. Stone

  

   

Barack Obama: The Enemy of My Enemy

  

Barack Obama's back campaigning on American soil after his tour of Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Germany, Paris and London.  Never has a mere "presumptive nominee" received so much press.  Indeed, the three major news anchors went along with him. And depending on what you read or who you listened to, Senator Obama's world tour was a towering success, an embarrassing failure, or the second coming of John, Paul, George and Ringo.  Obama supporters kvelled over his dignified mien, his ability to articulate issues and the almost nonstop adulation he received everywhere he went.  "Finally, finally," his supporters cheered, "an American leader who isn't an embarrassment."  Obama detractors kvetched about what they saw as nothing more than a brazen breach of diplomatic protocol.  "How dare he," they sniffed, "strut about as if he were President of the United States?  Who does he think he is?" 

   I had to laugh when a couple of the conservative talking heads referred to him as a "liberal elitist."  Only in America could the mixed-race son of single mother who was raised by his grandparents be portrayed as an elitist, while the scion of an east-coast WASP dynasty who, like his ancestors, attended Andover, Harvard and Yale, become a "good-ole boy."
  
   Poor John McCain was beside himself during Obama's week away, feeling the loneliness of the only kid on the block not invited to Disneyland.  The nadir of his week came when he traveled up to New Hampshire, only to be met by a single solitary reporter.  In their desperation, the McCain camp tried to turn the cameras their way, one day hinting that their guy was about to name his V.P.,  another questioning Senator Obama's experience, knowledge and patriotism.  Try as he may though, Senator McCain just couldn't gain traction.  The Obama world tour was just too overwhelming an event for anyone in the media to pay McCain much attention. What airtime they did give him wasn't especially flattering; one day he mistakenly referred to the "Afghanistan-Pakistan border," and another he claimed that "the surge" was responsible for the so-called "Sunni Awakening."  

   Oops!

   I for one was particularly interested in how Senator Obama would come across in Israel.  To my way of thinking, he "hit all the right notes"-- but with a difference: he didn't sound like a politician merely attempting to curry favor.  Rather he looked, sounded and spoke like a man with a passion for justice and a clear understanding of history.    

   Despite this, there is still a hard-core of American-Jewish voters who continue buying in to the "Obama's a Muslim," Obama's Osama's Candidate," "Obama will sell out Israel" schools of thought.  To all of them -- and the numbers are apparently shrinking -- I ask that they both remember and ponder an age-old expression:

   "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

   Where in the world does the expression come from?  Well, in the Hebrew Bible [Exodus, 23:22], we find God telling the Israelites that if they fully obey, then "v'ayavti et oyvecha v'tzarti et tzo-r'recha," viz: "I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries."  Likewise, the Chinese have a saying that goes, "It is good to strike the serpent's head with the fist of your enemy." 

   One living, breathing example of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" goes back to the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C.E.  For those who remember their ancient history, the Greek city-states -- a tangled web of argumentative antagonists -- managed to put aside their differences in order to go to war against the Persians, who were their common enemy.  In a sense, the various city-states had the Persians to thank for bringing them together -- if only to beat the daylights out of their common enemy. 

   You may well ask: What in the world does this have to do with Barack Obama, Israel and the American-Jewish community?

   The answer is both simple and direct:

    To much of the Arab world, Barack Obama, far from being their "stealth candidate" is, in fact, viewed as just another American politician  in thrall to the Zionists!

   The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

   Need proof?  Consider the following editorial cartoons, which have recently run in various Middle Eastern publications:

This cartoon ran in Ar-Risala ["The Message"], a Palestinian Authority publication, on June 22, 2008.  The headline translates: The Wagon [that gets you] to the White House."  The quip translates, "Obama's view."

This cartoon ran in Al-Ghad, Jordan's
only independent Arabic-language 
paper on June 9, 2008.  It simply
reads: "Obama, the American
Candidate."

 
This cartoon ran in the Saudi paper
Al-Watan on June 10, 2008. As one can
clearly see, it is putting McCain and Obama into the same "pocket." 

This example comes from www.amin.org an Arabmedia website which serves as a platform for both cartoonists and columnists from all over the Arab world. This particular cartoon ran in Bahrain.

Finally, we have this example from Al-Ittihad ["The Union"], a United Arab Emirati Newspaper.  Published on June 10, 2008, its headline reads: "Obama: 'Jerusalem should be Israel's Capital.'" 

  

[Note: These and other cartoons were gleaned from the Anti-Defamation League website.]  

    Do the cartoons above provide conclusive proof that Barack Obama was, is, and always shall be a friend of Israel?  For those who already support him, no such proof is necessary. For those who are continually suspicious, no amount of proof, I fear, will ever be enough.  I can even hear some proclaiming, "Ah, it's all a conspiracy!  The Muslims have banded together to make it seem like they're anti-Obama, just so that we'll vote for him."  Oh well, some people just don't want to be confused with facts.

   To me, the facts speak for themselves.  Senator Obama went to Israel as a close ally, spoke there as a good friend, and returned home an even more enlightened candidate. Those who will continually challenge his credentials or demean the true excitement he brings by comparing him to Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton [!] are way off the mark.  Those who truly love America -- its hopes and history, its dreams and energy indeed, its Constitution -- need only look at those who are disparaging Senator Obama in order to understand that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

• Those who would turn back the clock to the 1920s are my enemy; and so too are they the enemy of Senator Obama.
• Those who believe that the purpose of government is to protect the perquisites of the wealthy and oversee the morality of the masses are my enemy; and so too are they the enemy of Senator Obama.
• Those who look at the Middle East and see only pipelines and barrels of oil are my enemy; and so too are they the enemy of Senator Obama.
• Those who run on platforms of fear rather than hope are my enemy; and so too are they the enemy of Senator Obama.

