Beating the Bushes:

When Freckles Become Boulders

   Throughout the journey of life, I have been a collector of precisely five things: baseball cards, books, record albums, Charles Chaplin memorabilia, and political buttons.  Of the five, only the books and the Chapliana remain; my dog ate the baseball cards [no, really!], the LPs wore out, and the political pins were stolen while I was living abroad.

   Looking back, I truly regret that Blackie, our "mostly Gordon Setter," gnawed on all those cards.  If not for this canine caprice, I would probably be on easy street today.  I mean, that stash of cards contained some real mint-condition treasures: Mantle, Mays and Snider; Musial, Williams, and Kaline; Banks, Clemente and Feller.

   My collection of political buttons -- literally in the hundreds -- included a scarlet penny-sized number emblazoned with "Work for the Red!" [from Earl Browder's 1936 presidential campaign] a stark white one proclaiming "Whack HUAC," and a metallic shoe with a hole-in-the-sole -- which all political junkies in good standing will remember as the symbol of Adlai Stevenson's failed 1952 presidential campaign.

   Which brings us to the lapel pin -- or lack thereof -- which, unbelievably, threatens to derail Senator Barack Obama's presidential aspirations. By this point in our interminable campaign season, it is highly likely that more Americans are aware that Senator Obama is frequently photographed sans American flag pin, than know where he stands on Immigration, Healthcare, the Economy or any other issue.  This sorry turn of events can largely be laid at the feet of our woebegone Fourth Estate, which specializes at turning freckles into boulders and trivia into treason. 

    Among the other "essential" or "critical" things that the average American "knows" about the junior senator from Illinois are:

• His pastor is a raving lunatic.
• His wife has only recently become "proud to be an American."
• He thinks that America's working class is "bitter."
• He is a latte-sipping elitist. 
• He is a Muslim plant.

   Then too, there are scads of Americans whose knowledge of Senator Clinton begins with the words "Monica Lewinsky" and ends with the knowledge that last year, she and her husband made over $20 million. 

   When it comes to Senator McCain, the words "maverick" and "independent" cohere with stunning frequency.  So much so that few seem to realize that he has backtracked on many issues -- most notably the Bush tax cuts.  Even fewer seem to care that he warmly accepted the endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee, a man who referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore," and boldly stated that Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment against New Orleans.

    In the overall scope of things, whether or not Senator Obama wears an American flag lapel pin is of little moment. 

    It is hauntingly reminiscent of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave."  Those who took Philosophy 101 will recall that at the beginning of The Republic's seventh book, Socrates speaks about prisoners who have been chained since childhood deep inside a cave.  They see shadows on the cave wall; these they accept as reality.  A handful, having freed themselves from their shackles, looks about and perceives various shapes and a light source -- that which is causing the shadows on the cave wall.  However, they do not recognize these as the source of the shadows. An even smaller handful venture outside the cave; they come closest to perceiving reality.

   For Plato, this is an allegory about education -- paideia -- and lack of education -- apaideusia.  For purposes of this piece, the distinction is between being blind -- tyflos -- and being responsible -- armodios. That so many have keyed in on the lack of a flag lapel pin is likely the product of sheer blindness; the fact that the matter will not die is an issue of responsibility.  And for this, there is plenty of blame to go around.

   Although the tabloid turning of "freckles into boulders" is not exactly new, it is nonetheless both lamentable and deeply worrisome.  It makes the American electorate far less informed, far less engaged than it should be.  It keeps the vast majority of us concentrating on mere shadows when we should be seeking sources of light.  In the vast scope of things, it matters not a whit whether Senator Obama wears a flag pin on his lapel.  It says nothing about whether he be a patriot or a scoundrel.  Hell's bells, I have on occasion been known to wear a Sandy Koufax jersey; it doesn't make me a flame thrower.

    But the question persists.  Not a day goes by without Senator Obama being asked why he does not wear that American flag pin -- or place his hand over his heart during "The Star Spangled Banner."  It is tantamount to asking that age-old question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  No answer can suffice, for the questioner is, more often than not, seeking entrapment, not elucidation. 

    Over the past twenty or so years, I have amassed a new collection of political badges and buttons.  I have a Gore/Lieberman in Yiddish, a beat-up Bobby Kennedy, even a "Jerry Brown for President."  And yes, I do have an American flag lapel pin.

   The trouble is, on the back are stamped the words "Made in China."

