The K.F. Stone Weekly

President Obama's First Hundred Days

  

  January 28, 2009: a day that will live in . . . ?

  Yesterday, without the support of a single House Republican, President Barack Obama's $819 billion stimulus package passed the lower chamber by a final tally of 244-188.  The 188 "nay" votes were made up of virtually every House Republican and 11 "Blue Dog" Democrats to boot.  Despite this lopsided "us against them" vote, its passage was never in doubt; after all, the Democrats do possess a sizable majority. Those opposing the mammoth package of spending and tax cuts argued that there was far too much of the former, and not nearly enough of the latter.

   Now it's on to the Senate, where a slightly different version of the president's economic recovery plan is being considered.  The Senate vote, which will take place next week is likewise, not in doubt.  Heck, it will likely even pick up a few Republican votes.  Then it'll be on to a House-Senate conference committee, where representatives of the two chambers will iron out their differences and come up with a compromise measure that both can live with though neither will love.

   Because I'm a dyed-in-the-wool political junkie -- and a bit of a masochist to boot -- I decided to peruse H.R. 1/S.336/1, the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009," the stimulus package's official name.  Turns out it's 1,588 pages and counting!  And that's not even counting the Congressional Budget Office's Cost Estimate (33 pages), or Republican version, co-sponsored by Representatives Camp and Cantor, which adds yet another 31 pages.  Nobody -- and that includes yours truly -- has had the time to either ingest or digest the mare's nest of titles, subtitles, amendments, provisions, pie charts and last-minute pork.  And yet, there are senators, representatives and commentators galore who have been both glibly and gleefully weighing in on the positive -- or negative -- effects of this truly Brobdingnagian bill. 

   Anyone who claims they have read it -- let alone understood its welter of sections, sub-sections, amendments and riders -- is either a member of both Mensa and the Society of Speed Readers, or a flat-out liar.

   From what I've been reading and hearing, the latter category is showing every indication of filling up fast.  A handful of examples from the Department of "How in the Heck Are You So Sure of That?"

• On his January 28 broadcast, Rush Limbaugh permitted House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) to declare: "Even the Congressional Budget Office [CBO], controlled by Democrats now, says it is not a stimulative bill." In my perusal of the CBO's analysis of H.R. 1, [January 26 ] I came across the following: "CBO anticipates that implementation of H.R. 1 would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years."  [Page 1, 5th paragraph.] To make matters even more maddening, Limbaugh, that most listened to of all conservative talkers actually said -- speaking of our new president -- "I hope he fails!"
• In a piece he published in his January 26 FoxNew.com column, Glen Beck falsely asserted that "[o]nly 3 percent" of the economic stimulus plan would be "spent in the next 12 months."  Actually, the same CBO report cited above estimated that $92 billion in outlays -- 11.2 percent of the estimated 819 billion stimulus measure -- would be spent in the first seven-and-a-half months after its enactment.  And, when taking the bill's tax cut provisions into account, that percentage comes up to 20.7 percent within the program's first seven-and-a-half months. [Page 1, 2nd paragraph.]
• Numerous media figures -- including David Brooks, Larry Kudlow, Brit Hume and George Stephanopoulos -- have asserted that every job created by H.R. 1 would cost at minimum $275,000. The aforementioned probably got their statistics from a January 15 "Stimulus Quick Facts" press release by the Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee.  That release stated that "President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save 3 million jobs. This means that his legislation will spend about $275,000 per job."  OK, $816,000,000,000 divided by 3,000,000 jobs does equal $272,000.  The problem with this isn't the math; it's the assumption that every single one of the appropriated dollars are going for jobs, jobs, and nothing but.  This is patent nonsense.  There are other tangible benefits stemming from the stimulus package including infrastructure improvements, and investments in such widely diverse areas as health, education, and public safety. 