   Yes indeed, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

   And from where I sit, Senator Barack Obama is our friend . . .

 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

It's Not Just the Technology, Stupid

    It has been nearly a half-century since President John F. Kennedy proffered one of the most audacious challenges in all human history: to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely to earth -- and all within a single decade.  Imagine that: nearly a half century!  Where has the time gone? 

   For many Americans, Kennedy's bold challenge -- and its very success -- became the gold standard for national pride and optimism.  Indeed, for nearly two generations now, America's "can-do" attitude has been perhaps best expressed in that well-known construction, "Any country that can land a man on the moon can . . ."

   Over the years this formula has been used almost to the point of exhaustion.  At any given point in time the "Any country that can land a man on the moon can . . . " construct has been the "A-side" of such varied challenges as:

• Ending world hunger
• Eliminating poverty
• Conquering cancer, and now 
• Making America energy self-sufficient

   Ever since Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins reified JFK's bold vision, America -- as many would have it -- has suffered from the lack of a great national challenge; that so-called "B-side" of the "Any country that can land a man on the moon can . . ."formula. Oh yes, we've occasionally been subjected to such rhetorical devices as the "War on Terror," or the "War on Poverty," but these are not national challenges in any real sense of the term. In recent memory, the challenge has been to "go shopping," or to accept constraints and abridgements of personal freedom as a way of safeguarding and maintaining personal freedom.  [Anyone who understands the logic of this, please get contact me ASAP.]  

   This past Thursday, Vice President Al Gore issued what is easily the boldest, most audacious challenge since the days of JFK: national energy independence within ten years.  In a speech to the bipartisan Alliance for Climate Protection Gore, the alliance's chair, issued a challenge to totally remake the way America generates and uses power.  The Gore challenge would see the country moving to "renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources" to power the nation's homes, plants and transportation.  And all within a single decade!

   Talk about a supreme national challenge.

   Already, we can hear both "side-A" and "side-B" coalescing into that marvelous construction: "Any country that can land a man on the moon can definitely create energy independence within a decade."

   Well, as the old Yiddish expression goes, Fuhn dein moyl adztu gaht's oyren -- "From your mouth to God's ears."

   Although both Vice President Gore and his far-reaching proposal have received a lot of positive press in recent days, there are those who are questioning, lampooning and even denigrating. ("Once again, the Goracle speaks!") Despite the fact that most thinking people both appreciate and understand the incredible importance of Gore's challenge, there are, nonetheless, lots of folks who think that what he's proposing is unobtainable, undoable --and not just because he's calling for it to be accomplished within the next ten years.

   Sadly, these folks are probably correct -- but probably not for the reasons they think.  The problem with the "B-side" of the equation is not -- indeed has rarely been -- within the realm of science or technology.  Indeed, if the flip-side of "Any country that can send a man to the moon can . . ." was technologic or scientific, poverty, hunger and cancer -- to name but three of humanity's most pressing ills -- would have been eradicated long ago. Rather, it is precisely because the "B-side" generally resides in the realm of government, politics and economics that Gore's great challenge is going to take far, far longer than a mere ten years.

   Kennedy's great challenge -- unlike Gore's -- did not require radical changes in the way the nation's signal industries did business.  Neither Gemini nor Apollo required the Big-Three automakers to retool; the space program was never a threat to Exxon, Mobil or Shell; it in no way altered international commerce or our balance of payments. It is precisely because Gemini and Apollo were creatures of cutting-edge science and technology that Kennedy's challenge could be met  . . . and on time. 

    Al Gore's challenge for energy independence is not just a question of science or technology.  If it were, we could reasonably expect success within a decade. Sadly, the greatest impediments to energy independence are neither a lack of brains nor a dearth of technological know-how; rather, it is a stunning lack of will and an overabundance of shortsightedness. To wit, it's not just the technology, stupid; it's the macro-economics and geopolitics.

   Oil -- and its many, many byproducts -- isn't just used for the fuel that goes into automobiles, trucks, jet airplanes or ships.  From oil we get plastic and literally hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands of products in daily use.  A total shift from a petroleum-based economy to one based on solar, wind, geothermal -- and who knows, perhaps one day even anti-matter -- requires nothing short of a social, political and economic revolution.  Its advantages are both many and obvious:

• A cleaner, healthier, more sustainable planet.
• Far, far fewer dollars going from our shores into the pockets of Middle Eastern tyrants.
• Millions of brand new jobs in brand new industries.
• A renewed sense of national purpose and optimism.

   As I see things, there are a couple of major obstacles standing in the way of meeting Gore's great challenge. 

   First, is industrial intransigence and shortsightedness.  Whether it is right or wrong, most corporate CEOs are far more concerned with the next quarter than with the next decade or century.  American tire manufacturers, as an example, have had the ability to market tires good for 250,000 miles or more for many years.  They chose not to of course, because were they to do so, customers wouldn't be purchasing tires nearly so often.  Likewise the oil industry which, so long as there is black gold to be explored, drilled, imported, refined and sold, are loathe to revamp, retool or rethink their future modus operandi.   

