The K.F. Stone Weekly

Traveling at the Speed of Life

  Nearly a century ago, Woodrow Wilson, arguably our  most scholarly president (PhD Johns Hopkins, 1883) noted that the worst part about his job was that it afforded almost no time for what he called "concentrated thought." Wilson was a man for whom contemplation and deliberation were close to divinity.  Here was a man given to grand ideas which were fully-formed, then communicated with unsurpassed -- yet understandable -- eloquence. Once, when asked how long it took him to prepare a speech, an uncharacteristically jocose Wilson responded, "If I am to speak for ten minutes, I need a week for preparation; if fifteen minutes, three days; if half an hour, two days; if an hour, I am ready now."  Reading between the lines, one senses Wilson's frustration at having lost "the needed time alone to think."  For the nation's 28th president, the speed of life had simply become too rapid to permit serious contemplation.

   Ironically, at the time Wilson was bemoaning the "breakneck pace of human life," the maximum speed limit in Washington, D.C. was only 10 MPH.  The most expeditious way for him to communicate with other world leaders was the via diplomatic cable, which could  take more than 24-hours; a trip between Washington and Berlin took about a week -- provided that there were no storms at sea.  A person in San Francisco sending a letter to a friend or family member in, say Boston, could start looking for a response in about 7 or 8 days.  And yet for Wilson, the world was moving entirely too fast for comfort.  Imagine what "The Phrasemaker" would have to say about the speed of life in 2012, when an email or text that goes answered for more than a few minutes causes us to stew or fret . . .

   The ever-increasing speed of life is like a narcotic; we can never get enough. That which was considered to be "faster than a speeding bullet" just yesterday, is no better than a snail's pace today. The ever-increasing speed of life has made us ever-increasingly impatient. Not that long ago, no one gave a second thought to the fact that a radio or television took anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute to "warm up." Today that wait would be a totally unacceptable eternity. Remember when getting up off the couch to change channels on the one television in the house was de rigueur?  Or how little time it took to figure out which programs were on at 8:00 pm?  Today, a life without many remotes for many flat-screens is a life filled with deprivation; one needs a good 5 minutes just to look through the menu selector in order to check out the hundreds of programs coming on in the next time-slot.  Remember when a 56k dial-up modem was the ultimate in speed?  It wasn't all that long ago.  Really.  Today, a wait of more than a couple of nano-seconds is worse than waiting for Godot . . .

  There are several corollaries to the heightened impatience and sense of immediacy brought on by the ever-increasing speed of life: a rise in unrealistic expectations; an explosion in the number of instantaneous sources providing information; even less time for "concentrated thought." How else to explain why today a new president has at best, a one month "honeymoon" with the public, where yesterday it might last the better part of two years? Or the rapid rise and even more rapid fall of "front runners" like Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich? Time and again we anoint a new messiah, a new emperor, only to discover that he or she has no clothes.  We give leaders next to no time to solve social, political and economic problems that may have taken years to fester before reaching the surface. We proclaim programs to be abject failures even before they go into effect.  It is reminiscent of the old joke about the die-hard Cubs fan who, after an Opening Day loss, loudly proclaimed, "Just wait until next year!"  We expect reality to mirror a two-hour motion picture in which all problems can be addressed, analyzed, and solved by super heroes before a glorious final fadeout.  But reality is not a motion picture; our leaders are not super heroes, let alone messiahs or emperors.  And its not their "nakedness" which makes them unacceptable; it's the discovery that they are clothed in off-the-rack garments, just like the rest of us . . . 

   Viewed in this light, is it all that surprising that impatience, frustration and anger are the most prevalent of public emotions?  We see ourselves caught in the gaping maw of insoluble problems -- issues of economy and ecology, of war and of peace -- that are rarely addressed with anything even approaching well-conceived seriousness. Time and again we hear candidates and commentators tell us precisely who or what is the source of our communal challenges and difficulties -- as if the act of identifying a culprit will make the challenges go away.  And as much as we may know that this is simply not the case -- that there are no simple solutions to systemic problems -- many will hold their nose, suspend their belief and anoint yet another messiah who will be labeled a failure within a fortnight. 

   Beyond any partisan political wishes I may have for 2012, I pray that we as a nation engage in more "concentrated thought"; that a strong, active, and purpose-driven majority will finally grow up and quit looking for the one person with the one slogan who promises to make all our problems magically vanish.  Historically, psychology and emotion have always lagged behind advances in technology.  Simply stated, invention is easy, adaptation is not.  If we are ever to put our nation, our economy and our people back on secure footing it will come not through enslaving ourselves to a mythic time when everything worked -- which is utterly ridiculous and counter-intuitive -- but through  adapting to -- and mastering -- the speed of life.

   May the optimism, energy and hopefulness of our founders and pioneers be our inheritance in 2012.         

