The K.F. Stone Weekly

Who's Up for Reading 1990 Pages?

    "The era of the 1,000-page bill is over," Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander quipped at a press conference yesterday discussing H.R. 3962, the new House health care proposal.  "We have the 2,000-page bill," he deadpanned  Actually, the legislative text of the "Affordable Health Care Act for America," a bill "To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes," is a staggering 1,990 pages -- far far more  than the English translation of Tolstoy's War and Peace.  And, after having skimmed my way through a couple of hundred pages of this bill by Messrs Dingell, Rangel, Waxman, Miller, Stark, Pallone, Andrews et al , I can tell you it's far, far less interesting than Tolstoy's masterwork -- which isn't exactly a page-turning to begin with.

    Republican Dave Camp told reporters he was going to read the bill while flying back to his Michigan home. Upon hearing Camp make this comment I thought, "Either he's the fastest reader in the House of Representatives or he's taking the slowest flight in the world."  As it turned out, Camp was stymied in his plans to stow the bloody thing on board; it turned out to be too big to fit in the overhead compartment.  And with good reason: H.R. 3962 stands nearly 9 inches tall and weighs 19 pounds.

   The fact that this bill is of both staggering length and stultifying lingo makes one wonder precisely how many people are actually going to read and digest it in its entirety.  And, to make matters more intense, H.R. 3962 is merely one of at least 5 different omnibus health care proposals currently floating around Capitol Hill.  Who but the Platonic Absolute of a legislative wonk would even attempt such a task?  It strikes me that anyone actually reading the bill in its entirety is in serious need of getting a life.

   Presuming that the aforementioned is true -- that few if any will ever master the "Affordable Health Care Act for America" -- one wonders how it turns out that so many are issuing dire warnings about specific aspects of a bill they have not read.  I really rather doubt that people like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, John Boehner or Tim Pawlenty have read HR 3962 -- or HR 3200 or Senator Max Baucus' "America's Healthy Future Act of 2009," or any of the others.  And yet, there they are -- along with dozens upon dozens of their Republican colleagues -- attempting to scare the daylights out of the American public by "disclosing" such perniciousness as:

• Last Friday, Sarah Palin's Facebook page contained the following: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so that his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment, of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." [Note: There is a provision which authorizes Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes.]
• Working from almost the same script, House Minority Leader John Boehner warned that this same provision "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."  [Note: Page 425 of the current House bill contains a provision requiring Medicare to pay for some end-of-life counseling sessions with a health care practitioner. Period] 
  
• Representative Michelle Bachmann has claimed in numerous speeches that "The real issue is, will illegal aliens have access to taxpayer-subsidized health care?  Well, the answer is yes, they will.  In the bill, 3200 has a section that says illegal aliens will not have access to health care, and that's why President Obama is able to say that.  But the practical effect is that illegal aliens will have access to health care because there is no provision for enforcement in the bill."  [Note: HR 3200 specifically says that "no federal money will be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage."]
• Additionally, Bachmann has said that the bill contains a provision that will "put sex clinics in our schools . . . and puts Planned Parenthood in charge of these sex clinics because the bill requires [it] under this provision." According to Bachmann, "School children will be able to go to a sex clinic during lunch, obtain an abortion, return to school and then go home . . . without anyone being the wiser as to their having had an abortion."  [Note: According to the legislative service Politifact, "We see no language in the three main versions of the bill that would allow school-based clinics, which have a long history of providing basic health services to underprivileged students, to provide abortions."]   
  

   And on and on.  

   In the days and weeks to come these scare tactics and outright untruths will no doubt be receiving a lot of exposure.  And the folks who scream the loudest will no doubt make it appear that they have poured over the various bills with a fine-tooth comb.  In raising fear levels across the country, they will be seeking nothing less than to convince folks that it is most appropriate for them to stand in opposition to things which are inherently in their best interest -- a really nifty trick when you think about it. One wishes that every time one of these folks uncovered another malevolent clause they were asked to cite section, clause, page and verse.  For if they were, it would then soon be revealed that they really don't know what in the world they are talking about; that they are merely doing the bidding of those who pay their bills.

   And now, if you will excuse me, I'm in the mood for an  easier, quicker read . . . perhaps War and Peace?