  

 Ever since the beginning of the first Roosevelt Administration and the 73rd Congress [1933-1935], the "First Hundred Days" have represented history's Gold Standard for Achievement when it comes to dealing with national crises.  As any political junkie worth his or her salt knows, during Roosevelt's "First Hundred Days," the 73rd Congress successfully enacted or created:

• The Banking Acts
• The Civilian Conservation Corps
• The Federal Emergency Relief Administration
• The Agricultural Adjustment Administration
• The Tennessee Valley Authority
• The National Industrial Recovery Act
• The "Good Neighbor" policy

   It is true that FDR had an even more overwhelmingly Democratic House and Senate in 1933 than does Barack Obama in 2009.  FDR's House was 72.4% Democratic [312-114], his Senate 63% [60-35]  (Yes, I know, the math doesn't exactly work, but you have to remember, there were a couple of vacancies and a handful of members of the "Farmer-Labor" Party.)  And yet, it was not just the overwhelming numbers on the Democratic side of the aisle which led to the enactment of so much emergency legislation in those storied "First Hundred Days." It was also the fact that an awful lot of Republicans, sensing just how critical the situation was, voted with the new president.  Unlike today's crop, they weren't primarily interested in grabbing a possible political advantage for the midterm elections two years hence; they were primarily concerned with righting the floundering ship of state.

   In listening to the objections being voiced by Republican leaders Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and Kyl, what we hear are words directed as much to the Republican base as to anyone else.  They are addressing those who will always favor tax cuts over increased spending, and those who find fault any time the Federal Government involves itself even remotely in areas like family planning, stem-cell research, or global warming.  It is distressing in the max to think that the GOP is more interested in gaining points they can spend in the 2010 mid-term elections, than seriously addressing themselves to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

   President Barack Obama's "First Hundred Days" will end on April 30, 2009.  Let's hope that he, along with his advisers and members of the 111th Congress, will have by then enacted a smart, imaginative and purposive fiscal stimulus package; one that will ultimately right the ship of state and enable it to navigate the waves just over the horizon.

©2009 Kurt F. Stone
 

Style and Substance: An Essential Mix

 

     Now that the last of the revelers have gone home, the tuxedos and fancy ball gowns put back under plastic and the decorative bunting ready for recycling, the Obama Administration is open for business.  And not a second too soon.

    In his first 48 hours as president, Barack Obama has signed executive orders that put a hold on all further hearings at Guantanamo and set the wheels in motion for shutting down its detention facility within a year.  He has also put his pen to orders that add transparency and limit cupidity within the Executive Branch, and started the process by which "renditions" will no longer be tolerated.  He has spoken with the major players in the Middle East, consulted with his national security team, and started the process of working with those who a mere 10 weeks ago declared themselves to be his mortal enemies.

   And while it is true that all the above actions are more style than substance, they do send a clear message; the message that a new, dynamic team is in place -- a team that unlike its predecessor, will not sugar-coat reality and will make demands on all of us.  And for this -- even if it is merely style, rather than substance -- we should be terribly grateful.  For among the things most lacking in the past several years have been:

• Optimism
• A sense of shared purpose;
• A feeling that there was wisdom at the top,
• A "Can-Do" attitude,
• Clear vision,
• A feeling that "We the People" is more than a rhetorical phrase, and above all,
• Hope.
  

  Barack Obama began role-modeling all the above as far back as Iowa in 2007.  His election imprinted these qualities upon the body politic.  His Inaugural Address bequeathed these qualities to an entire nation and the world beyond its borders.

   Prior to the Inauguration, there was much speculation as to whether President Obama would deliver an oration worthy of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt or Kennedy.  In truth, President Obama's speech was not up to the oratorical level of the "Rhetorical Four."  He neither reached the heights of grandiloquence nor crafted a single phrase that will reach the top of Mt. Olympus. And although he was -- and is -- clearly capable of writing and delivering an address of unsurpassed eloquence and grandeur, he consciously chose not to.  He clearly understood that to do so, would place Barack Obama the man first, and American History second.  He correctly perceived that no amount of verbiage -- no matter how eloquent -- could hope to capture the moment as well as the simple fact of its occurrence.

   What he did do, was to craft and deliver a speech, whose brilliance most of us will never grasp.

  Unlike most of predecessors, President Obama did not shy away from using complex syntax.  He did not resort to the simple sentence structure we've come to expect in inaugural addresses.  It is likely that Barack Obama -- with the possible exception of Jefferson -- will turn out to be the best writer who ever occupied the Oval Office.  As any serious writer knows, if one challenges readers by expecting the best of them -- by writing up to them rather than down -- one may just get it -- the readers' best.  Similarly, by expecting the best of his auditors -- those listening -- and neither talking down to nor speaking over them -- President Obama just might get 'it' -- the best we have to offer as a nation --  in the coming years.