   A second major obstacle is what historian Rick Shenkman calls our national stupidity. "We the People" may well be "outraged" by high prices at the pump and "concerned" about global warming; nonetheless, we still seem to spend far more time casting blame than supporting solutions.  If Al Gore's great challenge is to have a snowball's chance of success, it will require an immense investment on the part of "We the People."  We will have to make our demands for renewable energy as loudly heard as has been our pique at high prices.  We will have to make our desire for energy independence real through tangible acts, whether it be using far less gas, giving our precious votes only to those who, like Al Gore are up to the challenge, or above all, by coming to realize that we are as much a part of the problem as we are of the solution.

    Can Al Gore's challenge be met within a decade?  If technology were all that stood in our path, I think the answer would be a resounding "YES!"  For, "Any country that can send a man to the moon CAN become energy independent."  But it's not just the technology, stupid.  Its also economics, geopolitics and, dare we say, human nature itself, that stand in the roadway.

   As JFK used to say -- borrowing a page from Confucius -- "A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step."

   Al Gore has taken that step.  Its now up to all of us to join him on the long trek.

   It's not just the technology, stupid!

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

  

     

What If . . .?

   One of my favorite "parlor games" from years gone by was "What if . . .?"  The rules of the game were the essence of simplicity: one person would pose a "What if . . .?" kind of question -- almost invariably historic -- then everyone would get a chance to give an answer and try convincing us that their case made the best sense.

   To this day, I often find myself playing "What if . . .?" in my own mind whenever stuck on an airplane or driving endless miles on some boring stretch of I-95.  Among my favorite historic "What ifs . . .?" are:

• What if Moses had led the Israelites to present-day Saudi Arabia instead of Israel?
• What if Napoleon had won at Waterloo?
• What if the South had won the Civil War?
• What if John Wilkes Booth's bullet had missed Abraham Lincoln?
• What if Hitler had won the Second World War? and
• What if the U.S. Supreme Court had decided in favor of Al Gore?

   Then too, there are the more trivial, less earth-shattering "What ifs . . .?"

• What if James Dean hadn't died at age 24?
• What if Sandy Koufax hadn't retired from baseball at age 30?
• What if Bill Gates had decided to stay in school?
• What if the remote control had never been invented?

   So where's all this headed?  

   Why to our three "What ifs . . .?" of the day: 

• What if the New Yorker had decided not to run Barry Blitt's satirical cartoon?
• What if, say, National Review had run a satirical cartoon on John McCain? and
• What if the American public wasn't afflicted with such overwhelming political A.D.D.?

     
   By now, seemingly everyone from Kansas to Khartoum has weighed in on what they think about Blitt's cartoon gracing the cover of this week's New Yorker.  "Is it satiric or is it libelous?" that is the question --  posed by literally tens of thousands of editorialists, talking heads and bloggers.  I for one am both upset and dispirited -- not so much by the cartoon or the question surrounding its propriety -- but by the haunting feeling that so very few will take the time to read Ryan Lizza's insightful article on Senator and Mrs. Obama that runs inside that New Yorker.  If they do, they will see that Blitt's cartoon is more come-on than commentary; a ham-handed way of getting people to buy this week's issue in the first place.  Viewed from that perspective, David Remnick, the New Yorker publisher, has succeeded beyond his wildest expectation; this week's issue is bound to sell like hotcakes. 

   My fear -- and the cause of my upset -- is that where the vast majority of folks will come to know the Blitt lampoon like the back of their hand, very few will have the sitzfleisch to read the accompanying article.  Increasingly we have become a society that scans rather than reads; that favors titillation over elucidation; that more often than not gets its information from those who entertain rather than from those who educate. Indeed, if the gap between the super-rich and the rest of us is vast; that which exists between the "plugged-in" and the "logged-off" is of chasmic proportions. 

   Those who do take the time to read Lizza's 14,550-plus word article will be treated to a fine piece of journalism. Lizza -- one of the first serious journalists to put the presidential bug in Obama's ear -- guides readers through the step-by-step political maze by which Obama progressed from community organizer to state senator, from to failed Congressional candidate, to United States Senator, and from primary aspirant to presidential nominee.  At each step along the path, we see both Obama's growth as a creature of politics as well as his undeniable ability to learn from his political mistakes.  In the end, the most important lesson Lizza teaches is, perhaps, that "Superheroes don't become president; politicians do."

   But back to the "What ifs . . .?"

   What if, say, the conservative National Review had run a "satiric" cover on John McCain?  What would it look like?  What would people be complaining about?  Well, the other day, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Pulitzer-prize winning political cartoonist David Horsey came up with one such example.  As you can see, it shows a wheel-chair bound McCain sitting next to wife Cindy, who is dumping pills out of a bottle into her husband's hand.  While Senator McCain hums "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran" [sung to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara-Ann,"] Cindy says, "Here John, take some of my meds to get you through the inaugural parade!"  Where Blitt's cartoon has a painting of Osama bin Laden on the wall, Horsey's has Dick Cheney.  Where the Obama cartoon has an American flag burning in the fireplace, the McCain version has the Constitution going up in flames.  There are, to be certain a couple of key differences between the two cartoons.  Most obviously, Horsey's McCain caricature hasn't graced the cover of a national magazine, where Blitt's has.  Second, and more importantly, where the McCain cartoon lampoons things which are true -- i.e., Senator McCain is a senior citizen and did once sing "Bomb-bomb-bomb . . ." -- the Obama sketch satirizes untruths, distortions, and misconceptions. 

