The K.F. Stone Weekly

Marys-With-Mikes

  

   I actually expected to have this article -- which was supposed to be entitled The Children's Hour -- finished and posted yesterday.  But then, as I started reading the opening paragraphs to Annie, she commented "Didn't you use that title just a couple of weeks ago?"  Astute woman, my wife.  For in checking over  recent op-ed pieces, I indeed did find that I had used The Children's Hour for a May 28 piece on the Sotomayor nomination.  And so, I dutifully deleted this week's article.

   But then I got to thinking, and said to myself, "What the heck . . . let's revisit Lillian Hellman."

   And so, here goes.

   You may recall that Hellman's 1934 play deals with Karen Wright and Martha Dobie, two women who together run a successful New England school for girls.  One of their students, Mary Tilford, an angry, mean, mischievous, diabolic teen runs away from the school.  In order to avoid being sent back, she tells her grandmother that Karen and Martha are lesbian lovers.  As a result of this lie -- and the community's willingness to believe it -- the women lose their school and reputations; Martha winds up committing suicide. 

   To my way of thinking, what has always made The Children's Hour so incredibly acerbating, so gut wrenching -- and so great -- is that it is oh so very real.  Since just about forever -- to coin a weird phrase --we have had "Mary Tilfords" living among us -- angry, mean, mischievous diabolical sorts who are more than happy to spread untruths for their own warped reasons.  Likewise, since just about the dawn of time, far too many have been happy to listen to -- and repeat -- "Mary Tilford's" untruths, whether they believe them or not.  And, like the fictional Mary Tilford, these folks seem at best to be unaware -- at worst unconcerned -- that lies, rumors and innuendos can have extraordinarily tragic results. 

   It would seem that of late there has been a virtual population explosion within the Tilford "clan."  For not a day goes by without some new lie, rumor, innuendo or mis-characterization hitting the airwaves or clogging one's inbox. Precisely what has Mary been up to?  She has been repeatedly telling anyone who will listen that:

• The president is an "African-born alien who by law must be removed from office."
• That the president and his wife are "angry black racists."
• That he is a "virulent anti-Semite bent on the destruction of Israel."
• That the Democratic health care proposal would enable the government to "tell us where we may live, what we may eat, and what medical procedures we may have."
• That the Democratic health care plan "is very specific that private insurance would be ended."
• That the Democratic health care plan contains "mandatory counseling sessions for the purpose of telling seniors 'how to do what's in society's best interest . . . and cut your life short."
  
• That the president "fooled the vice president into thinking he likes white people."
• That Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. has recently said "he agrees with Malcolm X that 'the white man is the devil.'"
  

   One will undoubtedly note that from the above, it would seem that the Mary Tilfords of this world tend to be conservative Republicans. And while I have not done a statistical analysis to either prove or disprove that proposition, I will tell you that its been hard finding equally obvious -- and egregious -- examples of untruths emanating from the more liberal side of the political aisle.  Rest assured I will get a slew of examples from my more conservative readers before the day is out. Be that as it may, the truth remains that "Mary" has far more access to mikes and cameras than the so-called "state run media."

   What is it that these "Marys-With-Mikes" expect or want to happen?  Merely that their ratings remain sky high and their salaries stratospheric?  That next time around all these horrible liberals get voted out of office and replaced with people who think like they think, see what they see, and love what they love?  How would they feel or respond if one or more of their listeners/viewers were actually to take matters into their own hands?  After all, just how long can a group be told that a person, a platform or a program is purely evil and bent on  destroying all they hold as dear without someone deciding that definitive action is required?  Remember, in The Children's Hour, it was likely not Mary Tilford's intention that Karen and Martha's school be destroyed or that Martha should commit suicide . . . but it did happen.  What did she think her rumor would lead to?  Likewise, what do all the "Marys-With-Mikes" think their untruths will lead to? Shouldn't they bear some responsibility for what they put out over the airwaves?