  Unlike most presidential addresses which paint a glowing portrait in patriotic hues of red, white and blue, Obama's etched a highly sophisticated and realistic view of the world and our role in it; perhaps the best, most realistic, most sophisticated that any president has ever given voice to.  And, lost in the "post-game" commentary was what for me, was perhaps the single-most unique aspect of his address: the all but total absence of the first person singular -- "I."  Instead, time and again, our new president used the pronoun "WE" -- about as far removed from the past eight years as one can get with just a one-syllable word.  To a great extent it is the "I" paradigm that got us into the dark calamitous times we now face; it is the "WE" that will likely bring us back to the light of day.

    Of course, Barack Obama and company are not a panacea; they will neither solve every problem nor cure ever ill.  Plainly, there are those who -- whether knowingly or not, whether in good faith or with a generous dollop of cynicism -- have endowed him with almost Messianic abilities.  This is of course wrong -- and for two reasons: First, he is obviously not the Messiah; second it makes any misstep, any misstatement, any compromise tantamount to utter failure. While still a candidate, Barack Obama addressed this issue of unreasonable expectations in a self-deprecating vein.  Last October, while speaking at the annual Al Smith dinner, candidate Obama quipped: "Contrary to popular belief, I was not born in a manger.  Actually, I was born on the planet Krypton and sent to earth by my father Jor-El to save the world . . ."  Unbelievably, many "fright-wing" commentators took him to task for this quip, telling their gullible listeners that here was the "proof" that Barack Obama was delusional, highly dangerous, and unfit to be President of the United States.  Did these pundits really, truly believe that Obama was delusional?  Of course not.  Its just that the role of conservative pundits is to be obtuse . . .

   Other commentators are drawing comparisons between Barack Obama and Jack Kennedy.  They see in the style and excitement of the nascent Obama Administration something of Kennedy's "Camelot."  And, in matter of fact, there is one great similarity; both men -- and their families -- were as different in tone, style and deportment from the men they succeeded as day is from night or Bill O'Reilly from Edward R. Murrow. What one tends to forget about JFK after more than 45 years (!) is that his administration -- and his historic, emotive ranking -- are due far more to style than to substance.  This is not necessarily a bad thing; the Kennedy style, after all, is what made us feel better about themselves, our country, our prospects for the future.  That style served to energize and get much of America off its collective duff.  Truth to tell, the Kennedy years -- short as they were -- were long on style, and relatively short on substance. 

   In the early days of an administration, style can be as important -- if not more so -- than substance.  We have already begun to feel the Obama style, and that gives many of us optimism that the substance will not only follow, but that it will be both good and purposive.

   In the past 48 hours, I've heard many "fright-wing" mooncalves proclaim Obama to be the worst, most diabolical man to ever occupy the Oval Office.  Already, they are sarcastically scoring him for "not having solved all of America's problem by the end of his first or second day."  In all fairness, after having spent the past eight years playing defense, these conservative Iagos can perhaps be given some slack if they are ham-handed in switching over to playing offense. It is, after all new, uncharted territory.  I am sure that as time goes on, they will become more accustomed to their new role. 

   Let's hope they have to play on offense for a long, long time to come.

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Shiites and Sunnis Redux

   As I write this article, Israel is entering the 21st day of its all-out assault on Hamas.  The combined power of the Israeli Army, Navy and Air Force continues to pound Hamas strongholds, tunnels and armaments caches throughout the Gaza Strip.  The Murbarak government is attempting to get Israel and Hamas to agree to a temporary, 10-day cease fire.  And all over Europe, South America, the Middle East, and even parts of the United States, demonstrators are gathering in the tens and hundreds of thousands to denounce both Israel and the Jewish people --  equating the Israeli military action with the worst, most diabolical actions of the Nazis and call for the utter dismemberment of the Jewish State.

   And in his farewell address which just ended a few minutes ago, President George W. Bush talked about "good and evil in the world" as if he really, truly understood what is going on.  I'm really disappointed that during his eight years in office, not one reporter ever asked him if he could explain the difference between al-Qai'da and the Taliban, or between Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah.  I wonder if he realizes that Hamas is more Sunni than Shiite, and Hezbollah owes much of its orientation to the late Ayatollah Khomeini, who was, of course, a Shiite. 

