The K.F. Stone Weekly

With the New Year Comes Hope

   In a little less than two weeks, Jews the world over will usher in the New Year 5771 with prayer, song and contemplation.  It is the time of year when, we are told, God wipes both our individual and collective slates clean so that we may begin anew, armed with moral energy, spiritual strength and, perhaps most important of all, hope.  A few days before Rosh Hashana, representatives of Israel and the Palestinians will begin face-to-face negotiations with Secretary of State Clinton in Washington, D.C.; negotiations which one can hope  and pray might -- just might -- one day lead to the resolution of a conflict which has been both the bedevilment and the rallying cry of two implacable foes for more than three generations. The Obama Administration's goal is to reach a comprehensive deal within a single year.  To be certain this is a tall, tall order.

   But it is the beginning of a new year, in which, despite long odds, there is always hope.

   Already, pundits, commentators and experts are streaming out of the woodwork, proclaiming that these negotiations -- like all negotiations past -- are doomed to failure; that the issues which have so long divided the two sides -- settlements, reparations, the status of Jerusalem, the right of return -- are so case-hardened as to be unbridgeable. In an August 20 article, the New York Times' Ethan Bronner characterized the upcoming talks as a " . . . pairing [of] the unwilling with the unable."  Bonner quotes Zakaria al-Qaq, vice president of Al Quds University who, despite being a well-respected Palestinian moderate, views the upcoming negotiations as " . . . the option of the crippled and the helpless . . . an act of self-deception that will lead nowhere."   And according Nahum Barnea, Israel's best-known, most respected political columnist: "Most Israelis have decided that nothing is going to come out of it, that it will have no bearing on their lives. So why should they care?" 

   Nonetheless, it is the beginning of a new year, in which, despite long odds, there is always hope.

    Martin Indyk, President Clinton's Ambassador to Israel, believes that many of the issues dividing Jews and Palestinians have already been ironed out in previous negotiations.  In a well-reasoned article in today's New York Times, Ambassador Indyk expresses why he feels cautiously optimistic about the upcoming negotiations.  It is an article well worth reading. 

   To be certain, there are many who fail to find any comfort in Ambassador Indyk's telling of the story.

   For many American Jews, peace between Israel and the Palestinians is something to be wished and prayed for, just so long as it conforms to the Zionist ideal.  For many Jews, the very thought of sitting down and negotiating with representatives of a people who refuse to recognize the State of Israel is both pointless and absurd. For many, being a Zionist means never having to see the other side's point of view, because it lacks both truth and moral clarity. In certain circles those who publicly question or have even slight misgivings about Israel's actions are considered disloyal; as those who give "aid and comfort to the enemy." 

   For more than 50 years, A.I.P.A.C., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been the unflinching political voice of American Jewry when it comes to Israel.  They have long been one of the most respected, most effective lobbying organizations on Capitol Hill, providing information, insight and a distinctly pro-Israel point of view. Their annual Washington dinner (which I have attended twice)  is a "must" for the denizens of Capitol Hill; it seemingly brings out more political "stars" -- both Democrat and Republican -- than Hollywood's Academy Awards. To not show up is a political faux pas of the first order. Where once A.I.P.A.C. was a refreshing young upstart in the world of lobbying,  today it has joined the Establishment.  This is not to say anything bad or negative about it or its mission; rather merely to state a truism. 

   Today, however, just in time for the next stage in negotiations, there is an upstart on the block: "J. Street."  Founded a mere two years ago, J Street has grown like Topsy.  Today, it has a paid staff of more than three dozen, plus regional grassroots organizations throughout the country.  J. Street describes its mission as "Giving political voice to mainstream American Jews and other supporters of Israel who, informed by their progressive and Jewish values, believe that a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential to Israel's survival. . ."  Like A.I.P.A.C., J Street provides members of the Administration and the folks on Capitol Hill with information, insight and tangible (read: financial) support. Unlike A.I.P.A.C. however, J Street contends that those who attempt to  understand the Palestinian point of view; those who see the need for a two-state solution  are still good Zionists; that there is nothing antithetical to being both pro-Israel and pro-peace.