   Now, I am neither so naive nor innocent as to wonder why people can't play fair,  "just make nice" and stop spreading malicious lies about each other. Politics is after all a full-contact sport, and definitely not for those who are either weak-hearted or thin-skinned.  (Note to Sarah Palin: repeat this last sentence out loud at least 100 times.)   I fully realize that while the relationship between public and private interest should be symbiotic or mutualistic -- in which both parties benefit -- it is far too often parasitic -- in which one party benefits while the other is harmed.  What does fill me with fascination and frustration is how relatively easy it is to convince folks to oppose that which is ultimately in their own best self interest.

   I suspect that the overwhelming majority of you who read The K.F. Stone Weekly have not -- and will not -- buy in to the mendacious drivel our present day "Marys-With-Mikes" broadcast.  Good for you.  But what of all those who, like the community complicit in destroying Karen Wright and Martha Dobie, find nothing wrong in believing and repeating that which is either demonstrably untrue or patently absurd? What can be done about them?  (Note: This is not to say that Karen and Martha being engaged in a lesbian relationship was 'patently absurd.')     
  
   In some cases, and with some people, facts can overcome fiction.  That is why it is good to have such debunking resources as the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.ORG and Snopes. Of course for many others, fiction is just one whale of a lot more fun (and much easier to grasp) than fact; witness those who continue to pass along the "fact" that the Democratic health care plan includes "forced euthanasia" despite an easily accessible copy of the bill in question -- see The Truth About End of Life Care. (Please be warned: legislative language ain't literary!)

  I for one would love to see a revival of The Children's Hour. Its theme and message is as poignant today as it was 75 years ago -- or during the early 1950s when its revival was construed as an attack on the House Un-American Activities Committee. A revival today just might serve to remind people that those who  consciously play fast and loose with the truth -- for whatever reason -- are possibly setting in motion events that are well beyond their power and potentially tragic.  

©2009 Kurt F. Stone    

Help! Help! Paranoid People are Everywhere!!

     The other day, while listening to yet another conspiracy theorist blather on about Barack Obama's "true place of birth," I was motivated to do a bit of Googling, and learned the following:

• That "Elvis is Alive" brings up more than 76,000 sites.  Heck there is even an "Elvis is Alive Museum" in Laurel Mississippi.  The "Elvis is Alive" Museum Website
  
• That typing in "Franklin Delano Rosenfeld" reveals more than 97,500 sites that either discuss or "reveal the truth" about Roosevelt's ethnicity.  What is more, there is even a website that "proves" that the only two non-Jewish presidents were Kennedy and Nixon " . . . and they were disposed of!"  Roosevelt was Jewish! 
• That the term "Illuminati" -- one of the earliest of the "New World Order" conspiracies -- fetches nearly 80,000 sites. See The New World Order
  
• That when one types in Bilderberg+conspiracy+Obama, there suddenly pops up more than 1.8 million sites that give credence to yet another outrageous bit of piffle.  Barack Obama and the Bilderberg Conspiracy 
• According to Google, if you are one of those who believe that global warming is a hoax, there are 2,160,000 places you can look for verification that you are correct, not cracked.  For but one example, go to Global Warming Hoax

    And then there are the so-called "Birthers."  

    Inputting the words Obama+birth+certificate gives you a staggering 4,220,000 possible places to go.  As but one example, you must try Positive Proof That Obama is an Alien.

    Switching over to LexisNexis, and again inputting the words Obama+birth+certificate, I came up with precisely 172 places to go.  "Why so few?" you are likely asking.  Because LexisNexis deals primarily -- if not exclusively -- with reputable news sources, not with the "vasty depths" of the Internet.  These 172 sites are, for the most part, editorials decrying the canal water the birthers are demanding we imbibe.  As but one example of sanity and logic, go to Birth of a Nutty Nation

   So why all this "birther" blather?  How in the world can people sit in front of TV cameras or behind radio microphones and actually question whether or not President Obama was born in the United States?  Are their listeners or viewers  really that stupid, gullible and detached from reality? Are they doing this for the sake of ratings or entertainment?