  Wherever and whenever I speak on the situation in the Middle East -- whether it be Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Israel, people asked the kinds of questions I wish just one reporter had asked our 43rd president.

   Please note well that Islam is a highly fragmented faith with two major sects, numerous sub-sects, and doctrinal disputes that have been festering for centuries. Understanding Islam without a "scorecard" or understanding of its history is rather like trying to understand the difference between Methodists, Presbyterians and Disciples of Christ without grounding in the history of Protestantism. 

   Do note that in the current engagement, Israel is going up against Hamas, which controls much of the Gaza Strip.  Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Sunni Muslim brother.  Hezbollah, against which Israel did battle in Lebanon a while back, is a thorough-going Iranian proxy which takes its inspiration from the radical Shiite politics of the late Ayatollah Khomeini.  For Hamas, Hezbollah like a big brother who gives you encouragement, teaches you how to fight, and keeps you supplied with all the weapons you need.  And yet, from a point of Islamic doctrine, they don't agree with each other.  About the only thing they do agree on is that Jews are descended from apes and pigs . . . 

  Nearly three years ago, I published an article in this space about the history and differences between the various Islamic sects and factions.  Of late, I've received many requests to reprint it.  Up until this week, I have never reprinted an op-ed piece.  But it seems to me that with all that continues going on in this world of ours -- and not just the Middle East -- we can never know enough about those who are hell-bent on conquering as much of the planet as possible.

   And so, without further ado, here is what appeared back in March of 2006.  

 

    Seems like no matter where I go these days -- a restaurant, the university, a cinema -- the debate and chatter is over Iraq.  The major areas of argumentation are both legion and predictable:    

• Should we leave immediately?
• Do we need to send in more troops?
• What was the real reason we went in in the first place?
• How long are American forces going to have to stay there?
• Will there or won't there be a civil war in Iraq?

   On the last issue, I'm here to tell 'ya, the answer is not only a resounding "YES!" but an emphatic "IT STARTED THE DAY SADDAM WAS DEPOSED!!"

    It both amazes and amuses that there is so much debate over whether or not Iraq will break out into a full-fledged civil war.  By merely posing the question, it proves -- at least to me -- that those raising the issue are both politically myopic and historically astigmatic.

    Those whose knowledge of civil war begins and ends with the American "War Between the States" as it is still referred to in the old South, must acknowledge that there are generally two well-defined sides to a civil conflict, both of which hold fast to a set of political, economic, or even moral beliefs.  In America's case, of course, the simple version has it that the Northern states opposed slavery, while the states of the Deep South overwhelmingly favored retaining their "peculiar institution."  Never mind that this is a rather simplistic, junior-high schoolish version of history; never mind that this war had as much to do with Federalism-versus-States'-Rights as it did with slavery.  That's a matter for another day and another article.  History does accurately record that the regional antagonism, which eventually led to the firing on Fort Sumter, had been simmering, smoldering and sparking for nearly a hundred years before the first shots were ever fired.

     In the case of Iraq [and indeed, anywhere in the Muslim world], the sides are just as distinct, though they certainly do not represent such clear-cut geographic regions.  Their conflict isn't so much about ideology as it is about theology and religious history.  And whereas the American Civil War's gestation was about a century, the civil war currently heating up [and likely to get much hotter] in both Iraq and throughout the Arab world, has been bubbling and boiling over for nearly 1,400 years.

    "How's that?" you say.  "1,400 years?"  What in the name of God Almighty could keep people at each other's throats for 1,400 years?

  

    Only one thing: religion.

  

   In order to garner some understanding of what in the world's going on in post-Saddam Iraq, one must know something about Islam -- specifically the schism betwixt Sunnis and Shiites.  One should know at the outset that of the hundreds upon hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world, approximately 85% are Sunni, and 15% Shiite.  And despite their relatively low numbers, Shiites form a majority in Iraq, Iran, Bahrain and Azerbaijan.

   Please do remember that despite comprising somewhere between 60-65% of the population of Iraq [a clear majority] the Shiites were under the thumb of Saddam Hussein, his followers and homicidal henchmen -- all of whom were [and are] Sunnis.  Talk about Apartheid!

