The K.F. Stone Weekly

The Thriller's Gone

  

   Back in late 1968, early 1969, I wrote a really bad futuristic  short story -- blessedly long since forgotten -- entitled Hello Goodbye.  Taking place in London in the year 2033, the story was in the form of a long newspaper article reporting on the funeral of Lord Paul McCartney, the last surviving member of the Beatles, who had passed away at age 91.  The scene was a cold, darkly-cloudy-drizzly late November morning at London's Bunhill  Fields Cemetery, the final resting place of such immortals as Daniel Defoe, Thomas Hardy, John Bunyan, William Blake and now, Lord McCartney. Peopling the   story were hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of extremely elderly men and women.  Most were decked out in ancient, ill-fitting Levis, moldy navy pea coats, bandannas and beads.  Nearly all were leaning on canes, tearfully daubing their eyes with large red railroad handkerchiefs. Under the canopy at the front of the crowd, a foursome of aged gray-haired musicians was playing a trio of Beatle classics: I Will from "The White Album," There's a Place, from "Please Please Me;" and Hello Goodbye from "Magical Mystery Tour."  Between these pieces, the minister, an elderly Church of England Deacon (who strangely looked an awful lot like an octogenarian Mick Jagger) attempted to deliver the eulogy.  Being nearly as disconsolate as the throngs he was addressing, his voice could barely be heard anywhere but under the canopy.  Other speakers included the 86-year old Peter Noone ("Herman's Hermits"), Marianne Faithful (age 87) and the "Who's" Roger Daltry (age 89).          

   As I recall, the three spoke of Lord Paul's lyric brilliance, his long-lasting partnership with the late John Lennon (who had passed away seven years earlier at age 85) and of the tremendous impact he had made on an entire generation in terms of fad, fashion and passion.  

   And of how an era had definitely come to an end. . .

  

   I had not thought about this long-forgotten "literary" travesty for nearly a quarter of a century . . . until yesterday when word came over the Internet that Michael Jackson, the "King of Pop," had died at the unbelievably young age of 50.  For with his all too real passing -- much like the fictional demise of "Lord" McCartney -- an era has definitely come to an end.  And just as Paul McCartney and the Beatles exercised tremendous influence over the tastes, ideas and passions of a generation, so too did Michael.  In fact, the two both overlapped and intertwined in several eerie ways.  First, up until the time of his death, Michael Jackson owned the rights to much of the Beatle musical catalog.  Second, he and Sir Paul [to give him his real title] did collaborate on at least two pieces --- Say, Say, Say and Ebony and Ivory.  And third, it is likely that Jacko, who in one of his last incarnations took to wearing colorfully embellished satin jackets festooned with gold braiding and brass buttons, took the idea from Sir Paul and the Fab Four -- just look at what the boys are wearing on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. McCartney was knighted by the Queen of England; Michael -- the "King of Pop" -- was enthroned by the public.

    Whether or not one was a fan of Jackson's music, there is no denying that he is was and always shall be an electrifying performer.  The moon-walking Jackson was probably the most imaginative and influential dancer since Fred Astaire first took the stage in the early 1920s. With the 1983 release of his zombie-themed album "Thriller," he all but single-handedly invented the music video and quickly made it an art form. In terms of his artistic longevity and the ability to reinvent both his style and onstage persona, Jackson was sui generis; a performer without peer.

    However, beyond Michael Jackson the performer -- the singer/lyricist/dancer/actor/"King of Pop"/"Gloved One" -- there is, of course, Michael Jackson, the human train wreck.  For more than a generation, both public and press alike have been mesmerized by the ever-changing, eccentric-to-the-point-of-absurdity, "Wacko Jacko."  Whether it be his ever-evolving facial features and pigmentation, his retrogression from adorable, immensely talented 8-year old to preposterous middle-aged quasi-hermaphrodite, or the many peaks and valleys of his personal, financial and sexual life, we haven't been able to take our eyes off him for a long, long time.  To my way of thinking, this says far more about ourselves and the times we inhabit than about Michael Jackson.  Having grown up in and around the world of celebrity -- indeed, the Jackson Family compound was just up the hill from my parents' home -- I know how difficult it is to remain sane when the spotlight is always on; how much more difficult -- and terrifying -- when that spotlight dims or is extinguished.