   Or, is there something else going on here?      

   The purpose of this piece is neither to rebut, debunk nor deflate the charges and arguments of these broadcast buffoons.  To do so in any way, shape or form would be to lend credence to their caterwauling.  And, to give them even so much as a molecule of the precious stuff would indeed be a crime against reason.  No, our purpose is rather to spend a few moments hanging out at the corner of "Conspiracy and Paranoia."  (By the way, a Google search of Conspiracies in American History brings us a staggering 3,720,000 different places to go.  Why there's even an "Alternative News & History Network" website: Conspiracy Planet) 

   Almost 75 years ago, commentator H.L. Mencken wrote:

            "The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against common rights and desserts.  He ascribes all his failure to get on in this world, all of his congenital incapacity and damnfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street or some such other den of infamy." 

   In other words, when today's reality turns out to be a bit different from yesterday's -- as it inevitably must -- there are, just as inevitably, those whose fear fuels paranoia.  Where most might greet the "new today" with anything ranging from detached resignation to excited curiosity, others turn away in fear; for these, "yesterday" becomes beatified -- a paragon of moral perfection.  Moreover, the more that "today" and "tomorrow" change, the better, the more perfect "yesterday" becomes. 

   Better the devil you know . . ."

   And of course, when going off to do battle with "the devil you don't know," no weapon, no cache of arms is off limits.  Even if one must lie, double-deal or rewrite history it's all permissible, for as the old saying goes:

   Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum -- "If you wish for peace, arm for war.

   Since its inception, America has been the "Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave."  And, according to the paranoid -- those who are scared to death by change -- it has also been a paradise for plotters.  Anyone with a bit of time on their hands would do well to read Richard Hofstadter's incredibly trenchant essay The Paraoid Style in American Politics.  You will be amazed to see how there truly is nothing new under the sun:

• Looking backward from 1776: As the new nation is about to be born -- an entirely different "tomorrow" --  a theory sweeps through the colonies declaring that ten years earlier Benjamin Franklin traveled to Europe to begin assembling "a vast conspiracy of Masons" including "the surviving networks of John Milton, Richelieu and Leibnitz."  This conspiracy seeks to make Franklin, "the Master Mason," the leader of the world.
• In the mid 1840s: A time of economic panic and collapse, the "Nativist Party" comes into existence.  Its leaders proclaim that America's problems are due to all the Irish Catholics the Pope has "sent across the seas" in order to take over the country and make it Catholic.  As a result, churches are burned and people lynched.
• In the mid 1930s: With unemployment still high, the sweeping growth of the federal government under the Roosevelt Administration, "Brown Shirts" "Silver Shirts" and Father Coughlin -- the "Radio Preacher" declare that the president is leader of a Jewish cabal to bring America under the wing of the Soviets.
• In the late 1960s: As hair grows longer, music gets louder and sex gains freedom, a "plot" is uncovered to overthrow the United States.  It culminates in the trial of the "Chicago 7."  
• Today: Once again, the economy is on its backside, the Internet has turned reality on its head, and America has elected its first African-American president  The president and his minions are talking about making changes in the way we do business; about revamping America's medical delivery system, addressing global warming and seeking to replace rampant bellicosity with diplomacy.  As a result, the exponential growth of those planting and harvesting in the vineyards of paranoia. . .The "birthers," the Limbaugh acolytes and those who "know" all about the conspiracy to "take America away from all true Americans." 
  

   Yes, the lunatic fringe has lived in America for a long, long time.  And as frightening, frustrating and fear-provoking as they can be, do remember that we -- the reasonably sane, those who look to tomorrow with hope rather than dread -- we are the ones who write the history books. 

   We are the ones who ultimately turn paranoid conspiratorialists into mere footnotes.
 