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

In Defense of [Gulp!] Liberalism

  If I were to open this article with a quote from Karl Marx, would you faint?  Would call me a Communist or send an email to Rush or Bill-o?  Probably not.  However,there are lots of folks who would, which just goes to show how damn dumb, fearful and narrow some people can be.  Nonetheless, throwing caution to the wind, here's that quote which, by the way comes from Marx's 1852 work The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte:

   "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce."

   There, I've gone and done it.  Better go and reopen my FBI file and make a new entry.

   Truth to tell, "I am not now, nor have I ever been a Communist," to repeat the words used so very often by our Hollywood neighbors back in the late '40s, early 50s.  What I am -- as are many of you, dear readers -- is a liberal, whatever in the world that term means in 2008.  And despite the fact that the very word -- liberal -- strikes both fear and nausea in the minds of the many mindless, I use it with pride.

   The pride comes from the knowledge that were it not for liberals -- there's that word again -- there never would have been Social Security, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Medicare, the Peace Corps, or the Tennessee Valley Authority.  That pride is surely increased when one realizes that without liberals there never would have been a Federal Theatre Project, which in turn means that the luminous talents of such folks as Orson Welles, Elmer Rice, Elia Kazan, or Arthur Miller would have died on the vine.  Heck, without liberals, it is likely that America would have never gone to war against Hitler and Mussolini.

  So what does all this have to do with Marx's comment about history repeating itself first as tragedy and then as comedy?

   In a word, plenty.

   Through our still brief history as a nation there has been an ongoing tension between rugged individualism and what we might call, for lack of a better term, communitarianism.  No, not communism, but communitarianism -- that which has as its root the word "community."  Simply stated, this is a historic tension between those who believe that progress is the result of individual effort, and those who hold that society benefits best when people work together.  From the view of politics, it is the difference between believing that government's central role is both safeguarding and protecting individual rights, and the belief that government can -- and where necessary should -- keep the powerful, the entrenched from taking undue advantage of the less powerful, the less entrenched.   Roughly speaking this divide between individualist and communitarian is akin to that between conservative and liberal. 

   Throughout our history, this tension has resulted in both progress and retrogression, comity and antipathy.  Time and again, those holding to the more individualistic -- that is the more conservative -- point of view, have tended to vilify the communitarians; to see them as some sort of an unholy alliance bent upon tearing down the very fabric of society.  And although the names these communitarians were called may have varied, the purpose has generally been the same: opprobrium.

   In early colonial times, they were called "Witches" and subjected to manic trials.  At various other times they were labeled "Mason," "Abolitionist," "Anarchist," "Wobbly," "Socialist," "Communist," "Marxist," "Trotskyite," "Leninist," "Stalinist" [as if those throwing these terms about actually understood the difference], and today "Liberal," or the "Far-Left."

   When the opprobrious term "Witch" was replaced by the equally obnoxious "Mason," or "Abolitionist," that was history repeating itself as tragedy.  Now that "Anarchist," "Socialist" and "Communist" have morphed into "Liberal," that is history as farce -- although it ain't so funny.

   To those who eagerly lap up the words of Limbaugh, Hannatty, Coulter and the rest, there is no difference between Communism and Liberalism; they are equally heinous. There is no difference between Democrat X and Democrat Y; they are both accused of working and praying for America's downfall.  At one point or another, Senators Biden, Dodd, Kennedy, Edwards, and Gore, Governor Richardson and Speaker Pelosi have all been called "the most liberal person in Washington.  Everyone has been linked to George Soros, "Media Matters for America" and Ariana Huffington. It makes no difference who you are; if you aren't in lockstep with the individualists you are . . . egad, a liberal!

  Senator Obama is accused of being a "Marxist," having written a "dime-store edition of Mein Kampf," and "the favorite candidate of the Islamo-Fascists."  Their proof?  He doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin; he was once photographed not placing his hand over his heart during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner; he didn't throw Pastor Wright under the bus. 

   Likewise Senator Clinton: Dick Morris is asked with all the gravity the supposedly liberal Alan Colmes can muster if she was a Communist in the 1970s.  She is accused of being a Marxist, a radical feminist and a corporate shill.  Tell me: how many Marxists do you know who are moonlighting as corporate shills?

   Talk about farce! 

• Radio talk-meister Neal Boortz breathlessly proclaims that teachers unions "do more damage to this country than all drug pushers put together."
• Because many liberals are against prayer in the public schools and the teaching of "Creation Science," or believe in a woman's right to choose, all are accused of being anti-God, anti-religion and members in good standing of the "culture of death."
• Those who are in favor of limiting the availability of guns are accused of wanting to have our enemies take over America.
• Those who hold that gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals should be covered by our most basic anti-discrimination laws, are accused of foisting some sort of "gay agenda" on America. 
• And on and on and on . . .