   Although the cult of personality and celebrity likely goes back to the time of the Greeks, it took the 20th century to make of it an immensely successful cottage industry.  The lionization  and adulation afforded the likes of a Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, Rudolph Valentino or Charles Chaplin [who absolutely fascinated Jackson] in the 'teens and 'twenties; a Clark Gable, Cary Grant or Russ Columbo in the 'thirties; or a Frank Sinatra in the 'forties, is but a brief candle flicker compared to the perpetual blaze  surrounding a James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson.  One huge difference is that in days of yore, what we "knew" about our idols was precisely what their publicists wanted us to know: that they were good, high-minded folks who loved their mothers, were passionate about puppies, and were almost too good to be true.  Over the past generation or generation-and-a-half, we have become addicted to "knowing" (or having exposed for our own enjoyment and entertainment) every blemish, foible, phobia or prosecutable offense of those in the public eye.  The media's glare is, of course, far far more intense today than yesterday.  And we, the public are far far more addicted and insatiable today than yesterday.  The sad fact is that today, we "know" far far more about folks in the public glare than we do about the people who live next door. 

   Although I have long recognized Michael Jackson's immense talent, I can't say that I was much of a fan after the breakup of the Jackson Five.  My tastes in rock or popular music have always been more attuned to Crosby, Still, Nash and Young, the Byrds or the Beatles; I am the sort who will pick "Tommy" over "Thriller" eight days a week. And yet, I daresay that like most, I have paid more than my fair share of attention to Michael Jackson's train wreck of a life. It has been buoyant.  It has been sad. It has been maddening.  It has also been a thriller.

   Like Paul McCartney and the Beatles, he has exercised tremendous influence over an entire generation of newer musical artists like Justin Timberlake and the "Backstreet Boys."  Like the real Sir Paul, his work has been "covered" by a diverse group of artists such as "Soundgarden's" Chris Cornell, "Fall Out Boy", and James Chance and the "Contortions." 

   But just as with the fictional "Lord Paul" from Hello Goodbye, the "Thriller's" gone.

  May he rest in peace.  

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Anyone Surprised?

 

    At about 3:30 this morning Eastern Daylight Time, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameni addressed a crowd at Tehran University.  In his televised speech -- which took place during Friday prayers -- Khameni praised President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election as a "definite victory," and sloughed off any and all charges of vote-rigging.  While he called on those who don't believe the results to use "proper legal avenues," such as requesting the recounting of ballots in their presence, he did not issue a call for a new vote.
 
   Anyone surprised?

   Khameni roundly criticized the street protests and proclaimed that "those who cause violence during demonstrations will be held accountable."  Speaking of Ahmadinejad's 11-million vote victory over his primary rival, Mir Hossein Moussavi, the Supreme Leader lectured, "Eleven million votes difference?  Sometimes there's a margin of 100,000 or 200,000, or 1 million maximum.  Then one can doubt maybe there has been some rigging or manipulation or irregularities . . . . But there's a difference of 11 million votes.  How can vote rigging happen?"

   "How can vote rigging happen?"  Let us not insult anyone's intelligence by presuming to answer the question.  Unbelievably, what Khameni posits -- and expects people to swallow -- is that the larger the criminal haul, the less likely a felony has taken place!  In its own way, it's reminiscent of the old Tammany tyrant George Washington "Boss" Plunkett, who famously proclaimed that "In politics, there are two kinds of graft: honest graft and dishonest graft." 

   Ignoring for the nonce the hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets of Tehran in support of Moussavi, the Supreme Leader proclaimed the election, "A great show in which people indicated their responsibility towards the destiny of the country . . . . It depicted very well people's solidarity with their establishment."

   Oh really?  What about the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of folks downtown, all dressed in black and green?  With precisely which "establishment" were they expressing "solidarity?" 

   It should be noted that one of the unsung heroes of what is quickly becoming known as the "Twitter Revolution" is a State Department official named Jared Cohen. Cohen, who at 27 is the youngest member of the State Department's policy planning staff, convinced the heads of Twitter to delay a scheduled maintenance of its global network (which would have cut off service) while Iranians were using the service to swap information and inform the outside world about the mushrooming protests around Tehran.  As a result of Cohen's urging, Twitter remained operative, and outsiders could read such tweets as:

• " . . . don't listen to what iran govt says u can or can't do!  You can report the pics/vids coming from Twitter!" and
  
• "We need ppl around world helping to raise the issues put pressure on Iranian gvmt."
  