    We'll see your millions of paranoid websites and raise you an Internet address suffused with sanity:

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue    

©2009 Kurt F Stone

 

  

National Health sCare

   The following has actually been said for the record on Capitol Hill:

• "Without question, there is a deliberate attempt to retard recovery. . . We have charged the administration with planning to impoverish the country in order to make its communistic experiments acceptable."
• "There is an organized effort to protect the first Communist president of the United States . . . against adverse criticism."
• "The nation may require a more blistering rebuke from the Supreme Court and the pressure of an aroused and enraged public opinion to restrain this Congress from continuing to be the tool of those who would destroy the Constitution.  But the time is not too distant when those who believe in constitutional government will speak with force and finality."
• "The people of my district elected me to represent all the people of this country, as is the case with all the other members of this body.  And in order to do this they intended me to be governed by reason, and not by propaganda, and to use my own best judgment; and before I will fail in that duty and violate the oath I took by voting for and helping to fasten upon my country which would destroy its economic system, a thing which I know to be unsound, I will, if necessary, let the people retire me at the end of this session."
  
• "To pay the medical bills and hospital bills of individuals . . . is socialism.  It moves this country in a direction which is not good for anyone . . . . It charts a course from which there is no turning back."
• "No one can doubt for a moment that this is simply another step toward the neutralization of private responsibility which will eventually end when the Government assumes complete control over the destinies of all our citizens from cradle to grave.  The principle established here, when carried to its logical conclusion cannot fail also to be damaging to two segments of our free enterprise system -- our physicians and our insurance industry."

   

"Blah, blah, blah," I can hear you responding.  "Big deal!  You can hear all this puerile claptrap on CSPAN every day.  And the stuff you hear on talk radio is even worse So what else is new?"

   What else is new?  Sorry to burst your bubble, but we're not even within 45 years of what's new.  For you see, the first three quotes are taken from the floor debate over the Social Security Act of 1935; the last two from the July 1965 debate on Medicare and Medicaid.* And you thought all this was said last week! 

    In comparison to the dire warnings, predictions and base scare tactics being used here and now in 2009, not much has changed.  Oh perhaps the term "communistic" has been replaced with "socialism" and today there are tales of all those poor abused Canadians who must travel to Washington, Michigan or upstate New York just to get a boil lanced; but aside from a few style points, the  nature and content of opposition are basically the same.

   What has undoubtedly changed is the willingness of the "loyal opposition" to be "loyal," let alone civil.  You see, despite all the negative verbiage and dire predictions, Republicans were one heck of a lot more supportive of the Social Security Act of 1935 and 1965 (the one that created Medicare/Medicaid). In 1935, 16 senate Republicans joined 60 Democrats in voting "aye," as opposed to a mere 5 voting "nay."  Over on the House side, 81 Republicans voted for Social Security as opposed to a mere 15 voting against.  Then too, in 1965, 13 of 43 Senate Republicans voted in favor of Medicare, and 70 of 138 House Republicans. The current health care proposal will be lucky to get even two Republican votes in the Senate or as many as five in the House. 

   Another difference is that as opposed to 1935 and 1965, much of today's opposition and "scaring the pants off the public at all costs" has more to do with keeping the well-heeled happy than basic political philosophy. Without question, there are powerful interests groups with extraordinarily deep pockets who are willing to do whatever it takes to keep their clients -- insurance companies and hospitals in the main -- happy, healthy and profitable. On the other hand, there are lots of politicians -- mostly Republican but Democrats as well -- who are seemingly more concerned about winning the next election than supporting that which a vast majority of the public wants -- some form of national health care. (Don't take my word for it; a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation  survey reveals that 72% of those polled "favor increasing the federal government's influence over the nation's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans," as compared to "27% who oppose such a move."  

   The campaign we choose to call "National Health sCare" has put the words "Socialized medicine" on the lips of people who haven't the slightest idea of what that term really means. Let's be clear: physicians are not going to be  employed by the federal government; health care decisions are not going to be made by nameless, faceless bureaucrats with 9th grade educations; health care is not going to be rationed. 