   At this point in time, the term "liberal" has lost all meaning.   It now seems that if you don't like someone's politics, all you have to do is label them a "liberal" or an "ultra leftist" and then walk away.  Stigmatize, demonize, objectify, vilify . . . that's the program.

   The fact of the of the matter is that the United States of America has not had an organized "left" worthy of that name for a long, long time.  What we do have are millions upon millions of intelligent citizens who firmly believe in the communal necessity of feeding the poor, taking care of the stranger and orphan, being stewards of the good earth, and of not selling our tomorrow's for the sake of today's gain.

   Let the rugged individualists call us liberals with all the venom they can muster.  They have no idea of just how honorable that word truly is.

          [Many thanks to my cousin Mitzi Dworin for suggesting this topic]

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

"Up North" in South Florida

   Politically speaking, Florida is a very strange place; the further south one travels the more northern it becomes. Broward and Palm Beach are, for my money, the two sanest counties in the state.  Ofttimes we act and vote as if we were NYC's sixth borough. Our congressional delegation is made up of three stalwart liberals: Robert Wexler, Ron Klein and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  All three are young, bright and rising stars in the Democratic firmament.

   However, once one starts trekking up north or just west of Broward and Palm Beach Counties, something strange begins to happen; one gets the eerie feeling that they've gone from Brooklyn to Biloxi.  North Florida is hardcore Dixie: pickups with gun racks, Confederate flags and Republican bumper stickers galore.  Heck, our state song is still Old Folks at Home [that's Way Down Upon the Swanee River to the uninitiated]. 

   In North Florida, Crackers are those folks whose kin have been here forever -- long, long before the days of air conditioning, mosquito repellent, antiperspirants, or Bloomingdales.  In South Florida, crackers are something one serves up with a slice of Stilton and a glass of aged tawny port. Although Florida is a single state in point of law, it is antipodean in point of fact.

   As someone who has been "staying" -- I refuse to say "living" -- in South Florida for more than a quarter century, I'm here to tell you that people give up an awful lot just to escape the snows of winter or income taxes of April -- of which we have neither. Down here in Florida what we do have are dangerously underfunded schools, an incomprehensible tax code, three of the most miserable excuses for professional sports teams, a vast army of scam artists [they don't call it Ft. Frauderdale for nothing] and the constant threat of hurricanes.  I still don't understand why those who raise ostriches don't pay tax on the food they purchase for their critters, but farmers do for the stuff they feed their cows.  Or why there is no tax on bottled water and yogurt, but there is on carbonated drinks.  There is even talk about going to a sales-tax only system -- certainly the most regressive form of taxation known to man or beast.

   So why do we stay?  Beats me. 

   Recently, Florida voters put their stamp of approval on a property tax cut that will result in an annual average household saving of $240.00.  What we're all going to be spending that $240.00 on is a good question.  A week's groceries?  Most of a month's utility bill?  Four tickets to see the Dolphins lose?  Those of us who voted against this proposal recognized that its passage would push the Sunshine State into an even deeper fiscal hole. 

   Already, we are seeing clear-cut evidence of just what we hath wrought. Just yesterday, the Florida Senate, by a party line vote of 26-12, approved a $65.9 billion budget that makes dramatic cuts in monies allocated for prisons, child abuse investigations, public schools and health programs for the poor and elderly.  At the same time, the Republican-controlled body resoundingly rejected Democratic proposals to close corporate tax loopholes.  Among the Senate's proposed cuts are 1,800 correctional officers, 660 probation officers and more than 70 child abuse investigators.  Public school funding will drop by $115.90 per student.

    Here in Broward County, the school board is madly seeking places to cut spending.  How about teachers, books and extracurricular activities?  At Florida Atlantic University where I teach, we're staring at millions of dollars in lost appropriations from the state.  Perhaps they'll raise tuition fees; they certainly have frozen salaries.  What little we may be saving in property taxes will likely be more than overbalanced by raises in city and county fees.  Talk about a lose-lose situation! 

   So what are the hot issues up in the state capitol these days? 

   Why Evolution vs. Creation Science and Intelligent Design, and the legal right to take a weapon to work. That's what!

   Just yesterday -- April, 8, 2008 -- the Senate Judiciary Committee, by a 7-3 vote, approved the "Evolution Academic Freedom Act."  It now goes on to the full chamber for consideration.  According to this bill, Florida teachers would be granted the right to "freely mention religious theories about the origin of humankind -- including creationism and intelligent design -- along with evolution without fearing retribution."