    After warning all those protesters that they continue gathering at their own peril, Kahmeni then criticized the international media for having the "temerity" to report  that the election pitted "people who support the government against those who oppose it." He then proclaimed that all four presidential candidates -- Achmadinejad, Moussavi, Mohsen Rezaie and Mehdi Karrubi -- all support the Islamic revolution.  Predictably, he also took a swipe at the United States, Great Britain and Israel, labeling them "Zionist ill-wishers."

   Anyone surprised?

   There is no telling where all this will lead.  Some in the West see the massive protests as the opening salvo in what may be the downfall of the Islamic Republic.  Then too, there are others who warn -- and fear -- that the millions who support reform will wind up being bowled over; an Iranian Tienanmen Square. 

   And then there is the American reaction.  President Obama has been, shall we say, intentionally "measured" in his reaction and response.  Predictably, suspects both usual and surprising have attacked the president for not being far more forceful, far more vocal, in his support for democracy and freedom in Iran.  What they are saying is that the president should be exercising far more belligerency -- something like "Ayatollah Kahmeni, tear down this revolution!" -- and far less diplomacy.  The president's initial response was the soul of diplomacy.  First, he said that he was "deeply troubled by the violence," and then went on to say that since no international observers were allowed to monitor the fairness of the election,

    "I can't state definitely one way or another what happened with respect to the election.  But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of the people who were so helpful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed.  And I think it's important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views."

   Anyone surprised? And here I don't mean to ask if anyone's surprised that the president is being attacked by Republicans for being "squishy soft" and "not standing up for freedom and democracy like President Reagan."  Rather, I am asking if anyone's surprised at how many people seem to be misunderstanding precisely what the president's game plan is vis-à-vis Iran.

   Many of the president's most starry-eyed partisans have suggested that the current ferment in Iran is due -- at least in part -- to his appeals to Iranians and Muslims.  According to Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan, the president "Never meant to spark political upheaval in Iran, much less encourage the Iranian people to take to the streets."  Rather, Kagan opines, the president's diplomatic strategy calls for dealing directly with the Iranian government -- especially over the issue of nuclear weapons -- regardless of who that government may be.

   I for one do not agree with Kagan.  I believe the president's response to the unfolding events in Iran has been measured for a different reason: that he doesn't want to make this a clash between America and the Imams.  He has correctly concluded that if any reform or "liberalization" is to take place, it must be as a result of the clash of ideas -- between the Iranian people themselves.

   As I write this, word has gone out that the House of Representatives has just  voted overwhelmingly (405-1) to condemn Kahmeni's crackdown on demonstrators and the government's interference with Internet and cell phone communication.  (Libertarian Ron Paul cast the lone dissenting vote.) In the eyes of  House Republicans -- who initiated the measure -- its passage is meant to serve as a not-so-veiled criticism of President Obama.  To House Democrats, it is one of those measures for which one votes "Yay" while firmly holding one's nose.  According to House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Howard Berman, "It is not up to us to decide who should run Iran, much less determine the real winner of the June 12 election."  Up to this point, Berman is solidly echoing President Obama.  What comes next is, as they say, "the rub": "But we must reaffirm our strong belief that the Iranian people have a fundamental right to express their views about the future of their country freely and without intimidation."

   Whether Iranian protests lead to greater reform or repression remains to be seen. But regardless of what happens in the short-run, the genie is out of the bottle.  And once out, genies, like spilled water, are next to impossible to put back.

   Anyone surprised?

 

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Sam Goldwyn Was Right

   Back in mid-1920s, film producer Sam Goldwin [Schmuel Gelbfisz] tried to interest his fellow moguls in an "investment with a purpose."  It was Goldwin's idea that he and his colleagues [Goldwyn would have undoubtedly been more comfortable calling them his lahntsleit] should purchase some  distant, sparsely inhabited desert island.  According to Goldwyn, they would then divide the purchase price -- whatever it might be -- equally amongst the natives of said island, in exchange for the right to make the islanders the "bad guys" or "villains" of all their future movies!  Not surprisingly perhaps, Goldwyn's fellow moguls turned him down flat; to them it was utter meshugas -- insanity.  What's worse, from that point on, they considered Goldwyn himself meshugeh ahf toit -- crazy as a loon.  But as g'mahtert -- as farfetched -- as Goldwyn's scheme was, it did address a serious problem: society's need to blame the blameless, to make targets of the innocent. 