   So "What if . . ." the American public could get over what newscaster Rachael Maddow calls our collective "Political Attention Deficit Disorder?"  Well, first of all, it is highly likely that most of the "newscasters" on Fox and the talkmeisters on conservative radio would be out looking for new careers. Second, voters would begin demanding that both candidates and the media which covers them deal far more with issues, and far less with personalities.  And thirdly, we might finally, finally come to understand that like it or not, only political professionals win elections. If perfection is what we're looking for or demanding in our leaders, we will be far better off renting "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." 

   PS:  If great political satire is what you're after, might I recommend Jonathan Swift?

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

           



 

Pangloss for President?

   All those with a good literate memory -- or a memory for good literature -- will remember Dr. Pangloss, a central character in Voltaire's satire Candide. Pangloss -- from the Greek πᾶν (pan: all) and γλῶσσα (glossa: tongue) -- is young Candide's tutor. He is the self-proclaimed métaphysico-théologo cosmolonigologie -- an "optimistic metaphysician," who views everything through the rosiest of rose-colored glasses.  To the good doctor, this is "the best of all possible worlds."  Pangloss may be a lovely fellow, but he is an ass nonetheless. 

   In the course of Voltaire's bildungsroman, Candide and his tutor witness a series of horrifying spectacles, including the devastating Lisbon earthquake of 1755.  In the end, having seen and experienced so much of the world's pain and woe, Candide despairs; he both rejects and "is cured of" Pangloss' rosy optimism.  The novella's conclusion is deeply enigmatic, for we the reader -- like Candide himself -- are unresolved as to which is the "next best" philosophy to accept. 

   Despite having his eyes opened to the "real world," Candide is unsure of precisely what he has seen, what he believes, or how to respond to it all . . .  

   It would seem that many Obama supporters are now caught up in the "Candide conundrum:"  not knowing what they are seeing, what they believe, or how to respond to it all.  

   Specifically, we refer to what the media have been calling the senator's "flip-flops" and "backtracks."  The press has had a field day scoring Senator Obama's "change of position" on withdrawal from Iraq.  Both the blogosphere and many of his supporters are confused, disconsolate-- even apoplectic -- over his vote in favor of the FISA Act -- the very one he had previously promised to filibuster if it included retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

      The senator's so-called "flip-flop" on Iraq is, to quote the Bard, "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."  On July 8, the Washington Times posted a version of an AP article that asserted: "On Iraq, he has gone from hard-line opposition to the war to more nuanced rhetoric that calls for a troop drawdown process that could last 16 months." The Times and other media outlets also find a "change" or "flip-flop" in the senator's contention that he will have to consult with "commanders on the ground" before making any hard and fast decisions about the precise timing of troop withdrawals. This is nothing new; Senator Obama has been saying this all along. For proof, we offer for comparison a handful of on-the-record statements Senator Obama has made during the course of the campaign:

• Sept. 17, 2007 on NPR's All Things Considered: "If commanders came to me and said, 'We are making progress in reducing violence,' and I see continual political progress taking place, then obviously that's going to be weighed . . ."
• Nov. 1, 2007 in a New York Times interview: "I want to talk to the military commanders on the ground . . . . If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have sectarian conflict, that means another . . ."
• Mar. 2, 2008 Washington Post foreign policy Q&A: "What I've been very clear about is that I will always listen to commanders on the ground, but ultimately the commander in chief sets the mission."
• July 3, 2008 in Fargo, North Dakota: "When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

    You tell me: where are is the "flip-flop?"  Where is the change in strategy or rhetoric?  Truth to tell, there is none.  Unfortunately though, many folks accept biased headlines and cynical, self-serving opening paragraphs as the full story.  The truth is out there for all to see, read and digest . . . if only we're willing.

   Senator Obama's FISA vote is another issue.  Yes, he did go on record as saying he would filibuster against any bill that had retroactive immunity for the telecoms.  Yes, he said this more than once.  And yes, he did vote for the bill, unlike Senator Clinton and 27 of their Democratic colleagues.  I for one am in total disagreement with the senator; he should have voted against the FISA bill.  However, to the thinking of many, this is by no means a "deal-breaker."  We cannot -- must not -- become Candides who, having witnessed that which is ugly or disagreeable, lose all faith.

    Again, I do not agree with Senator Obama's vote.  However, I can understand it.  As the Democrats' presumptive candidate, he daily traduces the treacherous chasm betwixt Scylla and Charybdis.  Its the classic "lose-lose," "damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't scenario":  Vote for passage of the FISA act, and many of your supporters will threaten to desert you; vote against it, then McCain and the 527s will attack you for being "weak on terror." 

   Yes, it was a calculated political act; one that only time will tell if it was worth the cost.  But mark this well: Barack Obama is not Dr. Pangloss, and we are not Candide.  Anyone who feels like the stars have been forced from their eyes, has not been seeing the real Barack Obama.  For truth to tell (and I'm sorry to have to inject a healthy dollop of realism into the cauldron) Senator Barack Obama is running for President of the United States.  And the only people who will ever occupy that hallowed office are politicians, not optimistic metaphysicians. 

   Both historically and strategically, Republicans generally run as far to the right as they dare during primaries; Democrats run as far to the left as is comfortable.  And then, once general election season rolls around, both move toward the plausible middle.  That's just the way things are done, like it or not. 