   For many, this last statement is far from a given.  Just the other night, here in Broward County, we had our first organizational meeting for the South Florida chapter of J Street.  About 60 people came, including at least 5 rabbis, several well-known political activists, a local judge, a gentleman who traveled all the way from Port St. Lucie, and a local Palestinian peace activist.  As we pulled on to the campus of the Soref Jewish Community Center where the meeting was held, we were greeted by about a dozen protesters holding signs proclaiming "No Negotiations With Murderers!" "J Street Will Spell the Death of Israel!" and "Shame On You!" 

   Once our meeting began it became clear that several of the people in the auditorium weren't there because of their interest in the J Street agenda or lobbying for a two-state solution.  Rather, they were there to disrupt the gathering by challenging virtually everything that was said, and repeatedly reminding us of things like, "It was the Arab leadership who told their brethren to leave Jerusalem in '48," "Prior to 1967 there was no such thing as the 'Palestinian people,'" and "Representative X is an anti-Semite who hates the State of Israel." (This latter assertion, made about a congressman currently running for the United States Senate, was particularly confusing, considering that the man has a near perfect voting record when it comes to Israel.  Turns out, their enmity toward this gentleman stemmed from the fact that he had defeated a Jewish incumbent.) 

   The arguments raised by those intent on disrupting the meeting were nothing new. They are the sort of arguments -- many based on historic animosities and antipathies -- which have long doomed any hope for a peaceful resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.  These arguments essentially tell the Palestinians "We won't give an inch until you give at least a mile-and-a-half and admit that you are wrong, wrong, wrong!"

   Once the disruptors were convinced to act like ladies and gentlemen and our conversation was able to proceed, it became clear that all of us were ohavei tzion, namely, "lovers of Israel."  It also became clear that a love of Israel can be coupled with a desire for real, tangible peace without the fear of being branded a traitor. 

   From where I sit and write, J Street has come into existence at precisely the right time. 

   For this is the beginning of a new year, in which, despite long odds there is always hope.

©Kurt F. Stone

The More Things Change

   This week's essay marks the 300th I've written and posted since February 4, 2005.  I am proud to say that February 4, 2005 was precisely 300 weeks ago, which means that I have kept a promise I made in that first essay (entitled As Dad Used to Say): to  turn out a column-a-week without fail.  Looking back, it's amazing how many things have changed in just 300 weeks.  Consider that on February 4, 2005:

• This Blog was called Beating the Bushes.
• Barack Obama had been a U.S. senator for only four weeks.
• Outside of a few political junkies and the folks up in Alaska, no one had ever heard of Sarah Palin.
• The letters B.P. didn't stand for anything in particular.
• Tweeting was something that parakeets did.
• The White House and both Houses of Congress were controlled by the GOP. 
• Arnold Schwarznegger was nominated for a "Razzie" as "Worst Supporting Actor" for his role in Jackie Chan's "Around the World in Eighty Days."
• Glenn Beck was still a year away from becoming a television celebrity.
  
• Tea Party had nothing to do with politics. 
• No one was calling for the dismemberment of the 14th Amendment.
• John McCain was leading the charge for sensible immigration reform.
  