   Shiites and Sunnis.  Sunnis and Shiites.  Columnists, commentators, pundits and politicians blithely bandy about the terms as if everyone had taken a 101 course in Islamic history.  The sad fact is that very few people know the difference between the sects.  Heck, most people can't tell you the difference between Methodism and Presbyterianism!  And although I am far, far from being an expert on Islam, the little chutzpadik imp that sits astride my left shoulder is urging me to give a brief [and hopefully comprehensible] tour of the terrain.

   In order to better understand what in heaven's name is going on in Iraq in 2006 between the Sunnis and Shiites [or indeed, in 2009 in much of the Islamic world] one must first go back in time . . . to the year 632 C.E. [that's A.D. to non-Jews].

   The differences between the Sunni and Shiite sects are rooted in disagreements over the succession to the Prophet Muhammad, who departed this mortal coil in the year 632.  The disagreement also extends to the nature of political leadership in the Muslim community.  The historic and often lethal debate between Sunnis and Shiites originally centered on whether to award leadership to a qualified and pious individual who would lead by following the customs of the Prophet, or to preserve the leadership exclusively through the Prophet's bloodline.  Its sort of like saying: "We declare that only the most pious, the most learned, the most charitable can become Chief Rabbi; whereas you declare that the only qualification is being the son of the former Chief Rabbi."

   Shortly after Muhammad's death, community leaders elected one Abu Bakr, a close companion of the Prophet, to become the first Caliph [Arabic for "successor"].  Although a clear majority of Muslims accepted this decision, there were those who supported the candidacy of one Ali ibn Abi Talib, who was both Mohammed's's cousin and son-in-law -- he being married to the Prophet's daughter, Fatima.  Although obviously closely allied with Muhammad, there were those who sincerely believed that Ali lacked seniority with the Arabian tribal system, and therefore was bypassed as the immediate successor.

   As one might expect, many of Ali's followers considered Abu Bakr and the two Caliphs who succeeded him to be illegitimate interlopers.  This faction firmly believed that the Prophet Muhammad himself had named Ali as his successor, and that the status quo -- i.e. the elevation of Abu Bakr -- was both a corruption and violation of the Divine order.

   Those who supported Ali's ascendancy became known as Shi'a a word stemming from the term shi'at Ali, namely, "supporters of Ali."  There were many others who respected and accepted the legitimacy of his caliphate, but opposed political succession based on mere genetics -- being one of the Prophet's blood relatives.  This group, which constituted a vast majority of Muslims, came to be known as "Sunni," meaning "followers of [the Prophet's] customs -- sunna."

 

   And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the schism began and, to a great extent, it has remained ever since.  Theologically, there are a few interesting differences between the two factions.  Most deal with the nature and interpretation of Islamic law [shari'a].  There are no codified laws in either Sunni or Shiite Islam.  Rather, there are sources for the interpretation of law, which both groups share.  Generally speaking, Shiite legal interpretation, in contrast to that of the Sunnis, allows quite a bit more space for human reasoning.

  Shiite religious practice centers around the remembrance of Ali's younger son [the ironically named Hussein], who was martyred near the town of Karbala in Iraq by Sunni forces in 680.  Each year, his death is commemorated on the tenth day of the Islamic month of Muharram in a somber and sometimes violent ritualistic remembrance known as Ashura, which is marked among some Shiites by the ritual of self-flagellation.

  

Sunnis reject the Shiite belief that the imams [religious leaders who are blood relatives of the Prophet Muhammad] are divinely inspired beings who should be revered.  Sunni Muslims do not bestow upon human beings the exalted status given only to prophets in the Quran.  By contrast, the Shiites' veneration of their imams the most exalted of whom are called ayatollahs] approaches a level of infallibility that the Sunnis find repugnant.

 

   There are even subdivisions with the sects. 

 

   Within Shiite Islam one finds:

 

• Twelvers: the most common form of Shiism; "twelvers" accept a line of twelve infallible imams descended from Ali.
• Ismali orSeveners: the second largest Shiite sect, which recognizes only the first seven imams.
• Zaydis: a minority sect that only recognizes the first five imams, and
• Alawite: predominately found in Syria and Lebanon, they interpret the 5 Pillars -- duties -- of Islam as symbolic rather than applied, and celebrate an eclectic group of Christian and Islamic holidays. 