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Of Time and Bacterium

   A couple of days ago, the good folks at the Pew Research Center for People & the Press released a fascinating poll.  From September 30 through October 6,  Pew polled 1,500 U.S. adults, asking them "Do you see evidence of climate change?"  According to their findings, 57% of those surveyed answered "yes," 33% answered "no." 

    The poll's margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

   Amazingly, less than eighteen months ago, when asked the same question, 71% of  
those polled answered in the affirmative -- that yes, they did see "evidence of global warming" -- and 21%  "no."  And about a year before that -- January 2007 -- 77% of those polled answered in the affirmative, a mere 16% in the negative. 

   In other words, in less than three years, the percentage of American adults who believe that the earth is warming up has decreased by 26%, while those who, for whatever reason, are of the opinion that global warming or climate change is not occurring has doubled.

   This is a real jaw-dropper.  I mean, how in the world can it be that fewer and fewer people see evidence of global warming, when virtually everyone I know understands it to be a self-evident, haunting and dire reality?  In attempting to explain this trend, Andrew Kohut, the Pew Center's director opined, "The priority that people give to pollution and environmental concerns . . . is down because of the economy and because of the focus on other things."   

   To me this comment may explain why global warming and other environmental issues have been taking more and more of a back seat in people's priorities.  It in no wise sheds light on why people are increasingly seeing climate change as both a myth and -- in some cases -- a conspiracy.  Oh sure, part of it has to do with all those knuckle-draggers who loudly proclaim "We've got proof that climate change is a myth:

1. It's only October, and already there's been snow in both Denver and Boston;
2. The other day the low temperature in Ft. Lauderdale was in the 50s;
3. Anything that both Michael Moore and Al Gore believe is true cannot be true. 

   OK, so at least part of the upsurge in climate change denial can be laid at the feet of the guys and gals with the big microphones and brassy voices.  But this isn't even close to being a satisfying explanation. The more I reflect on what the Pew findings tell us, the more I am coming to think that the answer lies in our changing conception of, toleration for, and patience with . . . time. 

   "How's that?" I can hear you asking. "What in the world does 'time' have to do with anything?"

   Well, when one thinks about all the changes we've undergone in the past generation or so, no one thing has been altered quite so much as time itself.  Remember when a 14.4k dial-up modem was super fast?  Or how about a 60mb hard drive? Once we 'traded up' to a 56k modem, or a 100 mb hard drive we wondered how we ever could have survived back in the tortoise-slow stone age?  With each passing half-year the speed of down- and uploading got quicker and quicker; our computers became more and more powerful.  And we became less and less tolerant of time.

   There once was a time when getting or making a long-distance telephone call -- traversing time and space -- was quite a big deal; only for special occasions.  Now, of course, its as ho-hum commonplace as swallowing or blinking.  Then too, remember when figuring out who said "Time flies on restless pinions . . . constant never" could take the better part of a day at the library?  And then, when you found out it was some German guy named Schiller, you actually had to go and find him in the Encyclopedia Britannica, which was on another floor?  Today, of course, all one has to do is a simple Google search -- "restless+pinions+constant" and voila!  Within .42 seconds you have the answer.  By comparison to Google, the public library seems positively Neanderthal.

    And on and on.

   The point is, that as technology has given us increased resource speed, our level of patience -- indeed, our feel for the true length of a day, week, month or year -- has decreased.  If something cannot be accomplished quickly, we lose interest.  If we are flush with cash today, it rarely dawns on us to put some of it away against a distant tomorrow.  Likewise, if we go through a couple of days of extremely frigid weather, then global warming is a myth.  But of course in the latter case, two days -- or five weeks or an entire season -- of grossly sub-par temperatures does not mean that humankind's carbon footprint is benign; merely that we aren't perceiving the big or long term picture.  Even the Ice Age had its hot spells . . .

   Let us say that there is a microscopic bacterium residing in Lake Tahoe that doubles in size every hour.  Let us further posit that it takes 50,000 years for it to become visible to the naked eye -- say a circle of roughly two inches.  Within 24 hours that little 2-inch circle of algae or whatever it is will have increased to a size of just over 132 miles -- more than enough to fill the entire lake.  To the casual passerby, it will appear that overnight the lake became contaminated; in reality, it took 50,000 years -- and one day.