But despite all the above, it is nonetheless true that "The more things change, the more they remain the same."  Take America's penchant for conspiracies, scapegoating and intolerance. Today -- this week, this month -- the big story swirls around the proposed Islamic "Cordoba House" to be built a couple of blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan.  Without question, this is the hottest issue in America, capturing the attention -- and fears, suspicions and vehement debate --  of a huge segment of the American public.  Everywhere one goes, whichever cable or radio talk station one tunes in, arguments about whether or not Muslims should be "permitted" to tear down the former -- and long abandoned -- Burlington Coat factory at 45-51 Park Place in Lower Manhattan abound.  A majority of those polled firmly believe that building a "mosque" on "Ground Zero" is a provocative, deliberately insensitive act. on the part of Muslims extremists.  (Although the proposed Cordoba House will contain a prayer space for 1,000-2,000 people, it is primarily "a community center complete with a 500-seat auditorium, performing arts center, swimming pool, fitness center, basketball court, childcare area, bookstores, culinary school and food court serving halal dishes."  Also, it is not at Ground Zero, but rather  about 2 blocks away. It should also be noted that  Islam's roots in NYC are in the very area around the site of the World Trade Center, and predate the Twin Towers.  In the late 19th century, a portion of lower Manhattan was known as "Little Syria" and was inhabited by Arab immigrants -- both Muslims and Christians -- from the Ottoman Empire.)

    Many see in the very name "Cordoba House" a none-too veiled illusion to "Islamic triumphalism, . . . a history of conquest and reconquest that, from the perspective of of Islamists, is at an unfinished stage as of today," as one writer described it. Newt Gingrich -- the expert on everything -- explained to his untutored, unquestioning  minyans that "Codoba" was a "deliberately insulting term" on the grounds that it referred to the capital of the Caliphate of Cordoba during the period of Muslim rule in Spain.  To Gingrich and many other instant experts, "Cordoba in Islamic terms means Islamic rule of the West."  As a student of world history -- especially Jewish history -- I can tell you that the period of Muslim rule in Spain (Al-Andalus) was a "Golden Age" in which science, mathematics, medicine and literature flourished.  It was the time of such Jewish luminaries as Moses Maimonides, Hasdai Ibn Shaprut (physician to Abd al-Rahman's court), Moses ibn Ezra, Solomon ibn Gabirol and Judah Halevi.  It was a time in which al-Andalus became a center for Talmudic study, and the Jews were considered dhimmis -- "protected non-Muslims."  

   And yet, for those who up until a few weeks ago thought "Cordoba" was a model put out by Chrysler, and whose spokesman, Ricardo Montalban spoke of the cars "soft Corinthian leather interior," they now believe they know everything about the connection between Cordoba and terrorism.  Far too many are convinced that Islam means terrorism; that there is no such thing as a "good Muslim."  

   Moreover, many now claim that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man spearheading the construction of Cordoba House, is an Islamic extremist.  (Even as I write this, Imam Rauf is traveling in the Middle East at the behest of the Obama Administration and Secretary of State Clinton, " . . . assisting with the government's diplomatic agenda in the region. Specifically, Rauf [is] talk[ing] about the ways in which Muslim Americans enjoy the same rights and respect that other Americans enjoy.")  Many prominent Republicans, including Florida's own Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are going before the cameras proclaiming that "It is unacceptable that US taxpayers are being forced to fund Feisal Abdul Rauf's trip to the Middle East . . . This radical is a terrible choice to be one of the faces of our country overseas."  It should be kept in mind that this  same "radical Islamic extremist" was also a favorite of the Bush-Cheney Administration, and likewise traveled to the Middle East at their behest as an ambassador of understanding.  How tragic that so many of the same Republicans who applauded this Columbia-educated, Kuwaiti-born Sufi then, portray him as but one step removed from the terrorists of 9/11 now.  It makes one wonder just how long Imam Rauf is going to remain a moderate . . .

  This is not to say that all Republicans are in lock-step with Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and Ros-Lehitnen.  Several prominent conservatives, including Grover Norquist -- who is married to a Muslim -- think that this whole mosque-Islamist-fear business is sending the wrong message to the American people; is taking attention away from such issues as  repealing "Obamacare," and the need for tax cuts.

   We now hear that many, many Americans are calling for a ban on the construction of any and all new mosques anywhere in the United States.  We now read that an increasing percentage (about 20%) believe that President Obama is a Muslim.  More and more Americans believe that it is both the destiny and religious obligation of all Muslims to be terrorists; that regardless of whether or not they are American citizens, they are suspect.  This is assigning collective guilt to an entire people; something which at one time or another Jews, Japanese-Americans, Irish Catholics and Mormons have experienced here in America.  And mind you, just recently, Glenn Beck actually spoke of the Jewish people's collective guilt in the death of Jesus. 