   As 2011 winds down, permit me to conclude with Grandpa Doc's favorite all-purpose toast: "

Here's to health and happiness . . ."

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Facts: A Cure for Foxification?

Back in December 1770, John Adams, noted in a legal brief ("Argument in Defense of the soldiers in the Massachusetts Massacre Trials") that "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Whenever I come across this quote, I find myself wondering were Adams, the 'Colossus of Independence' alive today, would he disavow his insightful gem? Would he turn on the TV, watch an hour of Fox News and then amend his statement to read "Facts are stupid things" -- which in fact Ronald Reagan would say more than two centuries later?

Today, more than ever, facts have become subjective; more frequently than not they are what the speaker says they are. And here, I am not referring to the interpretation of facts, but rather the deliberate avoidance and ignorance of them. Take as but one example, all those who breathlessly inform their partisans -- despite a welter of statistical evidence to the contrary -- that "Obama's stimulus hasn't created a single job." Standing in opposition to this one subjective "fact" is a set of statistical ones -- provided in a Congressional Budget Office report which concludes that the stimulus "increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, compared with what employment would have been otherwise."

Ah facts . . . such stupid things.

As a partial antidote to what might be called the "Foxification of Facts," I hereby present the following series of stubborn statistics. (The facts presented herein are all gleaned from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Website):

Fox Fact #1: Unemployment is always higher under Democrats:

The reality: Going back to 1953, every time America had 8 or more consecutive years of Republican administrations in the White House, unemployment starts low with them but ends up ABOVE 6% at the end of those eight years. On the other hand, going back to 1953, every time we have had 8 or more consecutive years of Democratic administrations, unemployment starts high (handed to them by the GOP) but then ends BELOW 6%.

Don't believe me? Let's check the facts:

DEMOCRAT – Harry Truman
January 1953: Democrat Harry Truman hands the White House over to Republican Dwight Eisenhower.
Unemployment Rate (January ’53) = 2.9%

REPUBICAN – Dwight Eisenhower
January 1953, Takes White House….. Unemployment Rate that month = 2.9%
January 1961, Leaves White House… Unemployment Rate that month = 6.6%
NOTE: After 8 years, a Republican hands the White House back over to a Democrat with unemployment ABOVE 6%.

DEMOCRATS – John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson
January 1961, Kennedy Takes White House…. Unemployment Rate that month = 6.6%
January 1969, Johnson Leaves White House… Unemployment Rate that month = 3.4%
NOTE: After 8 years, a Democrat hands the White House back over to a Republican with unemployment BELOW 5%.

Republicans -- Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford
January 1969, Nixon Takes White House…. Unemployment Rate that month = 3.4%
January 1977, Ford Leaves White House… Unemployment Rate that month = 7.5%
NOTE: After 8 years, a Republican (again) hands the White House back over to a Democrat with unemployment ABOVE 6%.

DEMOCRAT – Jimmy Carter
January 1977, Carter Takes White House…. Unemployment Rate that month = 7.5%
January 1981, Carter Leaves White House… Unemployment Rate that month = 7.5%

REPUBLICANS – Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (Bush # 1)
January 1981, Reagan Takes White House…. Unemployment Rate that month = 7.5%
January 1993, Bush # 1 Leaves White House… Unemployment Rate that month = 7.3%
NOTE: After 12 years, a Republican (again) hands the White House back over to a Democrat with unemployment ABOVE 6%.

DEMOCRAT – Bill Clinton
January 1993, Clinton Takes White House…. Unemployment Rate that month = 7.3%
January 2001, Clinton Leaves White House… Unemployment Rate that month = 4.2%
NOTE: After 8 years, a Democrat (again) hands the White House back over to a Republican with unemployment BELOW 5%.

REPUBLICAN – George W. Bush (Bush # 2)
January 2001, Bush # 2 Takes White House…. Unemployment Rate that month = 4.2%
January 2009, Bush # 2 Leaves White House… Unemployment Rate that month = 7.8%
NOTE: After 8 years, a Republican (again) hands the White House back over to a Democrat with unemployment ABOVE 6%.

 

Fox Fact #2: "Made-in-America" job creation is always greatest under Republicans than Democrats.

The reality: Looking back 34 years, to 1977, every single Republican we’ve had in the White House has had a NET LOSS in U.S. “Made In America” manufacturing jobs, comparing the manufacturing jobs numbers from the January of the year that they took office with the January of the year that they leave office. By the same token, looking back over the same 34 years, to 1977, every single Democrat we’ve had in the White House has had a NET GAIN in U.S. “Made In America” manufacturing jobs, comparing the manufacturing jobs numbers from the January of the year that they took office with the January of the year that they leave office.