   The campaign has also convinced a solid minority that President Obama's proposal is more plot than platform; that it is merely "one more step" in "a concerted effort "to have "the federal government take over virtually everything."  Back in 1935 -- and to a lesser extent 1965 -- many of those who expressed grave doubts -- even fundamental opposition -- to extending the reach and influence of the federal government nonetheless voted to give the president what he wanted. Today?  Not a snowball's chance.

   I doubt there is one amongst us who does not have a story to tell about  how a health crisis turned our family, our finances, our future, topsy-turvey.  About how the ever-rising cost of health insurance and health care is giving us sleepless nights and knotted intestines. About a loved one who has become impoverished due to their need for extended care.  

   We cry out for assistance.  We understand that no program will be perfect, but that having no program is not an answer.  Despite it all, we maintain the firm conviction that in America, we are not on our own; we all in this together. 

   And no National Health sCare campaign will ever convince us otherwise.

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

* In order, the speakers and Congressional Record references are:

• Sen. Thomas Schall, R-MN (1878-1935) 6/13/35  p. 9,539 col. 2.
• Rep. Daniel Alden Reed, R-NY (1875-1959), 4/17/35  p. 5,891, col. 1.
• Rep. Frederick James Sisson, D-NY (1879-1949) 4/19/35 p. 6,049, col 2.
• Sen. Carl Curtis, R-NE (1905-2000), 8/8/65 vol. 111 part. 12 p. 15,870.
• Sen. Karl Mundt, R-SD (1900-1974), 8/9/65 vol. 111, part 12 p. 16,122.
•    Anyone interested in reading the debates can go to Congressional Debate on Social Security
  

Sarah Palin: Another One Bites the Dust

   Ninety-nine years ago this month a young sports writer named Franklin P. Adams published an eight-line poem in the New York Evening Mail whose refrain is still recognizable even if its author and content are not:

                       These are the saddest of possible words: 

                      "Tinker to Evers to Chance."

                       Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds,

                       Tinker and Evers and Chance.

                       Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon* bubble

                      Making a Giant hit into a double -

                      Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble:

                     "Tinker to Evers to Chance."

(* A long medieval banner or flag.) 

    "Tinker to Evers to Chance" is of course just one of many trios that fall trippingly off the tongue.  Consider too: 

• Wynken, Blynken & Nod.
• Shadrach, Mesach & Abednego.
• Crosby, Stills & Nash.
• Harvard, Princeton & Yale.

   With all the above trios, there is an obvious linkage:

• "Tinker, Evers & Chance" were three infielders with the Chicago Cubs.
• "Shadrach, Mesach & Abednego" were three who survived the fiery furnace.
• "Wynken, Blynken & Nod" were three fishermen sailing and fishing in the stars.
• "Crosby, Still & Nash" are three superb rock musicians.
• "Harvard, Princeton & Yale" are America's three oldest Ivy League colleges.   

There are now a couple of new trios to add to the litany:

• Gingrich, Vitter & Craig
• Ensign, Sanford & Palin  

    For those who have been out of town, the first trio is made up of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, current Louisiana Senator David Vitter, and former Idaho Senator Larry Craig.  The second triad consists of current Nevada Senator John Ensign, current South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and the "As of today and supposed to become former" Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.   

As with the above referenced trios, "Gingrich, Vitter & Craig" and "Ensign, Sanford & Palin" also possess obvious linkage.  To wit:

• Both trios are made up of self righteously confidant conservative politicians whose public posture turned out to be dangerously divergent from their private practice.
• In both cases (with the possible exception of former Senator Craig) the trios are made up of individuals who had until recently been referenced as potential 2012 Republican presidential contenders.  Today, they are in that collective category called "Rotza ruck!"