   In a sense, this is the perspective many have on global warming, war, peace, the economy, getting things done in 2009.  If the problem isn't solved immediately -- regardless of how long it took for the problem to fester -- we point fingers and accuse the problem solvers of incompetence or malevolence. 

   Patience and perspective have been replaced by politics and perversity.

   And polling . . .

   ©2009 Kurt F. Stone  

   

Ad Captandum Vulgus

      For the longest time now, a niggling, indefinable, "can't-exactly-put-my-finger-on-it" something has been tying my kishkes in knots. And believe me, as anyone who has ever been afflicted with Crohn's Disease will understand, knotted kishkes are the last thing in the world one needs or wants.

      This niggling discomfort began shortly after the 111th Congress convened back in January, and has gotten progressively worse with each passing month.  It has been a chronic condition with occasional acute spikes. Regrettably, until just a few days ago, I have had neither the time nor the talent to determine its precise cause.  Oh I knew that it had a lot to do with all those conservative chatterboxes I listen to while driving from lecture to lecture. But it was more than just that; the fact that guys like Limbaugh, Hannatty, Savage, Beck et al disagree with everything the president or congressional Democrats propose is nothing new.  This couldn't possibly be the source of my malady. So what was it?

    Well, late the other night, while making the long, exhaustive jaunt home after delivering six lectures in three days, I decided to confront this distress head-on in an attempt to discover its source.  By the time I reached my front door, I had fairly well figured it out.  What was bugging me; what was making me seethe like a copper kettle and giving me a nasty case of what old Doc Lipton called the "Flying  Whipsidingles," could be summed up in a single six-letter word:

    M-O-T-I-V-E.

   Yes, motive.  What I finally figured out was that both my agony and my anger were being caused by listening to so many members of the "media" elite attack the motives -- if not the character -- of those with whom they violently disagree.  It is one thing to opine that those who want to close down Guantanamo and hold trials on American soil are wrong; it is another to accuse them of consciously being allied with these terrorists.  It is one thing to strongly disagree with any or all of the various health care reform measures currently being discussed in Congress,; it is quite another to baldly state that "Democrats want nothing more than to strip away our freedoms and bring Socialism -- or "Communism," or "Nazism" to America."  Then too, it is one thing to hold fast to a belief that the single best way to cure the country's economic woes is to enact tax cuts for the wealthy, and quite another to damn those who disagree by proclaiming that "They hate America and want to bring the country to its knees."  This is not argumentation based on fact; it is a bald-faced assault on the motives, the sincerity -- indeed, the very humanity -- of one's opposition.  In rhetorical terms, what they are doing is called ad captandum vulgus -- "capturing the crowd" through unsound, specious arguments.  An ad captandum vulgus argument declares that "we all know that this is the truth," even when what we "all know" is anything but. 

       Years ago Monty Python brilliantly parodied an ad captandum statement: "I think all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired . . . I'm certainly not!  But I'm sick and tired of being told that I am . . ."  

        When the self-anointed archangels of the airwaves gut those with whom they disagree by impugning their motives, they are engaging in a most seductive form of casuistry.  It is beyond disconcerting to hear someone proclaim oh so matter-of-factly that President Obama's various proposals and appointments are motivated solely by a desire to "bankrupt," "enslave" and "ultimately destroy" the United States of America.  First of all, none of these idiotic charges are true.  Secondly, how in the world do these mavens know what motivates Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Timothy  Geithner, Michael Moore -- or Mary Tyler Moore -- for that matter?  It is both dangerous and diabolic to impute and impugn the motives of public figures.  For not only are those who do so giving the vulgus -- the "common clay," the "crowd" -- the sense that they are now uniquely empowered with "the truth"; they are also turning the vulgus into a potentially malignant mob. 