   Oy vey!

   As maddening as all this is, it is nothing new.  Remember, the more things change, the more they remain the same.  Despite our First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion, press, speech and assembly; despite the codification of tolerance in our founding documents, America has, I regret to say, a long, long history of xenophobia and intolerance.

• In the Dutch-settled colony of New Amsterdam its Calvinist Governor, Peter Stuyvesant, refused to accept a ship of refugee Jews.  Once they finally were permitted in to the settlement, Stuyvesant refused to permit them to walk the walls of the community -- the sin-qua-non of citizenship.  He did so because "these Jews are heathens."  In Anglican Virginia, colonial officials made Sunday church attendance mandatory for all whether one was Anglican (or even Christian) or not.
  
• As our earliest colonists began pushing West, they met up with the native inhabitants of the land, who they mistakenly referred to as "Indians."  They proceeded to round them up, reduced their population by 90-95% and then deported survivors to undeveloped places ironically referred to as "reservations."  Colonists believed they were justified in their harsh treatment of these people because, they told themselves, "They have no religions, no government, and are practiced savages."
• In the years leading up to the American Revolution, Britain began to be perceived as a villainous empire; first-generation English immigrants began being viewed with hostility and suspicion.  Anti-English sentiment reached such a frenzied height that it became a significant factor in the anti-English, pro-French Thomas Jefferson's defeat of the pro-English John Adams in the 1800 presidential election.
• The Chinese began coming to America in droves beginning in the 1840s. They would play a significant part in building American railroads.  By 1880, there were more than 100,000 Chinese living in America.  Convinced that these "heathens" posed both a moral and an economic threat to the country, Congress passed the "Chinese Exclusion Act" in 1882, which stated that Chinese immigration "endangers the good order of certain localities" and would no longer be tolerated. Other responses ranged from bizarre local laws (such as California's tax on the hiring of Chinese-American laborers) to outright violence (such as Oregon's "Chinese Massacre of 1887," in which 31 Chinese Americans were murdered by an angry mob.
• During the 19th century, Mormons came under repeated attack for being an anti-Christian sect which practiced polygamy. They were forced to uproot themselves time and time again, until at last, they wound up settling in the wilds of Utah. Anti-Mormon feeling was so great that when Reed Smoot -- a church elder -- was elected to the United States Senate in 1902, that august body refused to seat him.  He was unable to take his official oath of office for nearly 4 years.
• During the years leading up to America's entry into the "Great War" as World War I was known, American hatred and fear of the Germans -- "Huns" they were called" -- was so great that many states passed laws making it illegal to speak German.
  
• Many readers will remember the incredible fear and hatred of all things Japanese in the 1940s; of how beginning shortly after Pearl Harbor, an estimated 110,000 Japanese Americans, who were considered to be "enemy aliens," were rounded up and sent to detention camps.  Sadly, the United States Supreme Court upheld these detentions in both Hirabayashi v. United States (1943) and Korematsu v. United States (1944).
  
• In both 1928 and 1960, fear and hatred of Catholics was a major issue in the presidential election.  In 1928, it certainly played a major role in then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover's defeat of New York Governor Al Smith.  In 1960, it almost derailed the presidential aspirations of John F. Kennedy, who defeated Richard Nixon by a mere eyelash -- and only after he had forthrightly informed the American electorate that he would not be dictated to by the Vatican.
  
• In New York, Los Angeles and other major American urban centers, Hispanics have been savagely beaten -- either because they were mistaken for Arabs, or were believed to be illegal aliens.  