 In the main, conservative commentators, faced with the necessity having to write or say something -- anything -- about the moral/ethical lapses of a Gingrich, Vitter, Craig, Ensign or Sanford or the sheer 1984-ish absurdity of a Sarah Palin [Orwell: "War is Peace."  Palin: "Resignation is advancement."] have, without batting an eyelash proclaimed, "Well, the liberals are far, far worse!"  Within the past few weeks, they have seen most of their presidential hopes go up in smoke or, in the case of Governor Palin, simply bite the dust:

   Instead of announcing that Sarah Palin is resigning her office in midterm, Fox Noise ran a crawler proclaiming, "Palin will not seek a second term."  Rather than attempt to decipher or explain what she said at her press conference or in her interview with Andrea Mitchell, most conservative commentators have gone on the offensive -- attacking "lefties" for making Palin's life so impossible that resignation became a necessity.  One commentator, Milwaukee's Mark Belling went so far as to blame Palin's downfall on . . . are you ready for this? . . . the SDS!  No really!  While filling in for Limbaugh this past Tuesday, Belling ranted on and on about how those who ". . .admire and support Castro; Che Gueverra, whose t-shirts they still wear; Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua; Robert Mugabe in Africa -- African self determination; Idi Amin in Africa; Ho Chi Minh; Mao -- remember how they were running around in the '60s with the Little Red Book?"  Egad!  These are the folks who forced Pain to resign?

   When Nevada Senator John Ensign announces that his parents have given his ex-mistress and her husband nearly $100,000 based on "humanitarian concern for two friends," the conservative press applauds their generosity.  There is nary a peep about the fact that Ensign, a prominent member of the Christian men's organization "Promise Keepers," has publicly admitted that he has had a long-term relationship with another man's wife.  [It should be noted that one of "Promise Keepers" core beliefs is, "A Promise Keeper is committed to honoring Jesus Christ through worship, prayer and obedience to God's word in the power of the Holy Spirit."] 

   That when Governor Mark Sanford publicly admits that he lied to his wife, his cabinet and the people of South Carolina, and disappeared for five days so that he could travel to Buenos Aires and have a rendezvous with his Argentine "soul mate," all Rush Limbaugh can say is, "I guess we have learned something.  Republicans like sex too," and then lament that Sanford "could have been another Kennedy . . . without the Mafia connections."  So far as El Rushbo was concerned, if anyone were to be surprised by what Sanford was admitting to, it was likely the fault of the Democrats.  "How's that?" you ask.  Well, try and follow Limbaugh's logic: "Up until now (whether or not "Republicans like sex"] has been debatable.  Republicans are these church going, moralistic no-fun-in-life kind of people according to the libs.  Mark Sanford  developed . . . an email frienship, started innocently, the girl from Ipanema.  He went down to Argentina to see the girl from Ipanema." (sic -- emphasis added]. 

   [If I weren't concerned about being labeled a "G.D.G.E." -- a 'G.D. Geographic Elitist,' I would hasten to inform Rush that Ipanema is in Brazil and that Brazil is definitely not in Argentina. But I am concerned, so won't mention it.]

  With the recent demise of such front-line players as Ensign, Sanford & Palin -- and understanding that Gingrich, Vitter and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal bit the dust quite a while ago -- who's left on the GOP bench?  Mike Huckabee?  Mitt Romney?  Michael Steele?  How about a tickwt of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?

   When will the conservative entertainers ever figure out that just because we Americans are for the most part a good understanding and forgiving folk does not mean that we are all fools.  There is a big difference between being a truly repentant sinner -- otherwise known as a human being -- and a hypocritical blowhard. A vast majority of Americans understand that difference.  Too bad so few of them are on radio or television.

   Who will be the next one to bite the dust?

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

You Don't Have To Be A Star . . . But

  

     Finally, after more than six months, Minnesota has two United States Senators.

   Finally, after more than half a year, the United States Senate has its full compliment of members.

    Finally, Alan Stuart "Al" Franken* can add "United States Senator" to an already impressive resume.

    And yet, to listen or watch various conservative entertainers, pundits and assorted troglodytes, one might think that the "Greatest Deliberative Body in the World" is about to be invaded by a debauched, foul-mouthed, plague-ridden scandal-mongering deviant.  