   There are several "flip-flops" on Senator McCain's "Straight Talk" record, but for some reason, these are rarely covered.  It is indeed hard to find headlines or tv teasers about McCain's change of heart on off-shore drilling and the use of ethanol (now he's for it), the Bush tax cuts (he voted against them three times, and now wants to make them permanent) or his "100 years in Iraq" balderdash.  But that's politics, and only politicians get elected president.

    To all those who are disheartened by Senator Obama's vote on FISA, or fear that he has "backtracked" on Iraq, please remember this: that come November, we are not casting votes for the Messiah, a paragon of virtue or a man of utter consistancy. We are supposed to be voting for the candidate we believe will offer the best leadership for both America and the world. 

   If for you this is indeed the case, then Senator Obama wins hands down. 

   However, if you want to continue wearing rose-color glasses and seeking perfection, then cast your vote for Dr. Pangloss. 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

The Maggot in the Cheese

   Flipping through an old album the other day, I came across two photos that brought back some pretty distressing memories: one of then-Senator Dan Quayle, standing and shaking hands with yours truly, surrounded by a bunch of well-dressed gentlemen; the other of then-Senator Jesse Helms, standing and shaking hands with still yours truly surrounded by the same bunch of well-dressed gentlemen. I'm the one in the blue blazer with a fairly dyspeptic look on his face. [Note: Eerily, within 24 hours of posting this piece comes the announcement that Senator Helms has died.]

   The photos were taken nearly twenty-five years ago when I was an officer of something called GOPAC -- the Gold Coast Political Action Committee.  The group's raison d'être was providing a maximum of $5,000 in campaign funds to those members of Congress the group deemed "good and reliable friends of Israel."   While on the surface this sounds both great and straightforward, there was a problem -- that which poet Edna St. Vincent Millay once called "The maggot in the cheese, the canker in the leaf."   You see, we were a "single-issue" PAC.  What this means is that the only yardstick we used to measure or evaluate the various representatives and senators was the quality of their support for Israel.  For many GOPAC members Israel was the only issue that mattered.

   "Back in the day," I argued long, hard and -- as it turned out,  unsuccessfully -- for us to use an expanded, more diffuse measuring device: a multi-issue approach. Under this proposal, we would look at where potential recipients stood -- and how they had voted -- on ten or more critical issues after we had first determined that he or she was a "good and reliable friend of Israel."  I remember warning the well-dressed gentlemen that "If the only issue by which we judge these guys is Israel, I promise you that the day will come when we  find ourselves making contributions to people with whom we disagree on most everything else -- like economy, Social Security, healthcare,  the environment, etc. . . ."  In political jargon, what I was arguing for was something called a "Mic-Pac," a "multiple-issue" political action committee.

   I lost that battle.  Hence the dyspeptic, "maggot in the cheese, canker in the leaf" grimace on my face in the two old photos.

   To a great degree, many American Jews still employ this single-issue yardstick in measuring a politician's worth -- no matter whether it be the current "Disaster in Chief" or a candidate for president, the Senate or House.   I can't tell you how many of my university students have informed me that "George W. Bush is the best friend Israel ever had."   Whenever I've asked them to back up their statement with examples or facts -- or have asked the simple question "Do you think he's been good for America? -- I'm generally met with either silence or a harangue against Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and Obama.  In the first case -- about him being "the best friend Israel ever had" -- I presume they mean that he has essentially left the Jewish State alone to do pretty much as she wishes.  Well now, if that's the measure of a "best friend," then I must not understand the meaning of the term.  In the second case -- about W. being "good for America" -- I take the relative silence to be an indication that the person is loathe to say "yes," but can't quite bring him or herself to say "no."   Perhaps they're beginning to discover their own "maggot in the cheese" or "canker in the leaf." 

   In the race between Senators Obama and McCain, this "single-issue vs. "multiple-issue" argument is of absolutely vital, absolutely critical importance.  I firmly believe that the candidate who will ultimately be best for America -- and the world -- on a wide range of issues, will ultimately be best for Israel.  Simply stated, one cannot be "best for America" and at the same time be "not good for Israel."  To my way of thinking, it is counterintuitive. 

   To my way of thinking, there is no contest:  Barack Obama is the candidate who will be "best for America," and therefore "best for Israel." 

   I do not address myself to the benighted souls who persist in forwarding all those emails warning that Senator Obama is a Muslim, a terrorist, or some sort of dyed-in-the-wool Marxist.  These are probably the same folks who believe that Jim Morrison is alive, well, and recording under an assumed voice.

   There are obviously a sizable number of people out there who wouldn't vote for Barack Obama if he were the last candidate on earth; perhaps because he's an African American, perhaps because he's a progressive Democrat.  And some of them are still going out of their way to convince others of the "truths" that they "know" about the senator.  Why just the other day, I received  a rather large envelope from one "Ari ben Canaan" on "Rehov Irgun" in Israel.  [This is obviously a made-up name: "Ari ben Canaan" was the protagonist in Leon Uris' novel Exodus.]  Inside the envelope were nearly a dozen different articles, their assorted authors all "proving" that Senator Obama has long planned on running for president just so he can annihilate the Jewish State.  In his cover letter, Mr. "ben Canaan" compared me to Julius Lowenthal, the "biggest fool on the ship of fools," and told me to "Wake up and smell the friend chicken, Schmuck!" 