   Indeed, it is a sad history.  And now we have this orgy of suspicion, fear and hatred toward Muslims.  Yes, it is true that the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims.  But that does not make all Muslims terrorists or agents of a malevolent worldwide conspiracy.  So why don't all the moderate Muslims come out and condemn or distance themselves from their murderous co-coreligionists?  Because they secretly support them?  Because they are fearful of what their  protests might bring about?  I do not have an answer, but do understand that it is far easier to contemplate bravery for others than for oneself.      

   Do the  Muslims of Manhattan have a legal right to build Cordoba House on private property?  Yes, they most certainly do.  The government has no legal standing when a religious organization wishes to build a structure on private property.  That's the law, and there's nothing Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh can do about it.  Governor Patterson's offer to give them a piece of land the state owns is likely unconstitutional. Should they build on that precise spot?  Perhaps not, although that is not my call.  I do know that many moderate Muslims are now suggesting that their brethren choose a different parcel on which to build.  I also know that this situation has been on the drawing for many, many months, and that it only of late has been made into a civic football for obvious partisan political purposes . . .

   I would hope that when we look back on this essay 300 weeks from today -- which will be May 27, 2016 -- we will be amazed at all the sturm umd drang that was raised about Cordoba House; of how our fear of Muslims kept us from communicating with our neighbors who, it turned out, weren't really all that much different from the rest of us.

  

©2010 Kurt F. Stone

An Illusion Worthy of David Copperfield

   Without question, David Copperfield (David Seth Kotkin) is the greatest illusionist of our time -- indeed, perhaps of all time.  Among his most breathtaking tricks are:

• The "Laser Illusion," in which he or his assistant is cut by a "laser" into two or more parts and then starts walking;
• The "Flying Illusion," in which Copperfield flies about the stage, and then appears to have spinning hoops passed around him in order to prove that he is not suspended by wires, and, my personal favorite,
• The "Statue of Liberty Illusion," in which he makes Lady Liberty "disappear." 

   Like most, I haven't the slightest idea of how he does any of these illusions -- nor  do I really care to know.  The one thing I do know is that Copperfield -- like any good illusionist or con-man, is a master of misdirection, namely, drawing attention away from the reality at hand.  In magic, misdirection takes advantage of the limits of the human mind in order to give the wrong picture and memory.  If done by an expert, the illusion succeeds; the human mind can concentrate on only one thing at a time. The magician begins rolling up his sleeves and proclaims "nothing up my sleeve," only to indeed produce an object that never could have been "up his sleeve."  Here he succeeds precisely because we, the audience, instinctively scrutinize the magician's arms, but ignore the actual location where the object-to-be-produced is hidden.

   Misdirection -- call it deception if you will -- is one of the most important arrows in any prestidigitator's quiver.  The same goes for politicians and political parties, whose slight-of-hand feats of illusion, misdirection and deception  are often worthy of even Mr. Copperfield. 

   To my way of thinking, one of the all-time greatest feats of illusion involves the GOP and its neoconservative strategists, who have managed to convince a sizable portion of the American public to endorse economic policies that are clearly not in their best interest.   And how did they do it?  The same way Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear: by shooting off all the most important arrows in their quiver. 

   Consider the following:

• Over the past several years, GOP strategists  convinced a lot of middle-class and lower-middle class Americans to agree that the estate tax should be repealed. Now mind you, the estate tax -- which Republicans repeatedly referred to as a "death tax" -- is applicable to only the richest 2% of the American taxpaying public.  And yet, neo- and Radcon strategists misled the public over and over again -- through letters to the editor and opinion pieces, on web sites and through e-mail "trees" -- into believing that almost everyone had to pay it at death. A clear case of misdirection.
• Going in to the Fall elections, Republicans and their Tea Party allies are arguing that the single-best -- indeed the only -- way to get America out of the Great Recession is by cutting taxes and easing up on regulations.  Under Obama and the liberals, they argue, taxes will only get higher and regulations more stringent.  And this lethal one-two punch is what got us into our economic doldrums in the first place. Tax cuts, they insist, will put more money into the hands of businesses, which will then be able to use those funds to hire more workers, thus lowering unemployment.  The fact of the matter is that more than 95% of all Americans are currently -- and will continue to be -- receiving a net tax decrease under Obama and the Democrats.  Those making more than $250,000 a year would be "paying more" only in the sense that the tax cuts they received under the George W. Bush Administration ($1.7 trillion from 2001 to 2003) would not be renewed.  And yet, there are millions and millions of Americans making far, far less than $250,000 a year who are in favor of renewing these tax cuts which would only benefit the wealthiest Americans.  It doesn't make sense.
• According to the tenets of "Supply-Side Economics," after taxes are cut, "average"  income rises, "average" taxes fall, and tax revenues actually increase.  This isn't precisely true.  Yes, "average" income does rise, but only because those at the very top are making an awful lot more, thus raising the so-called "average."  And, because the wealthiest 1 or 2% are paying quite a bit less in taxes, that drives down the "average" tax rate.  To put it another way, I am 6' tall and weigh 155 pounds; Shaquille O'Neal is 7'1" and weighs about 325.  That makes our average height 6' 6-1/2"; our average weight 240 lbs.  Suddenly I feel huge! And so far as tax cuts causing revenues to rise . . . that is an absolute illusion.  And yet, there are millions upon millions of struggling wage-earners who have become convinced that lowering taxes will somehow make everything alright. 

So just how have the neo- and radical conservatives managed to get so many Americans to support economic policies that are truly not in their best interests?  Wherein is the misdirection?  One need look no further than such "Oldie but Goody" emotional social issues as abortion, the teaching of creationism-vs-Darwinism, prayer in the public schools, and gun control, and the newest ones like "illegal aliens," "notch-babies," "repeal of the 14th Amendment" and "creeping socialism." The GOP and their conservative strategists have been masters at identifying these issues, politicizing them, putting together masses of adherents, and then convincing them that "Those who agree that abortion -- or Darwinism or gun control or notch babies -- goes against both God and the intent of the Founding Fathers, are the truly moral members of American society. And furthermore, truly moral people are also against the Death Tax, in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy, and the repeal of most, if not all, corporate taxes."

   This strategy, which has resulted in so many Americans supporting policies that cannot help them, is absolutely brilliant; an illusion worthy of David Copperfield.  At the same time however, it is also cynical, deceptive, venal, and just plain wrong-headed.

   Sort of makes you wish that Mr. Copperfield had an illusion to make the radical conservatives vanish!

©2010 Kurt F. Stone

    Last week I urged those of you living in Broward County to  vote for Debra Steinsaltz,  an outstanding candidate for County Judge, Group 3.  This week, I would additionally urge you to vote for two other top-flight candidates for County Judge: Kenneth "Ken" Gottlieb in Group 20, and  Nathaniel "Nate" Klitsberg in Group 26.  I know both of these gentlemen quite well, have followed their careers for a long time, and believe that they are destined to become distinguished jurists.

 

Repeal the Law of Gravity!

   Now that federal Judge Vaughn Walker has found California's controversial Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, the guardians of morality are gearing up for the  next battle.  Towards that end, they are back to the sharpening of knives and polishing of brass knuckles. They are bound and determined that opposition to gay marriage remains as much of a ballot-box motivator as Roe-v-Wade or Terri Schiavo in elections of the past.  They have responded to Judge Walker's comprehensive -- and quite frankly, masterful -- rejection of their case with  both opprobrium and paranoia. They are already suggesting that Walker -- a libertarian-leaning G.W. Bush appointee who has long been out of the closet himself -- of being "a stalking-horse for gay rights," a sort of "Manchurian candidate from beyond the pale of heterosexuality who has been activated by this case to assassinate traditional family values."

   Responding to Judge Walker's decision, the National Research Council's Tony Perkins spumed, "It's time for the Far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain by a ballot box."