  According to the bill's prime sponsor Senator Ronda Storms [R-Valrico -- about 250 miles NE of our home] she filed the bill after hearing cases of students and teachers who felt "muzzled" and "unable to discuss alternate theories on the origin of life in the classroom."  Senator Storms claimed to have direct personal knowledge of teachers who have "suffered retribution from school authorities," and students who have been the target of "denigrating comments" from other teachers."  Predictably, the three votes against the bill came from Senators Deutsch, Geller and Ring, who represent districts in Broward and Palm Beach Counties.

  Storm's bill was filed after the state Board of Education, by a one-vote margin, approved changes to the state science standards requiring the teaching of the "scientific theory of evolution."  The state board went so far as to enter the late 19th century by finally, finally admitting that evolution is "a fundamental concept underlying all biology." In voting against the measure in committee, Senator Steve Geller, the Senate's Democratic Leader, stated the obvious: "I believe the purpose of this bill is to let people bring their religious beliefs into school."

     Senator Storm's contention that both students and teachers have suffered reprisals and discrimination as a result of their beliefs is the stuff of pure fiction. The Florida Department of Education reports that "there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher has claimed discrimination based on their science teaching."

     Getting hot under the collar?  Well, as the old TV tag line goes, "But wait, there's more!"

    On the same day the Judiciary Committee gave their thumbs-up to the "Let's Drown Darwin Act," the full Senate handed an overwhelming victory to the National Rifle Association.  Again voting along party lines, the full senate passed a measure allowing some half-million Floridians with concealed weapons permits to carry their guns to work -- so long as they are locked up in their cars.  The vote capped a nearly three-year effort by the NRA to get the measure enacted. 

   That's just great. Imagine a worker getting ticked off at the boss.  All he/she has to do is go out to the parking lot, get that Mauser out of the trunk, go back inside and start blasting away.  Our governor, Charlie "The Tan Man" Christ announced that he will have "no problem" signing the bill into law: "The Second Amendment is very important . . . I understand there are competing interests . . . but people being protected is most important to me." 

   Oy!

   So why, when the Sunshine State is facing so many fiscal difficulties, when schools, prisons and the poor are getting shafted, are the politicians of Tuscaloosa -- Whoops! That's Tallahassee -- spending their time on Creationism and Colt '45s?  Because there's a national election right around the corner, that's why. 

   It is no coincidence that the Republican-controlled legislature is passing  measures where last year -- and the year before and the year before that -- they failed.  The closer an election gets, the stronger political will becomes. With the presidential election just over the horizon, they are shoring up and offering bon bons to two of the most significant groups within their coalition: gun owners and so-called "Values Voters." 

   The logic goes something like this: "We supported you on one of your most heartfelt issues -- teaching Creationism without fear or taking a concealed weapon to work -- so now we are asking you to support us by voting for our candidates.  Its a tried-and-true strategy that works.  How else to explain the GOP's ability to get people to vote against their self-interest? 

     Far too often, we have heard candidates giving raucous speeches about the necessity of overturning Roe v. Wade, permitting prayer in public schools or enacting a Constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage during their campaigns. And then, when elected, they fall victim to that peculiar form of laryngitis that lasts precisely 2, 4, or 6 years.  During their "muted" years, " . . . seldom is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day."

     That's the way things look from "Up North" in South Florida.   

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

   
   

      

You Say You Want a Revolution?

    These are the days that give pessimists the courage to proclaim, "You see?  We are right; the world is going to hell in a hand basket!"  And tho I'm far from being a member of this depressive fraternity, I cannot in all good conscience completely dismiss their claim.  Things truly have gotten out of hand.  Whether it be:

• Our war-without-end in Iraq,
• The use of fear as a political tool,
• Assaults on civil liberties,
• The sub-prime debacle and its attendant capital "R" Recession,
• Ever-increasing gas prices,
• Ever decreasing wages,
• The alarming rise in the medically uninsured or
• The unconscionable widening of the gap between the haves and have-nots,

  There is sure a lot to feel despairing, depressed, or just plain downhearted about.

    Where do we go, what do we have to do in order to put things right? 

• Elect a president who is both literate and a Democrat? 
• Vote in a veto-proof Congress?
• Put a halt to all the deregulation that's made fraud, thievery, and willful mismanagement the newest and greatest sacrament for the power gods of Wall Street? 
• Find a crystal ball to rub?

    How's about a revolution?

    "How's that?" you ask.  "A revolution?  You mean like 1776, Les Miserables or Ten Days That Shook the World?" 