        Running hand-in-glove with argumentum ad captandum is argumentum ad hominem -- an argument in which one attacks a person's character rather than the content of their point of view.  Sometimes the ad hominem is done obliquely; the other day one of the talkmeisters dismissed any thought, opinion or bit of research ever done by liberal Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh simply by referring to him as "The insane, drug-addled Seymour Hersh."  Other times, argumentum ad hominem can hit you right between the eyes; in responding to  negative statements made by the Rev. Al Sharpton about his potentially becoming a limited owner of the St. Louis Rams, Rush Limbaugh, spoke not on point, but rather about how Sharpton had "come to fame and fortune in the infamous Tawana Brawley case." (In this widely publicized 1987 case, Tawana Brawley, a 15-year old African American girl, accused 6 white men of rape -- some of whom were police officers.  The Rev. Sharpton was among those who came to her defense.  A series of investigations brought her credibility into question; in all likelihood, no rape ever took place.) 

        Sometimes it is hard not to presume knowledge of what motivates another person.  Sometimes it is terribly difficult not to dismiss a person's opinion or argument with an attack on their character -- or lack thereof.  I do presume that that which motivates most of the guys and gals behind the mikes and cameras is profit, plain and simple.  Hell's bells, who among us wouldn't want to make $50 million dollars a year for working three hours a day, five days a week?  Then again, maybe they are motivated by something far less benign . . . but who am I to say? 

        If I could get the masters of ad captandum to pay heed for just a second, or two I would quote for them a little gem from Peter Pan's creator, James M. Barrie:

        "Never ascribe to an opponent motives meaner than your own." 

         You know something? My kishkes are beginning to feel better . . .

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

A New Definition of Chutzpah

  

According to every third-rate Borscht Belt comedian who ever took a pratfall, the definition of chutzpah goes like this:

  "Chutzpah is a youngster killing his parents and then throwing himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan . . ."  (drum roll please)

   After untold decades, there's now a new, far longer definition:

   "Chutzpah is "Dr." Rush Limbaugh and "Dr." Glenn Beck overriding the best available medical advice and informing their listening audience that the H1N1 vaccine -- the one being used to combat Swine Flu -- is dangerous, causes autism, and therefore must be avoided at all costs.  Moreover, according to Drs. Limbaugh and Beck, the whole "Pig Flu" (their term) scare is a nothing but a malevolent conspiracy whose sole purpose is to subject unsuspecting, innocent 'real Americans' to a deadly toxin."

    Now, I am as big a defender and proponent of the First Amendment right to free speech as anyone who ever paid dues to the ACLU. I firmly believe, in the words of the late Abbie Hoffman, that "Free Speech is the unfettered right of people to yell theater at a crowded fire."  However, what the aforementioned medical mal-practitioners don't seem to get is that freedom is not free; it requires both intelligent and responsible action.  Repeatedly announcing to their listening audience that they will never "subject" themselves to a "dangerous, unproven vaccine" against a "non-existent illness" is the height of idiotic irresponsibility.  Oh yes, they can say whatever they want; that's the essence of free speech. However, when what they have to say is heard by tens of millions of people who -- for better or for worse -- believe that what these guys say is as infallible as the law from Mt. Sinai -- then there's a huge problem.  Because as sure as Carter made Little Liver Pills, there are going to be folks who refuse to let themselves -- or worse, their children -- be vaccinated against Swine Flu because both Rush and Glenn said so.  And herein lies both the crux of the problem and the new definition of chutzpah.  For if just one person is needlessly afflicted with Swine Flu; if, heaven forbid, just one child or at-risk adult needlessly dies because they preferred heeding the "medical advice" of a radio/TV talk show host/entertainer over that of:

• Dr. Regina Benjamin, M.D., Surgeon General of the United States, 
• Dr. Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the National Institutes of Health  or
• Kathleen Sebelius, M.P.A., Secretary of Health and Human Services,  
  

  That will be one person too many.

  Just yesterday, October 8, Rush Limbaugh went on the following rant against Secretary Sebelius and Dr. Nancy Snyderman, chief medical editor for NBC News:

   "When did medicine get hijacked by politics? Have you heard of the people you vote for Dr. Snyderman?  The Democrat Party!  No, in her warped world view, I, El Rushbo, your devoted host, have hijacked medicine. By politicizing my announced refusal to follow the 'command' of the Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius . . . that you 'must take' the Pig Flu vaccine . . . you must take it.  SCREW YOU MISS SEBELIUS; I am not going to take it precisely because you're now telling me I must."