    Alice (mom) always taught us not to argue with crazy people, so I chose not to answer him.  But Mr. "ben Canaan" is merely the tip of the iceberg; there are lots of crazy people out there who just won't consider that Senator Obama, who will be best for America, will also be best for Israel.

   I certainly understand how critically important the State of Israel is -- to the Jewish people, to America, and indeed, to freedom-loving people the world over.  At the same time, I understand that many people will base their decision on who they will vote for on the single issue of Israel.  But this is a dangerous trap.  For what will America -- not to mention Israel -- have gained if the next President of the United States continues to support policies that have made us into a fearful nation, enriched the ineffably wealthy, caused our economy to tumble which in turn has forced millions out of their jobs, and left tens of millions without health insurance?

   The answer is nothing . . . absolutely nothing. 

  When it comes to Israel, both Obama and McCain have shown themselves to be "good and reliable friends," no matter what the anti-Obama contingent will claim.  It seems to me that the only way to avoid or forgo "The maggot in the cheese, the canker in the leaf," is to compare the two on issues of peace and economy, environment and education, labor, equality and civic pride. If we can escape the trap of  "single-issue" voting, we will wind up with a president who is not only "best for America," but "best for Israel" as well.  The two are inextricably bound.   

   To my mind, the greatest investment America can make in Israel's future is an Obama presidency. 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

What Pray Tell is the "Enron Loophole?"

   Its never ceases to amaze how every week brings new words and phrases into the national political vocabulary,  especially during election season. Some, like "Creationism" "Stagflation," "sound byte," and "Swiftboating" have become so familiar as to elicit nary a hiccup from one's computer spell-check. Others, like "Teapot Dome," "vicuña coat," "hanging chad" and "The Keating Five" are best known to those of us who proudly wear the political junkie's lapel pin -- a garland of placards in a field of greenhouse gases.

   The latest -- and potentially most damaging is the "Enron Loophole."  And although my spell-check is none too certain what to make of "Enron," Google sure does; as of ten minutes ago, a search for that term brought up no less than 175,000 different sites. Within less time than it takes to solve the Rubik's Cube [another term that the old spell-checker recognizes] the "Enron Loophole" has become so omnipresent that one would presume that everyone knows to what it refers.

   For those who don't we humbly offer -- as a public service to our readers -- a brief history, synopsis and dramatis personae of that which could -- and undoubtedly should -- become the one 2008 election-year phrase that will live in everlasting infamy.  For the "Enron Loophole" is one, which by all rights, should surpass "Whiskey Ring," "Credit Mobilier," and "Abscam." 

    Back in 2000, then-Texas Senator Phil Gramm slipped a little-noted Enron-backed provision into the Commodities Futures Modernization Act.  Simply stated, this provision exempted from regulation energy trading on so-called "electronic platforms" or "dark markets."  Heretofore, energy trading [electricity, natural gas, etc.] was done mainly under the auspices of either the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [which was chaired during the first Bush Administration by Senator Gramm's wife Wendy] or the heavily-regulated New York Mercantile Exchange [NYMEX].  Their rules and regulations are in place in order to "prevent price distortions and supply squeezes."  With passage of the Gramm-sponsored, Enron-backed bill, traders and speculators moved the lion's share of their business over to the unregulated Atlanta-based Intercontinental Exchange [ICE] -- the so-called "dark market."

   It should be noted that at the time of its enactment, Republicans controlled Congress, and Senator Gramm was the Senate Banking Committee chair; even worse, his wife Wendy, not five weeks after leaving CFTC was named an Enron director.  The bill, which was signed by President Clinton in December of that year, was approved without so much as a Senate hearing.  Internal Enron documents which were released in 2002 [after the company had imploded and gone bye-bye] reveal that the then-Houston based company not only helped write the legislation, but baldly lobbied Senator Gramm ["Gramm needs to fully understand how helpful the bill is to Enron," went one internal memo].

   Within a year of its being freed from "regulatory interference," Enron began creating false energy shortages in California.  They wound up bilking consumers out of an estimated $40 billion.  And despite the new Bush Administration's attempts to come to come to Enron's rescue  -- W. personally joined in with those fighting against imposing caps on soaring electricity prices --  the Houston energy giant soon went the way of the Stegosaurus and Slide Rule.

   But wait; there's more!

  In 2006, the "Enron Loophole" permitted a hedge fund called "Amaranth Advisers" to corner the  natural gas market.  Now trading on the unregulated "dark market," the Amaranth "hedgies" wallowed up to the crap table, plunked down their gelt, and bet that futures prices on natural gas would go "up, up, up and away!" 

   Oops! 

    In September 2006, natural gas prices fell to a two-year low.  Amaranth Advisers lost their well-heeled clients about $6 billion, thus proving the truth of the old axiom "He who plays around with unregulated energy futures will most likely get torched."  About a year ago, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] charged Amaranth with manipulating prices and has suggested a fine of $291 million plus the forfeiture of "unjust profits," whatever that means.

   It is highly likely that the high price of oil is also a result of unregulated activity in the "dark market."  Recently, Michigan Senator Carl Levin released a report concluding that "speculative markets" are "partly to blame for surging oil prices that have pushed gas at the pump toward $4 a gallon."  And Senator McCain [not to mention President Bush and Governor Charlie Crist] would have us believe that the answer to high prices at the pump in June 2008 is drilling off the coast of Florida!  Hey guys, it ain't a question of supply and demand; its a rigged game!