    Goldwyn simply couldn't live with the filmic stereotypes of his day; most if not all movie "heavies" were portrayed as Gypsies, pawnbrokers as Jews, drunkards as Irish, and drug addicts as Chinese.  Although he may not have had the ability to put it all in words, he obviously understood the great power film had to shape both thinking and prejudice.  By suggesting that he and the rest of the moguls purchase that as yet unidentified island, Goldwyn may have been amusing, but in his own way, was being deadly serious.  He was highly sensitive to the fact that he and virtually every other major producer was a Jewish immigrant from Eastern Europe.  He was terribly concerned lest the Jewish community in general and the "motion picture minyan" in particular, become targets of blame during times of frustration, crisis and confusion. 

    Nonetheless, despite his perceptive intentions, Goldwyn's fellow moguls -- Mayer, Zukor, Fox, Selznick, Thalberg, Cohen, Loew, Warner and Lasky -- considered him ah leytz un ah pyeahtz -- both a buffoon and a clown. 

   Despite having less than a grade-school education and frequently coming off like a baggy-pants comedian, Samuel Goldwyn possessed an innately sophisticated understanding of the link between tough, uncertain, changing times and racism, bias and prejudice. He also grasped what tremendous power the "flickers" had to influence taste, style and people's "understanding" of the world around them. To his way of thinking, it was better to "blame it all on the folks of Tristan de Cunha" [who were going to be well paid for being the targets of blame] than to place real people in real harm.

   Sam Goldwyn was right.  In tough, rapidly-changing, challenging times (such as ours), some people seek to affix blame and then do something about it. They are the ones who see change as inherently evil; as the desired, self-conscious product of malevolent, internationally-connected conspirators. Sam Goldwyn took his role as a shaper of public opinion very seriously; he sought to exercise both restraint and even-handedness.  Despite the fact that the term "mass media" did not yet exist, he -- along with his lahnsleit -- had just of much of an impact on society as the modern shapers of opinion, people like Limbaugh, Hannaty, Savage, O'Reilly, Gingrich, Beck and Buchanan.

   Because of the fact that they always need to blame someone, to inflame the already confused and whip up the fires of frustration, people like James von Brunn seek to "cleanse" the world of those they see as "pernicious vermin."  Now, I am not blaming the "Fox Phalanx" for von Brunn's atrocity; they are not the proximate cause of him taking a rifle into the Holocaust Museum and killing guard Stephen Tyrone Johns.  They are obviously not responsible for the many decades this man spent as an obviously deranged, vicious, anti Semitic, Holocaust-denying bigot who firmly believed that Jews exercised malevolent control over virtually every aspect of American society, culture and economy.

   But while they were not the cause of this 88-year old psychotic mess doing what he did -- or of Dr. George Tiller being shot point-blank in the head by "anti-abortion activist" Scott Roeder -- they nonetheless do bear responsibility for their words.  As much as a Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly may take valuable air time to deplore Dr. Tiller's murder, they are the ones who spent months -- if not years -- referring to him as "Tiller the Baby Killer."  O'Reilly once told his rapt viewers that Tiller "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up the birth date for $5,000."  No, O'Reilly never told anyone to kill Dr. Tiller, but what did he expect his viewers and listeners to think?  That O'Reilly was being hyperbolic?  That he was merely exercising his First Amendment right to speak and was really nothing more than an entertainer?  I wonder.  Certainly those with microphones have advertisers.  And where there are advertisers, there are demographic charts.  And where there are demographic charts, there's a finely-honed understanding of precisely the sort of person who is watching or listening . . .

   Then too there is Rush Limbaugh, who has repeatedly:

• Accused President Obama of being "more dangerous than Al Qaeda"
• Proclaimed that "He (Obama) has one thing in common with God -- he does not have a birth certificate"
• Announced that "Socialism is the Obama vision for America"
• Said repeatedly that he hopes the president fails
• Has termed the president's recent trip to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Germany "The International Apology Tour" in which he "proclaimed that America is a Muslim nation," and flat-out said that "The president equated the Holocaust with what Israel is doing to the Palestinians." 

   As Samuel Goldwyn or your Tante Ruchel would have said: NARISHKHEYT!!