   And no, they are not referring to Senators Larry Craig, John Ensign or David Vitter.  They are referring to Senator Franken who, unlike the aforementioned "gentlemen" has been married to the same woman for 32 years without a hint of scandal. To be certain there are all sorts of rumors about Senator Franken's past actions, addictions and activities, but most all of them were started by Franken himself -- that's just part of the job of a self-denigrating satirist.

  The one charge his detractors have endlessly tossed about on television, radio and the Internet is that Franken lacks gravitas -- that indefinable something which separates the professionals from the poseurs.

  "Al Franken," they monotonously posit, "is nothing more than a third-rate, potty-mouthed comedian from Saturday Night Live . . . and we all know what that means . . . And if it weren't for being an incredibly minor celebrity, who in the world would have ever heard of him?" 

   By this, they are of course inferring that:

1. Anyone associated with Saturday Night Live is nothing more than a clown or comedian.
2. Being a clown, comedian, or mere celebrity is no qualification for political office.
3. Al Franken is all three, and is therefore clearly out of his element.
4. Franken will be an embarrassment. 
   

   Hold on there for just a second.  Al Franken is a lot more than some "third-rate comedian":

• He is a graduate of Harvard College.
• He is a best-selling author with six books to his credit.
• He is an actor who has either starred or been featured in a dozen-and-a-half films.
• He is a gifted political satirist and pundit who until just before launching his senate campaign, had a much admired radio talk show on the Air America network. 
• He is a patriot who has, over the past decade, conducted overseas tours entertaining American troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as "handshake tours" to military hospitals all over the world.
• And yes, he is a celebrity . . .

     So let's ask the question: Does being a celebrity disqualify one from office?  According to the likes of Hannaty, Limbaugh, O'Reilly et al it certainly does . . . at least when it comes to Al Franken. 

   (In support of full disclosure, it must be noted that in many of his satiric books -- most notably Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations and Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, he gleefully skewers the aforementioned with a pen that could only have been dipped in Jonathan Swift's inkwell.)

   All those who continually classify Senator-elect Franken as "nothing more than a celebrity" suffer from a curious inconsistency.  "Who," we may well ask, "Who is the one elected official they revere more than any other; the one who more than any other successfully led the country along the path of peace, prosperity and honor?"

   Why the greatest of all celebrities who ever got elected to office -- Ronald Reagan, that's who!  Could it be then that what these guys are really, truly disparaging are celebrities who happen to be liberal Democrats?

    Hmmmmm. . . .
  

   Now, the mere fact that one has achieved a certain level of celebrity should by no means be a disqualifier for leadership.  Then too, achieving a certain level of celebrity by no means makes one qualified to be a representative, senator, governor or president . . . but it sure can help one get elected.  For in hard-ball campaigning, the first and highest hurdle to clear is getting your name out there; making yourself known.  Unless one is already famous -- or in some cases infamous -- this can cost an arm and a leg and a pancreas gland.  For  those whose names, faces and basic accomplishments are already known -- i.e. those who have already achieved a level of celebrity -- that hurdle is measured in millimeters, not miles. 

   Neither Ronald Reagan nor Al Franken, of course, are the first celebrities to succeed in getting themselves elected.  That honor likely goes to a late 19th century Shakespearean actor named Julius Kahn who the good people of San Francisco elected to Congress in 1898.  Kahn (1861-1924) would be reelected 11 times and serve three terms as Chair of the House Committee on Military Affairs.  

   Since then nearly two-dozen men and women have used their celebrity status in order to get elected to office.  Among them are:

• Helen Gahagan-Douglas: Broadway Actress and wife of actor Melvin Douglas, she served two terms in the House from California, and lost a senate election to Richard Nixon, who called her "The Pink Lady."  In turn, Rep. Gahagan-Douglas was the first to call the future president "Tricky Dicky."  She was a liberal Democrat.
  