   So why has interest in the the "Enron Loophole" issue grown to the point where there are now more than 175,000 sites devoted to it?   And, what role might it play in the 2008 presidential election?

   First question first: Why has the loophole resurfaced precisely now?  Why not six months or two years ago?  Simple: the recent $307 billion farm bill.  When questioned, Senator McCain said he was against the bill, because "it would dole out wasteful subsidies."  One McCain aide, told journalist Jason Leopold that McCain opposed the farm bill because "it rewards lobbyists" by granting rich farmers "lucrative subsidies." OK, that's reasonable. However, the same aide noted that one additional reason for his boss's opposition was a section containing "regulatory language on the energy futures market."

   There's that word again . . .    REGULATION!! 

   ARGH!!!

   Who put this idea of hating any form of government regulation into the head of a man who freely admits "I don't know as much about the economy as I should?" 

   Why former Senator Gramm, that's who.

   Gramm, who is often described as "one of McCain's closest friends in politics," is also the campaign's chief economic adviser.  Anyone who has followed politics over the past twenty years will know that Phil Gramm hates government regulation and oversight even more than a Dodger fan hates the Giants. And this is the man to whom John McCain has entrusted his economic game  plan?

   Let Republicans and Obama haters of all shapes and sizes decry his relationship with Jeremiah Wright.  Let them question whether or not he thinks Louis Farrakhan is a stand-up guy.  For my money, the two  of 'em are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  To the best of my knowledge, neither has provided a platform whereby consumers could be bilked out of $40 billion or pay more than $4 at the pump. Neither one has paved the way for the richest one-tenth-of-one-percent to profit by human misery.  All these two gasbags have done is exercise their big fat mouths.

   Instead of continually wondering about Senator Barack Obama's alleged "relationship" with people whose words we may find abhorrent, we would be far wiser to question Senator John McCain's verifiable relationship with the man who made the term "Enron Loophole" such a hot term in the Google galaxy.

   Move over "Whiskey Ring."

   Stand aside "Teapot Dome."

  The "Enron Loophole" is about to overtake you!

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

"Strict Contortionists" [or] "One Man's Ceiling is Another Man's Floor"

    OK ladies and gentlemen, on the count of three, let's all heave a great big collective sigh of relief:

   One, two, three . . . "Aaaaah"! 

    I'm sure that's how a lot of us feel now that the Supreme Court has finally handed down its decision in Boumediene  et al v. Bush, the case that -- at least for now -- keeps habeas corpus alive and kicking.  In rendering its razor-thin 5-4 decision, the court has stingingly rebuked President Bush and all his Hey! Don't you know that America's at war with radical Islamists? allies.  In its landmark decision, Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg have held that habeas corpus protections do apply to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. And despite what Chief Justice Roberts and his, brethren Scalia, Alito and Thomas claim, Boumediene v. Bush will neither place America in greater peril nor free prisoners from their padlocked cells.  What it does do is underscore the continued centrality of the United States Constitution -- even in a time of war.

   Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy noted that "Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of law."   

   Justice Scalia's scathing 25-page dissent reads more like a political broadside than a reasoned legal brief:

• "The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us.  It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
• "Today the Court warps the Constitution."
• "The nation will live to regret what the Court has done today." 
• "[This decision] breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization."
• "Most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court . . .that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner."

   If I understand the dissenting opinion correctly, a large part  of the argument rests on the "fact" that since Guantanamo is not on American soil, the Constitution does not apply to those "enemy combatants" housed there.  Well now, if our base in Guantanamo is not, for legal purposes, considered part of the United States, then it logically follows that Senator John McCain is debarred from running for President of the United States; he was, afterall, born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone, and according to Justice Scalia, that base was not a part of the United States. 

   As they say in legalese, Res ipsa loquitur -- "The thing speaks for itself." [Yes yes, I know, literally it should be rendered "The thing itself speaks," but let's not split fine hairs.]  

   Those decrying the majority decision claim that now, dozens -- if not hundreds -- of suspected terrorists will be free to go back home and start blowing us up all over again.  Granting the right of habeas corpus to this group -- so Scalia and his supporters argue -- will place America in grave peril.  Well, even retired General Colin Powell disagrees.  Speaking on the very issue last year, Powell said:

   "The concern was, well, then they'll have access to lawyers, then they'll have access to writs of habeas corpus.  So what?  Let them.  Isn't that what our system's all about? And by the way, America, unfortunately, has too many people in jail, all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus.  And so we can handle bad people in our system."   

   Be prepared for a watered-down version of this decision to become part of Senator McCain's presidential campaign.  We've all heard the argument before: "If you don't elect me, sure as God made little green apples, the Democrats are going to appoint activist judges to the Supreme Court . . . and then where will we be?"  Further, he and his surrogates will argue that "A vote for John McCain is a vote for 'strict constructionsts,' judges who, far from enacting new law, will rely only on what is actually written in the Constitution!"

   This argument -- about "activist" versus "strict constructionist" judges --  has been part of the Republican playbook ever since the days of Richard Nixon.  In recent years, it has become code for "If you elect a Republican, he will only appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade and make sure that you can have prayer in the public schools."  Well my goodness, we've had lots of these so-called "strict constructionists" on the bench for the past two decades, and Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land.  Ironically, overturning this decision would be a Republican's worst nightmare; what would they then have to rail against?  How ever could they keep their conservative and evangelical friends voting for them?