   The Sunnis have one sectarian subdivision called Wahhabi.  The Wahhabi are arguably the most pervasive revivalist movement in the Islamic world.  Unlike other Islamic sects, they tend to apply the Quran and Haddith [sayings of the Prophet and his companions] in a literal way.  They occupy a position roughly equivalent to the ultra-orthodox haridim in Judaism.  It should be noted that there is an extremely close relationship between the Saudi ruling family and the Wahhabi religious establishment.  The most conservative interpretations of Wahhabi Islam view Shiites and other non-Wahhabi Muslims as dissident heretics.

 

   So how in the world is it that these two groups [and their various sub groups] could be killing, fighting, and dying over something that happened nearly 1,400 years ago?  Ah, there's the great distinction or difference between Western and Eastern history.  Some people live and plan for their collective future by giving the past a vote but not a veto; others take marching orders strictly from their collective past.  Sunnis and Shiites have been going at it for hundreds and hundreds of years, as if the issues upon which they so violently disagree -- prophetic succession, legal interpretation -- occurred last Thursday.  To be sure, the rise of secular ideologies in the first half of the 20th century -- Nationalism, Communism, Sadaam's Baathism -- did manage to temporary mute or deflect tensions between the sects.  But as Bill Cosby once quipped about Novocain, "It doesn't cure pain; it merely postpones it."

   Any realistic game plan or strategy for a post-Saddam Iraq or indeed, for any further relations [or lack thereof] with Iran -- must begin with a solid, thoroughgoing understanding of the historic sectarian tensions that have shaped the Muslim world for more than a thousand years.  To merely say "these people are crazy," or "they have no reverence for human life," misses the mark by miles and miles.   Anyone who can get the recognized leaders of these two major factions to sit down and talk civilly, will no doubt merit the Nobel Peace Prize -- not to mention the undying gratitude of Allah, Muhammad and the Moslem in the street.  But unless and until that happens, please remember one thing:

 

   The most uncivil thing in the world is a civil war.

      

    ©2009 Kurt F. Stone

 

Beginning next week, this Blog will have a new name and a new look . . . stay tuned!

  

 

Warren G. Harding's Downstairs Neighbor

  

    Although certainly not as volatile as the present-day New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ, presidential rankings do possess a significant degree of elasticity and movement. Not surprisingly, there is wide consensus on which presidents rank as either truly great or spectacularly bad: Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt are invariably ranked at the top of virtually every poll; likewise, Presidents Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Franklin Pierce are at the bottom, with Warren G. Harding coming in dead last. 

   Sometimes a president's ranking will depend as much on when the poll is taken as on who is doing the polling or responding.  In other words, Herbert Hoover will generally rank higher in boom times than in bust, and will always score better with the Pat Buchanans of this world than with the Keith Olbermanns. Then too, the further away in time one moves from say, the Reagan years, the higher our nation's 40th president will tend to score: in a 1996 Ridings-McIver poll, Reagan came in at number 26; according to those polled by the Wall Street Journal in 2005, the Gipper was our nation's 6th best chief executive.

  This brings us -- not surprisingly -- to George W. Bush.  In the above-referenced Wall Street Journal poll, an interesting pattern emerged: among Democratic-leaning scholars, George W. was ranked the sixth-worst president in American history.  Among conservative-leaning scholars, he came in as sixth-best.  Any self-respecting statistician would conclude that W had received a split-decision rating of "average."  Then again, according to a statistician, if you've got your feet in the oven and your head in the freezer, on average, you're doing just fine . . .  

   Now, there are those who will argue that since there are still 11 days left in his presidency, it is too early for historians or pollsters to go to work; W. is not yet ready for ranking or assessment.  With any president other than George W. Bush, this would be a potent argument.  But America's 43rd president is a special case; thus, the argument for waiting until the end of his tenure is pure nonsense.  In recent polls, slightly more than 80% of the public disapproves of his presidency.  This is the highest such rating in the history of presidential polling. Moreover, in a 2004 History News Network poll,  107 of 109 historians polled (98%) rated his presidency a failure.  And mind you, this poll was completed before Hurricane Katrina, the downturn in the housing market, the stock market collapse or the Recession/Depression of 2008. 