    No, no, a thousand times no. I'm not in any way, shape or form urging that we dump tea into Boston Harbor, storm the Bastille or launch an assault on the Winter Palace.  No, none of those would work.  As the great American wit Ambrose Bierce once noted, "In politics, revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment."

    The only weapons we will need for this revolution are words, votes, and a dollar or three.

    What in the name of T. Jefferson am I talking about?

    Think about it.  What is at the root of so many of this nation's problems?  Its not so much who's in charge or which party they represent, as how they get put in charge and whom they are representing.  After thinking the matter through pretty thoroughly, I've concluded that the one revolutionary change that might -- just might -- put the pessimists out of business is . . .

                                 CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!

  Before you think I've gone off my rocker, permit me to share a couple of statistics.

  In 2006, Senator Hillary Clinton spent a grand total of $39,833,526 to win reelection.  A six-year term consists of 2,190 days [6 years X 365 days].  That means that for each of those 2,190 days, Senator Clinton had to raise an average of $18,188.22 a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year for six years.  OK, lets give her the benefit of the doubt and say she took weekends off.,   That would reduce her fund-raising days to 1,560.  On this "easier" schedule she would have had to raise $25,534.31 a day, five days a week, fifty-two weeks a year for six years.  And what did she get for her nearly $40,000,000? Why 3,008,428 votes, which works out to $11.42 per vote!  One good thing to report is that a mere 4% of Senator Clinton's "take" came from PACs.   Senator Obama, by comparison raised $15,098,157 dollars for which he received precisely 3,597,456 votes -- a paltry $4.04 a vote. 

   On the House side, let's take two representatives at random.  The first is   Debbie Wasserman Schultz  of Florida's 20th District.  Despite not having had a challenger in her last election, Rep. Wasserman Schultz raised $1,036,924.00, which works out to $1,994.10 per day five days a week, fifty-two weeks a year for two years. 

   The second representative is Vern Buchanan of Florida's 13th District.   Buchanan, who was running for an open seat  raised an astounding $8,123,186.00 -- of which nearly $5.5 million came out of his own pocket.  Buchanan, who beat his Democratic opponent Christine Jennings by a mere 369 votes [out of more than 238,000 cast], wound up spending the princely sum of $229.44 for each vote he received.

  Is it any wonder that our political system is in the pits?

  A huge percentage of all the money donated to political campaigns comes from the very well heeled.  And believe me, they don't just make their contributions out of a sense of civic duty.  If you were to ask them what they expect in return, the answer would generally be "access."  By this they mean the ability to have their voice, their point of view, their personal concerns on matters of policy, heard.

   It is because of the political money pit that certain firms get contracts while others do not.  Is it any wonder that in the current sub-prime meltdown, the only ones being protected are the very folks who pushed the sub-prime loans in the fist place?   After all, its the merchant bankers and hedge-fund managers who make the contributions, not the little fellow hoping against hope to finally purchase a home.

   Political money has a lot to do with why America is the only industrialized country without National Health Insurance.  The health care industry donates tens of millions of dollars to candidates who will do their darnedest to keep the profits rolling in.

And to be sure, all the cash that the oil industry donates insures higher prices at the pump, a laissez-faire attitude toward global warming, and a steady flow of corporate profits.

  There are those who argue that to put limits or strictures on political money is tantamount to gutting the First Amendment.  "Money is speech," the magnates claim.  And in a sense, they are correct.  It's what's known as "Gold's Law": He [or she] who has the gold, makes the law.

   

If our revolution is to work, if our elected officials are ever going to become attentive to little ole' us, three doable changes will have to be made and then enforced:

1. Both Presidential and Congressional will be funded -- ONLY FUNDED -- by the public via a $3.00 tax appended to every federal return.
2. In order to qualify for federal dollars -- that means in order to run -- candidates will be required to file petitions with qualified signatures of qualified voters; the precise number to be worked out by a formula that varies by state and/or district.
3. No one leaving elected or executive-appointment posts will be permitted to engage in any form of lobbying for a minimum of two years dating from their last day in their former position.

    This "revolution" will likely cost somewhere between $2.5 and $5 billion a year, which at first gasp, seems rather pricey.  However, when one takes into account the hundreds of billions being being doled out in the form of deregulation, tax cuts, tax rebates and no-bid contracts to those who are greasing the political pole, even the $5.0 billion price tag is mere chump change.

   

Classically, the optimist is defined as one who sees the glass being half full, the pessimist, half-empty.  Me, I'm a realist: so long as there's something  in the glass, its OK.

      

The time has come that we the people take back our country from those who have been using the government as their personal feeding trough.

     This is one revolution that can change the course of American history.
 
©2008 Kurt F. Stone