  Limbaugh then continued his rant, somehow tying the H1N1 vaccine and the government's strong recommendation -- NOT mandate -- for at-risk people to be inoculated, with that which he persists in calling "Obama Care."  Talk about the dangerous misuse of free speech; Talk about chutzpah! 

  If the Limbaughs of the world wish to forgo being inoculated against the Swine Flu, fine; that is their right.  However, when they argue with seeming certainty that both the ailment and its counter-agent are nothing more than fraudulent chips in a game of political tiddlywinks, they run the very real risk that people will believe them and follow their lead. 

  Tell me what's more important Dr. Limbaugh: human life or Arbitron ratings? If you   want to continue railing against ACORN, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid Barney Frank, the "Democrat" Party and President Obama, fine.  If you want to criticize the president for going to Copenhagen, great.  If you want to get on your knees and pray for the Obama Administration to fail, make our day. That's show business.

   But in the name of all that's holy, stop endangering the lives of your listeners.  That's not show business; that's chutzpah.

   You're nuttier than a fruitcake Rush; but so too were lots of folks on the Borscht Belt Circuit. . .

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

 

Note: As this piece was being written, word came that President Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. I'm sure most of our readers will agree that this is a stunning achievement.  Predictably, the boys and girls at Fox News have a different take: that the sole reason he won is precisely why Al Gore won . . . neither one is George W. Bush. How's that for logic? 

Shocked! Simply Shocked!

   Who in the world is Alan Grayson, and why oh why are Daniel Burton, Virginia Foxx, Michelle Bachmann, Louie Gohmert and Steve King saying such nasty things about him?  Come to think about it, who is the heck are Daniel Burton, Virginia Foxx, Michelle Bachmann, Louie Gohmert and Steve King?  Well, all of them -- with the exception of Alan Grayson -- are Republican members of the House of Representatives.  Each one of them has steadfastly voted against increasing the minimum wage (HR 2); against reauthorizing and expanding SCHIP, the "State Children's Health Insurance Program" (HR 976); against banning gay bias in the workplace (HR 3685) and against raising CAFE (fuel-efficiency) standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 (HR 6). 

   I'm sure you get the picture.  And for all you political junkies, Burton represents Indiana's 5 District; Foxx, North Carolina's 5th; Bachmann, Minnesota's 6th; Gohmert Texas' 1st; and King, Iowa's 5th.

   As for Alan Grayson, he's the new Democratic representative from Florida's 8th District -- Orlando.  He's kind of like Barney Frank: an incredibly intelligent bear of a man, who's  Jewish, fast on his feet, tells it like it is, has a great and caustic sense of humor, wears his liberal bone fides like a badge of honor, and did his undergraduate, graduate and legal studies at Harvard. Unlike Barney Frank he's straight and the 12th richest member of Congress with an estimated net worth in excess of $31 million. (Grayson, who was born and raised in the Bronx, had a rough childhood, and made it to Harvard on the basis of brains, not family connections.  While in school he lived very modestly and took odd jobs cleaning toilets and working as a night watchman.  After graduating law school he started a telecommunications firm, which he eventually sold; hence his great wealth).

   Wonderful.  Marvelous.  So what is this piece all about?  Well, a couple of days ago (Tuesday September 30 to be precise), Rep. Grayson got up on the floor of the House and spent five minutes sticking his tongue firmly in his cheek. In brief, his speech went like this:

It's my duty and pride tonight to announce exactly what the Republicans plan to do for health care in America.  It's this: Very simply, it's a very simple plan.  Here it is, the Republicans health care plan for America: Don't Get Sick.  That's right, Don't Get Sick.  If you have insurance, don't get sick.  If you don't have insurance, don't get sick. If you're sick, don't get sick. Just don't get sick.  That's what the Republicans have in mind for you America.  That's the Republicans health care plan. 

  But I think that the Republicans understand that that plan isn't always going to work; it's not a foolproof plan.  So the Republicans have a backup plan -- in case you do get sick.  If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do: DIE QUICKLY! That's right.  The Republicans want you to DIE QUICKLY if you get sick. 

   Now, the Democrats have a different plan.  The Democrats say that if you have health insurance, we're going to make it better.  If you don't have health insurance, we're going to provide it to you.  If you can't afford health insurance, then we'll help you to afford health insurance. 