   Let's face it: When the Marlins are down 15-2 in the last of the 8th, one can comfortably predict that Florida is going to lose and start writing the wrap-up.  In the case of George W. Bush and his 8 years as president, there is little mystery about where history will likely place him; as Warren G. Harding's downstairs neighbor.

   When asked where he thought he'd rank among America's 43 chief executives, W. responded:

   "Look, everybody’s trying to write the history of this administration even before it’s over. I’m reading about George Washington still. My attitude is, if they’re still analyzing No. 1, 43 ought not to worry about it, and just do what he thinks is right, make the tough choices necessary."

   W's 8 years of "tough choices" have resulted in:

• The bankrupting of America through combining a disastrous war with mammoth tax breaks for the rich.
• Turning a blind eye to torture and terror.
• Trampling on the Bill of Rights.
• The appointment of foxes to guard the nation's various hen houses.
• All but ignoring the planet's looming ecological crisis.
• Squandering much of the world's goodwill.
• Attempting to dismantle Social Security.
• Giving untold hundreds of billions of dollars of profit to the pharmaceutical industry.
• Encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism.
• An ever shrinking middle class coupled with an ever smaller -- and ever wealthier -- "ownership class."  

   Is it any wonder that the Democrats now control the White House and both houses of Congress? 

   76 years ago, Franklin D. Roosevelt took the oath of office as America's 32nd president.  His election came on the heels of a dozen years of conservative Republican leadership; a dozen years which dragged America down into the Great Depression.  As history records, beginning on day one, Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration began addressing America's most pressing economic problems. In quick order, they pushed through Congress that great alphabet soup of programs and policies that became the New Deal.  And although it would take years -- and many would say World War II -- to restore the American economy, FDR and his braintrust were swift to restore trust, hope and optimism. 

   In a less than 2 weeks, Barack Obama will take the oath of office and become America's 44th president.  He is faced with no less daunting challenges than FDR in 1933.  Like FDR before him, he must find a way to restore both trust and hope in the government, even as he and his administration begin digging America out of its deep fiscal, intellectual and spiritual hole.  If he and his administration will use the tools of leadership with wisdom and sincerity, with nobility and purposefulness, then perhaps -- just perhaps -- we can once again become that "City on a Hill" which our Founding Fathers predicted we could be.

  And as for George W., I hope he'll be happy living downstairs from Warren G.  Goodness knows Warren will enjoy it; it will be the first time in 85 years he's been superior to anyone . . .

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Where Children Sleep

  

   As I finally begin writing, the sun is going down on this, the first day of 2009. It is now close to the end of the third quarter at the Rose Bowl, and the Trojans are destroying Penn State 31-7. I would love to devote my full attention to the game, but cannot, because I have some writing to do.  Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, this wouldn't present a problem.  After all, writing is what I do; for me, it's a heck of a lot easier than carpentry or repair work. 

   This week however, writing is just about as difficult as carpentry; it is that hundredth time.  I'm trying to get through a piece about Israel's military actions against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and all that it portends.  It is a terribly difficult situation; one fraught with hard and conflicting emotions.  Part of me responds to the current engagement with the clear-eyed certainty of a 110% Zionist:

   "Israel, you are totally justified in going after Hamas.  Whatever befalls them and the people they so poorly lead is their own damn fault.  After all, they are the ones who have been firing rockets into Ashkelon, Ashdod and Beersheba.  They are the ones who time and again have made it abundantly clear that their  priority is not to feed, clothe, house or educate the people of Gaza, but to wipe the Jewish State off the map."

    Another side or part of me -- although grudgingly understanding -- wants Israel to cease and desist; to quit the bombing and to forget about launching a ground offensive.  This part of me -- indeed, this part of so many of us -- shudders at the thought of Israel becoming ever more isolated, ever more criticized and reviled by the so-called "family of nations."  

   "Israel: to the rest of the world it doesn't matter whether you have right on your side. Nobody cares whether your cities are being rocketed or you have implacable, well-armed, blood-thirsty enemies living on your western border.  No one cares that you -- a civilized, democratic state -- are in the constant crosshairs of a terrorist group that thinks nothing of sending its sons and daughters off to a grisly, explosive martyr's death. The rest of the world only knows -- or thinks they know -- one thing: that you have both displaced and dispossessed several millions of indigenous people.  Stop what you are doing before it is too late . . ."