   Maggie Gallagher, chair of the National Organization for Marriage (MOM) warned that, "If this ruling is upheld, millions of Americans will face for the first time a legal system that is committed to the view that our deeply held moral views on sex and marriage are unacceptable in the public square . . . . Parents will find that, almost Soviet-style, their own children will be re-educated using their own tax dollars to disrespect their parents' views and values." 

   Even former Speaker Newt Gingrich -- hardly a poster-child for family values -- weighed in, defending heterosexual marriage while taking a swipe at Elana Kagan: "Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy.  Today's notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society."     

   What has these guardians of morality so fraught with anger is not just judge Walker's ruling, but the overwhelming decisiveness of that ruling. In rejecting their arguments in favor of Prop. 8's constitutionality, Judge Walker found their reasoning to be both specious and without legal merit. Part of their case was based on what is called argumentum de consensu gentium -- which is basically, "Hey a majority of the people who voted agreed that gay marriage is immoral, so obviously we are right, and that's the law!" This is about as naive as the "proof" of God's existence favored by the Stoics of old, who held, "We know that God exists because so many people worship him . . ."  Walker's ruling was a victory of law over sentiment; permitting discrimination based upon popular opinion is, without question, unconstitutional. 

    Imagine for the moment that Judge Walker had found against the plaintiffs, and had permitted Prop. 8 to stand. What is to say that another group of citizens -- backed by their own brand of moral certainty and bankrolled by ultraconservative multimillionaires --  couldn't convince  millions of people to go to the polls and endorse a measure making the teaching of evolution illegal?  Or declaring that discrimination against, "inferior people" like Hispanics, African Americans, Jews, Muslims or Hindus is legal?  Or even one that repealed the Law of Gravity? According to their argumentum de consensu gentium, If they could get 50% of the people  going to the polls to vote their way,  everything would be on the up and up.  The Law of Gravity would be a chimera.

   Frightening, no?

   The legal team arguing for Proposition 8 also relied on a fallacious bit of reasoning called argumentum ad verecundiam -- ("argument to respect") which essentially states, "Hey, our argument is binding because it is made by people we know to be authoritative!"  One of the two "authorities" used by the defense was David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute of American Values.  During the trial, the defense had Blankenhorn quote from his book, The Future of Marriage, attempting to show that he was an expert on the dire consequences of making gay marriage legal.  Much of what Blankenhorn testified to came by way of the notorious George Rekers, who, until he was discovered to have taken a European holiday with a lad from "Rentboy.com," had been the head of NARTH, ("National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality").  In his ruling, Judge Walker stated flatly that, "The Court now determines that Mr. Blankenhorn's testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight."  And again, "Blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponents' factual assertions."  

   Unbelievably, the other witness, Hak-Shing William Tam, secretary of the "American Return to God Movement," took the stand at the behest of those who wished to see Proposition 8 overturned. Why?  To make a joke out of the defense's argumentum ad verecundiam. Tam, whose organization operates the website "1man1women.net," testified that his group encouraged voters to support Proposition 8 on grounds that "homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children," and that "Proposition 8 will cause states one by one to fall into Satan's hands."  When asked upon what on what authority he based his information, Tam -- like Blankenhorn -- cited the discredited George Rekers and NARTH, stating that he "believed what they say."  Period. 

   So much for argumentum de consensu gentium and argumentum ad verecundiam. 

   The case now will make its way up the legal food chain until one day it reaches the Supreme Court.  Speculation at this point has it that because of the thorough, exhaustive and erudite manner in which Judge Walker's decision was written, it will  be difficult for any higher court to overturn his ruling.  I certainly hope this will be the case and that Judge Walker's ruling will stand.  For a reversal would be a gigantic  step backwards both in terms of personal liberty and government involvement in the private lives of its citizens.

   And if nothing else, I have no desire to live in a country which might repeal the Law of  Gravity. . .

©2010 Kurt F. Stone

(For everyone here in Florida -- early voting begins this coming Monday.  For those in Broward County, I strongly urge you to vote for Debra Steinsaltz for Broward County Court Judge, Group 3. Debra will make a spectacular Judge!)