   What are we to understand Limbaugh's (or O'Reilly's, Beck's, Shnitt's or Savage's) motivation to be? If its higher ratings, then shame on them; they have placed their own narcissism far above the safety and security of the President of the United States and millions of utterly innocent, blameless people.  If they truly believe what they are saying about Obama, abortionists, and all those folks they tar with the brush of "liberal" or "progressive"  then what in the Hell do they expect their acolytes to do?  Just sit back and continue being angry and frustrated?  Doesn't Rush, like the rest of his conservative talk show brethren, bear some responsibility for the effect their words have?  

    Sam Goldwyn must be turning over in his grave.

   I have spent the better part of the past 36 hours monitoring various conservative radio talk-shows in order to hear what they have to say about von Brunn's attack at the Holocaust Museum.  In many cases, the hosts and commentators -- Schnitt, Savage, Van Susteren and Levine most notably -- have gone to great lengths to deathlessly inform their listeners/partisans/true believers that "There are just as many -- if not more -- crazy, violent, murderous whack jobs on the Left as on the Right."  They want their listeners to know that they are not -- God forbid -- singling out conservatives for blame or opprobrium.  And, unbelievably, Rush Limbaugh actually blamed the recent growth in anti-Semitic rhetoric on President Obama, Progressives and -- who else? -- Liberals.  He actually went so far as to characterize James von Brunn as . . . ready for this? . . . A LEFTIST!

   Permit me to quote his narcissistic rotundity at some length [emphasis added]:

   Very predictably, ladies and gentlemen, the media, the American left, is trying to score some political points as a result of this tragedy at the Holocaust Museum . . . and as predictable [sic], they are trying to blame this on me, other conservatives, and right-wingers.  It's the traditional approach taken by the American left.

   The facts of the case, however, are such that if we want to start assigning blame for this beyond this nutcase Jew-hater . . . and notice that very few people actually want to do that.  They want to claim this guy didn't have the ability to act on his own.  He only could act if he was inspired by somebody.

   Well, who did he hate?  He hated both Bushes.  He hated neocons.  He hated John McCain.  He hated Republicans.  He hated Jews, as well.  He believed in an inside job conspiracy of 9-11.  This guy is a leftist if anything. This guy's believes [sic], this guy's hate stems from influence that you find on the left, not on the right.

   Now, this Jew hater who killed yesterday was a nut . . . . It is not helpful when a political party and a president and leaders of Congress engage in a very dangerous political game that creates anxiety, hostility, and down-right hate among citizens.

   The Left runs our government.  It is creating a very dangerous climate, folks, on purpose, for the purpose of distracting us so that they can accomplish their socialist games . . .

   Sorry Rush, but you've got it all wrong. Sorry Greta, you're having perpetual brain cramps; sorry: President Obama is not some alien bent on destroying America; he is not being guided by the "dangerous Communist operative" William Ayres or viewing society through the eyes of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright -- who just the other day told an interviewer that "my son" the president is a captive of all the Jews who surround him.

   Yes, the Constitution does give all of you the freedom and protection to call the president "Nobama" and "Mr. Teleprompter," and to "knowingly" inform your audience of what his "true" motivation is. Yes, you all have the legal right to blame everything from 9/11 to the current state of the economy on "liberals," "leftists," and "socialists."  No one has the right to stop you from calling anybody anything you wish, just so long George Carlin's "seven little words" are not employed.

   But know this:

  Words do carry consequences just as certainly as Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms require responsibility.  Just because you possess powerful microphones that doesn't make you political scientists . . . just entertainers with big mouths, outsized egos and one hell of a lot of chutzpah. 

   Now there's a truth Sam Goldwyn understood. 

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

 

 

Death, Taxes and . . .?

  

   Ben Franklin is undoubtedly the most oft-quoted of all our Founding Fathers.  Consider if you will, a mere five "Franklinisms" that most literate people know but are likely unaware of their authorship:

• "A place for everything, everything in its place."

•  "God helps those who help themselves."

• "Time is Money, money is time."

• "Never leave that till tomorrow which you can do today."

• "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
  

   My favorite Franklin maxim -- bar none -- happens to be the one for which he is likely best-known:

"Certainty?  In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes."

   Over the course of decades I have added various third "certainties" to  my favorite Franklinism:

• ". . . death, taxes and the swallows returning to Capistrano."
  