   From where I sit, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are not "strict constructionists" in any sense of the term.  At best, they are judicial activists; at worst, what might be termed "judicial contortionists."  It never ceases to amaze me how, that when Republicans agree with a judge, he or she is a "strict constructionist;" but when they disagree, its because the juror is a so-called "activist."

   Paul Simon said it best: "One man's ceiling is another man's floor."

   To my way of thinking, left to their own devices, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are -- in potentia -- the very definition of "activists" judges.  They are the ones seeking to make new law, rather than rendering law based upon a literal reading of the Constitution.  

   One of the issues best kept in mind when deciding whether to vote for Senator McCain or Senator Obama is this matter of "activist" versus "strict-contortionist" judges.  The court is now just one "strict contortionist" Justice away from being as fully conservative as it was in the days of William Howard Taft.  Justice John Paul Stevens [the man who replaced Justice William O. Douglas] turned 88 a month ago; you can bet he's going to be retiring in the very near future.  And although Justice Anthony Kennedy is a very spry 72, he is far from predictable.  Knowing that he is the current "swing vote" on the Supreme Court isn't too great for one's sense of well-being.  His legal instincts are far closer to Roberts and Scalia than to Souter or Ginsburg.

   I can think of lots of good reasons to enthusiastically prefer Senator Obama to Senator McCain.  But after witnessing just how close we all came to losing habeas corpus this week, the issue of appointing Justices to the Supreme Court has broken away from the pack and is now heading into the lead.

   ©2008 Kurt F. Stone

  

  

"Preserve," Support" "Protect," and "Defend" -- Four Words That Should Matter

     In reviewing the 183 articles I've posted since this site's inception back in February of 2005, I was intrigued to discover that four were on the subject of Impeachment.  The first of these, Villainova, was posted back on December 23, 2005; the most recent, To Impeach or Not to Impeach: Why is There a Question? ran on November 15, 2007. The February 23, 2006 piece carried the straightforward, not terribly imaginative title Impeach George Bush!  In rereading the articles -- including the July 26, 2007 piece entitled Bush's Tush -- I was both amazed and downhearted to find that the four had engendered a total of two -- precisely TWO -- comments.  On the other hand, my recent pieces on Senator Obama have garnered enough commentary -- some diligently thoughtful, some patently ugly -- to fill a fair-sized filing cabinet.   

   Well, ready or not, here comes the fifth op-ed piece on Impeachment -- but with a bit of a difference.

    I am not going to argue either the correctness or the necessity of impeaching Bush and Cheney; in an ideal world, they would have been hauled before the Judiciary Committee a long time ago.  

   I am not going to enumerate the 35 articles that Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich so painstakingly read into The Congressional Minyan two nights ago; although chilling to the max, it makes for boring reading.

   I am not going to wager on the chances of Impeachment or criminal indictment ever becoming reality; if I want to place a bet, it will be on something with better odds for success -- like the Florida Lottery or Irish Sweepstakes.

   I am not going to bemoan the fact that in the past 48 hours, the national media has run precisely 2,744 articles on "killer tomatoes," to a mere 240 on impeachment; we the people are as much to blame as the media for this grossly lopsided statistic.  

   And, I am not going to tar Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leaders Hoyer and Reid or the rest of Congress with the brush of cowardice; why waste good ink on that which is -- or at the least damn well ought to be -- painfully obvious? 

   Madam Speaker has already staked herself to a position: that Impeachment would be a waste of time considering that the Bush Administration is now in its lame-duck phase.  She's also worried that Republicans would use Impeachment as a club with which to beat Democrats in the 2008 election.  Then too, she says that "Congress can use its time more wisely on the real problems we face."  OK, you tell me: what do you expect from Congress in the next several months on such issues as the housing crisis, the price of gas, health insurance, the war in Iraq, global warming or a couple of dozen other critical issues?

   Instead, let's talk about what not initiating impeachment proceedings means; about the sorry state of words, deeds, integrity and We the People.

   In pouring over what I believe to be a representative sampling of articles and commentary out here in Cyberspace, I've noticed that people break down into two heavily-barricaded camps:

• Those who firmly believe that Bush, Cheney and their confreres are the second coming of Benedict Arnold -- if not Vlad the Impaler, and
• Those who are absolutely convinced that anyone and everyone supporting Impeachment is a Looney Tune. 

   While all this angry, defensive finger-pointing, this resorting to ad hominem argumentation may make for good theatre, it fairly ignores what is truly at stake: the very future of the United States of America as envisioned by the Founders. Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, Monroe and the rest thoroughly rejected the royalist principles that "l'etat, c'est moi," and "The king can do no wrong."  These brilliant products of the Enlightenment fully understood that if the United States was to succeed, it had to be a "nation of laws, and not of men."  They didn't just talk a good game; they staked their lives, fortunes and reputations on it.  Who today has that much gumption or conviction? 

   Somewhere along the lines, we lost that understanding.  Far too often as both a polity and a society, we are far more interested in next week, the next election, the next fiscal quarter, than we are with the next generation or the generation after that.  We fail to understand that indebtedness doesn't just accrue to Visa or Mastercard, China, India or Saudi Arabia, but to history as well. Far too often we calculate our indebtedness -- whether personal, corporate or national -- only in terms of dollars and cents.  What we have failed to calculate is our future indebtedness in terms of peace and progress, optimism, progressivism and [small-r] republicanism.

   When Congress gleefully impeached President Bill Clinton for perjury and extramarital shtupping, much of the world chuckled; to them, it was both partisan and incredibly frivolous.