   So America gets to decide:  Do you want the Democratic plan or do you want the Republican plan?  Remember the Republican plan:  Don't get sick.  And if you do get sick, die quickly! 

   And its at this point that Burton, Bachmann et al got to their feet and expressed their shock, anger and outrage at their liberal colleague.  Dan Burton was outraged by what he saw and heard to the point of apoplexy.  As far as he and his Republican colleagues were concerned, Grayson's speech was a "grave offense to the dignity of this body," and along with others, demanded that Grayson apologize.  Georgia Republican Tom Price -- himself a practicing orthopedic surgeon who, according to the National Journal votes with the Republicans 97% of the time -- went so far as to draft a formal resolution of condemnation and demanded that Grayson "apologize to our leader"  for what he termed "a breach of decorum."

  Here is Grayson's "apology":

   I wish to apologize to America . . . to the dead . . . to the 44,789 who die every year in this country because they have no health insurance.  I want to apologize to the families of the dead that we haven't voted sooner to end this Holocaust in America.

   OK, I'll grant you that his use of the term "Holocaust" is way over the top and should have been replaced with something like "unmitigated tragedy," "horrifying spectacle" or even "shanda" -- well, Grayson is Jewish.  But the use of so insensitive a term should not take away from his basic purpose -- of drawing attention to the Republican's game plan -- of simply standing in firm opposition to virtually anything and everything that Democrats propose -- whether it's on health care, the economy, foreign relations, education or the environment. 

   The "utter shock" with which Republicans responded to Alan Grayson's tirade reminded me of a scene from Casablanca: Major Heinrich Strasser (Conrad Veidt) "urges" Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains) to shut down Rick Blaine's (Bogie) cafe.

   Rick: How can you close me up?  On what grounds? 

   Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find out that there's gambling going on in here!   [a croupier hands Capt. Renault a pile of money.]

   Croupier: Your winnings sir . . . 

   Just as Louie knew that Rick knew that the whole thing was a setup, so too, I believe, do the House Republicans know that their Democratic colleagues know that their "shock" is about as phony as a three-dollar bill.  And just as Louie had long participated in that which so "shocked" him -- gambling -- so too have Republicans long participated in that which they now contend "shocks" them -- Grayson's comment to "die quickly."

   Need proof?  The following are direct quotes:

   Rep. Steve King on July 15, 2009: They're [Democrats] going to save money by rationing care, getting you in a long line . . . places like Canada, the United Kingdom and Europe . . . people die when they're in line.

   Rep. Ginny Waite Brown on July 21, 2009: Last week the Democrats released a health care bill which essentially said to America's seniors, "Drop Dead!"

   Rep. Virginia Foxx on July 10, 2009: Republicans have a better solution that won't put the government in charge of people's health care . . . and it's pro-life, because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.

   Rep. Michelle Bachmann on July 15, 2009: The President's adviser, Dr. Emanuel, says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled . . . so watch out if you're disabled.

   And they're shocked at Alan Grayson's words?  Give us all a break. 

   For untold years, Congress worked because its members worked with one another regardless of party affiliation.  They worked with each other, did each other favors and tried to persuade each other of the fundamental correctness of their position.  The very nature of the legislative process demands collegiality.  Without it, the process does not and cannot work. Ever since the Republican Revolution during the Clinton years, collegiality has been in short supply.  Progress has been an even rarer commodity.

   When I got my first job on Capitol Hill 40 years ago, I loved hanging around one particular senator -- a venerable Southern gentleman who had been a Rhodes Scholar in the 1930s.  He was without question the most intelligent member of Congress at the time.  One day I asked him how in the world he could act with such utter civility towards all of his colleagues -- some of whom were utter Neanderthals. 

   "It's not always easy," he said with a twinkle in his eye.  "If I think a man's an idiot or a fool, I simply refer to him as My distinguished and learned colleague." 

   "But what about when you're absolutely positive that the man's both a fool and an idiot?" I asked. "What do you do then?"

   "Ah," he said, "If I'm positive that the man's a horse's hind-end, I refer to him as My MOST learned and distinguished colleague!"

   From where I sit four decades later, he had the right idea.  Its one heck of a lot better than feigning shock, thus gumming up the gears of government.

  

©2009 Kurt F. Stone