• ". . . death, taxes and the L.A. Clippers having a lousy team."
• ". . . death, taxes and Law 'n Order."  
• ". . . death, taxes and the Pres. in trouble with someone."
  

    

This last one -- the president being in trouble with someone -- although not a fact of nature like the swallows, a natural fact like the Clippers or an Arbitron Actuality like Law 'n Order is, nonetheless true and certain.  Consider for just a moment the following:

• When President and Mrs. Obama decided on getting a Portuguese water dog, owners of mixed-breeds and champions of dog pound adoptions criticized their choice. (Bo is hypo-allergenic, the Obama girls hyper.)
  
• When President and Mrs. Obama flew to New York in order to take in a Broadway show, the Fox Phalanx complained bitterly about their extravagance. (They wanted to fly commercial, but the Secret Service nixed it.)
• When it was announced that G.M. had declared bankruptcy, the President was accused of leading the country down the ruinous road to Socialism.  

   Yesterday, the President went to Egypt, gave a major address at Cairo University, and then went out to see the Pyramids of Giza. Today, the president toured Buchenwald with Nobel-laureate Elie Weisel.  Anyone want to guess how many people he's in trouble with?

    In some quarters, President Obama was castigated for speaking of his Muslim heritage and roots before a Muslim audience.  Some self-proclaimed "right-thinking" folks bitterly objected to his quoting the Koran  -- 'Be conscious of God and speak always the truth' -- despite the fact that this passage drew more applause than any in his 55-minute speech.  Those who objected seem to be unaware that in the same speech the president also quoted the Bible, made passing reference to the Talmud, and proudly announced that he is a Christian. 

    When was the last time -- or indeed the first? -- that an American president went before a large Muslim audience in a Muslim country and spoke not only of America's "unbreakable bond" with Israel, but of the Holocaust to boot?  The president told the assembled students and faculty: "Tomorrow, I visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot, and gassed to death by the Third Reich . . . . Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today."  Indeed, this took courage. 

   What came next took even more courage: "Denying that fact [i.e. the Holocaust] is baseless, ignorant and hateful.  Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve."

   And yet, that third certainty -- about the president being in trouble with someone -- was clearly on display.  President Obama was roundly pilloried in some quarters for speaking fervently about the rights and aspirations of the Palestinians and the creation of a Palestinian state; as if in thus speaking, he was revealing himself to be an enemy of the Jewish State. 

   In speaking of the aims, rights and aspirations of the Palestinians, President Obama urged them to "abandon violence."  "Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed."  He then spoke of how for centuries, "black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves, and the humiliation of segregation."  He stressed that it was not acts of violence that eventually brought about "full and equal rights," but "a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding."

   Many who listened to the president's speech did not hear these words.  Rather, what they did hear was what he had to say to the Israelis: that the United States "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."  The president told the assemblage, "This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace.  It is time for these settlements to stop."  In other words, while many found fault with his speaking positively about Israel; about his stressing that the Holocaust did happen, and that 6,000,000 Jews did die; others criticized him for calling upon the Israelis to halt construction of further settlements.

   Then again, the president scored negatively in other camps for what he did not say; for those issues which he did not address.  He had precious little to say about how he hopes to bring Hamas or the Iranians -- who supply Hamas -- to accept a two-state solution.  He did not talk about how continued American military action in Afghanistan and Pakistan will affect his vision for an eventual peace.  While those on the right were pillorying him for even suggesting that America engage Iran without preconditions, the left was accusing the president of being inconsistent -- of disparaging violence even while sending drones into Pakistan. 

   "Violence is a dead end," the president told them.  "It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus.  That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is not how it is surrendered."

   When read or listened to in its entirety, President Obama's speech is really quite remarkable.  It showed courage and understanding, and was delivered with the eloquence and sensitivity for which he has become known in these parts.  This speech was a way of introducing himself to a part of the world that "knows" America and her leaders more as stereotypes than as creatures of flesh and blood.  And despite being taken to task by the Fox Phalanx for "turning his back on America," the president has done the right thing.

   Face it.  If he is drawing fire from both Israelis and Arabs, from Jews and Muslims, from hyper-conservatives and ultra-liberals, then he certainly must be doing the right thing.

   For the three certainties are "Death, taxes, and . . . ?"

©2009 Kurt F. Stone