• George Murphy: One of Shirley Temple's costars who served a single six-year term in the Senate from California. Murphy was a conservative Republican. Topical songwriter Tom Lehrer wrote a piece about him -- "Now we have a senator who can really sing and dance!"
• Sonny Bono: A conservative Republican Congressman from Palm Springs, California, he took quite a while to figure out that being a celebrity and being a member of Congress were two very different things.
• Fred Grandy: "Gopher" on The Love Boat, Grandy, a graduate of Harvard, served four terms in the House from Iowa.  He was a moderate Republican.
• Fred Thompson: Originally an attorney with the Watergate Committee, Thompson went on to a movie career -- frequently portraying the president -- and did several seasons as D.A. Arthur Branch on Law and Order. Thompson served two six-year terms in the senate from Tennessee, and tried to capture the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 . . .
• Bill Bradley: NBA star with the New York Knicks.  Bradley, who was also an Olympian, a graduate of Princeton and a Rhodes Scholar, was a liberal Democrat who served three terms in the senate from New Jersey.  Vied for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000 . . .
• Jesse "The Body" Ventura:  Professional wrestler and actor who became a one-term Governor of Minnesota.  Ironically, Ventura acted in the 1987 film Predator with future California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and future Kentucky Gubernatorial candidate Sonny Landham.
• Jim Bunning: Hall of Fame pitcher (224-184, 3.27 era, 2,855 strikeouts), now in his third term as senator from Kentucky; a conservative Republican.
  
• Wilmer "Vinegar Bend" Mizell: Spent nine seasons pitching for Cardinals, Pirates and Mets; served three terms in Congress from a North Carolina district; a conservative Republican.
• Jim Ryun: For many years, the World record-holder in the mile (3:51:1); served five terms in the House from Kansas' Second District; conservative Republican.
• Heath Schuler: A first-round pick of the Washington Redskins in 2001, Schuler was a so-so quarterback for five NFL seasons.  Now in his second term as Representative form North Carolina's 11th District.  Moderate-to-conservative Democrat.
• Steve Largent: Hall of Fame wide receiver for Seattle Seahawks; served 4 terms in the House from Oklahoma's First District; conservative Republican.
• J.C. Watts: Two-time Orange Bowl MVP (1980, 81) and Canadian Football League Quarterback; served four terms in the House from Oklahoma's Fourth District; a conservative Republican.
• George W. Bush: Son of President George H.W. Bush; grandson of Senator Prescott Bush; managing partner of Texas Rangers baseball team.  Conservative Republican.

   To the best of my knowledge, I don't recall Hannaty, Limbaugh, O'Reilly or the rest ever question the qualifications of folks like J.C. Watts, Steve Largent, Jim Ryun, Jim Bunning or any other conservative Republican celebrity.  I do know that they have disparaged the likes of Chicago-area Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. (whom they claim would never have been elected if his father wasn't famous); Rhode Island Representative Patrick Kennedy (his father is Senator Ted); and now, of course, Al Franken.  Perhaps their problem isn't so much with their celebrity or "stardom" but with their politics. 

   I predict that Al Franken will become a pretty good senator.  Having read all of his books I can tell you that not only is he both witty and bright; he is also very well versed on a lot of issues.  He also cares passionately about making this a better world, much in the mold of his political mentor, the late Senator Paul David Wellstone. I predict that as the years go by, Franken's career as a writer/comedian/satirist/radio talk show host will fade from memory . . . except when the boys and girls Fox remind us. . .

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

*  Al Franken's election to the U.S. Senate marks an interesting bit of American history. Minnesota is now the only state in American history to have elected 4 Jewish senators.  Moreover, Al Franken is the fourth Jewish person in a row to occupy this senate seat.  He takes over the seat that had previously been held for one term by Republican Norm Coleman; Coleman took over the seat held for two terms by the late Democrat Paul David Wellstone; Wellstone had defeated Republican Rudy Boschwitz, who himself had served two terms.  In other words, this marks the sixth term in a row that this seat has been held by a Jew.  Really quite remarkable when you consider how few Jewish people live in Minnesota. Hey wait a second . . . come to think of it, my maternal grandma, Grandma Ann, was born in St. Paul way back in 1896 . . .