     According to official Israeli sources, the Gaza bombings have been specifically targeting Hamas' weapons caches, supply tunnels through which they amass those arms, and -- for the first time in recent memory -- the homes and hideouts of Hamas terrorist leaders.  Indeed, it has just been reported that the Israeli Air Force bombed the house of Nizar Rayan, a senior Hamas leader, killing him along with his four wives and nine of his children, four of them younger than 18.  It should be noted that Rayan sent his own son on a suicide mission against Jewish settlers in Gaza in 2001, and has been advocating renewed suicide missions against Israel in the past several days.  The way things go, it is likely that all people will know or remember is that 4 of Rayan's young children died in the Israeli Air Force strike.  Few will care to recall that the Israeli Air Force has, for the most part, been confining its strikes to military and terrorist targets.  Few will care to hear that Hamas and other militant groups have been launching rockets against specifically civilian targets in Israel.  Few will ever know that during the height of the bombing, the Israeli Supreme Court actually ordered the government to allow foreign journalists limited access to Gaza. 

   Why would the court do such a thing?  Because Israel is a Democracy, regardless of what her enemies say.

   Believe me, I too feel terrible about those children dying in the beds in which they were sleeping.  Like all but the most heartless, zealous or mindless, I too wish that all children could be safe in the places where they sleep. I also wish that Iran, Syria, Lebanon and other Muslim nations would stop using the Palestinians for their own political purposes.  Oh they bemoan their fate and hurl blood-curdling invective against the Jewish State.  They even provide arms and terrorist training to the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah.  But what have they truly done for their brothers and sisters?  

  Predictably, most Western governments have issued calls for an immediate cease fire. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has rejected French President Nicolas Sarkozy's proposal because it lacked any plausible guarantee that Hamas rocket fire would stop. Both President Bush and Secretary of State Rice have put the blame for the Israeli bombardment squarely on the shoulders of Hamas.  This should come as no surprise.

   What is surprising are a couple of responses from within the Arab world:

• In a speech delivered on Wednesday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas stated that Hamas was responsible for the Israeli invasion, "because it ended the cease-fire between it and Israel 12 days ago."  [In the same breath, Abbas, not wishing to sound like a "traitor to the cause," also called what Israel is doing, "the bloodiest massacre and systematic destruction of all forms of life."]
• Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister, Prince Faud al-Faisal, actually criticized the Palestinians for their inability to remain behind President Abbas of Fatah -- an implicit condemnation of Hamas: "This terrible massacre would not have happened if the Palestinian people were united behind one leadership, speaking in one voice.  We are telling our Palestinian brothers that your Arab nation cannot extend a real helping hand if you don't extend your own hands to each other with love."   

  There is no simple answer to the Gaza engagement.  Indeed, there are no simple answers -- only simple-minded questions -- when it comes to anything involving the Middle East.  But a love for Israel and a hatred of bigotry, racism and murder can make seeming simpletons out of the seemingly smart.  I do know that whatever Israel does -- or does not -- do will result in criticism, disparagement and revulsion in many quarters.  That's just the way the world goes.  But as Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway.  You'll be damned if you do and damned if you don't."

   Many who are anxiously awaiting the beginning of the Obama Administration wonder what role he will play in the painful conundrum that is the Middle East. So far, adhering to his "only one president at a time" philosophy, he has given little hint on his policy on the Middle East conflict, though he has said finding a peace plan will be an early priority of his administration.  This is a positive change from what we've had; both Clinton and Bush '43 waited until near the end of their second term to begin seriously considering the situation.  During the 2008 campaign, Obama did state, "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that.  I would expect the Israelis to do the same thing." 

   For as many question marks as may exist about what the Middle East will look like after Obama takes office and Israel elects its next government, one thing is clear: where children sleep should be safe, secure and inviolate.

   Anna and Nurit join me in wishing you and all those you love a New Year of health and happiness, of peace and prosperity.

Kurt F. Stone

    [By the way, Southern Cal wound up defeating Penn State 38-24.  Thanks J.L. for your critique; you can see I took it to heart!]

©2009 Kurt F. Stone