Don't believe me? Here's the actual data from the "Manufacturing Sector Employed" numbers, available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics Website:

Democrat – Jimmy Carter
January 1977, Carter Takes White House…. # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 17,803,000
January 1981, Carter Leaves White House… # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 18,639,000
NET GAIN in “MADE IN AMERICA” manufacturing jobs under this Democrat = +836,000

Republican – Ronald Reagan
January 1981, Reagan Takes White House…. # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 18,639,000
January 1989, Reagan Leaves White House… # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 18,057,000
NET LOSS in “MADE IN AMERICA” manufacturing jobs under this Republican = -582,000

Republican – George H.W. Bush (Bush # 1)
January 1989, Bush # 1 Takes White House…. # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 18,057,000
January 1993, Bush # 1 Leaves White House… # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 16,791,000
NET LOSS in “MADE IN AMERICA” manufacturing jobs under this Republican = -1,266,000

Democrat – Bill Clinton

January 1993, Clinton Takes White House…. # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 16,791,000
January 2001, Clinton Leaves White House… # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 17,114,000
NET GAIN in “MADE IN AMERICA” manufacturing jobs under this Democrat = +323,000

Republican – George W. Bush (Bush # 2)
January 2001, Bush # 2 Takes White House…. # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 17,114,000
January 2009, Bush # 2 Leaves White House… # of Manufacturing Jobs that month = 12,559,000
NET LOSS in “MADE IN AMERICA” manufacturing jobs under this Republican = -4,555,000

Democrat -- Barack Obama

2010 — In 2010, for the first time since Bill Clinton, the nation had a NET GAIN of +153,000 “MADE IN AMERICA” manufacturing jobs.

2011 — In 2011 up to this last month’s data (November), for the SECOND TIME since Bill Clinton, the nation has had a NET GAIN in “MADE IN AMERICA” manufacturing jobs equal to +146,000 so far in 2011.

Fox Fact #3: American Trade is healthiest when Republicans control the reins of government.

The reality: Going back to 1977, every time we’ve had the Democrats controlling at least 2-out of-3 of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, the nation’s TRADE DEFICIT shrinks (the USA imports less and exports more). By the same token, going back to 1981, every time we’ve had the Republicans controlling at least 2-out of-3 of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, the nation’s TRADE DEFICIT grows (the USA imports more and exports less).

Don't believe me? Here’s the data, courtesy of the U.S. Census Bureau, which tracks these things:

1977 to 1980, Democrats control 3-of-3, i.e., the White House, Senate and the House of Representatives
U.S. Trade Deficit in 1977 = $27.2 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit in 1980 = $19.4 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit REDUCES by 29% when Democrats controlled 3-of-3.

1981 to 1986, Republicans control 2-of-3, i.e., the White House (Ronald Reagan) and the Senate
U.S. Trade Deficit in 1981 = $ 16.2 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit in 1986 = $138.5 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit INCREASES by 755% when Republicans control 2-of-3.

1987 to 1994, Democrats control 2-of-3, i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives
U.S. Trade Deficit in 1987 = $151.7 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit in 1994 = $ 98.5 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit REDUCES by 35% when Democrats control 2-of-3.

1995 to 2000, Republicans control 2-of-3, i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives
U.S. Trade Deficit in 1995 = $ 96.4 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit in 2000 = $376.7 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit INCREASES by 291% when Republicans control 2-of-3.

2001 to 2006, Republicans control 3-of-3, i.e., the White House (Bush # 2), the Senate, and the House of Representatives.
U.S. Trade Deficit in 2001 = $361.8 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit in 2006 = $753.3 billion

U.S. Trade Deficit INCREASES by 108% when Republicans control 3-of-3.

2007 to 2010, Democrats control 3-of-3…

U.S. Trade Deficit in 2007 = $696.7 billion

U.S. Trade Deficit in 2010 = $500.0 billion
U.S. Trade Deficit REDUCES by 28% when Democrats control 3-of-3.

So there you have it . . . the force of facts, not the fiction of FOX.

In an ideal world, the former would conquer the latter. But this is not an ideal world, and facts, no matter how powerful they are, suffer from a stubborn malady: they simply aren't nearly as entertaining as fiction.

More's the pity . . .

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Mt. Rushmore After Dark

 (The following "conversation" is only partly a product of my imagination; all of the italicized lines represent actual quotes from the four men looking out from Mt. Rushmore . . . )

T. Roosevelt: "Psst . . . Mr. Lincoln . . . Are you awake? In the mood for a chat? I've got a horrific case of insomnia and just know that I'm going to be up all night. I've got a lot on my mind, and can't stand just being idle . . . must do something to wile away the night."

A. Lincoln: "Yes, Mr. Roosevelt, I am also awake, and also have a lot on my mind. I'm always up for a good jawing.  As the saying goes, 'I like talking with a man who likes to talk.'  So, on what topics shall we speak this beautiful moonlit night? And by the way, after all these years, isn't it about time you started calling me 'Abe?'"

T. Roosevelt: "Thanks . . . Abe. And likewise, please call me Teddy . . . it's much more friendly-sounding than 'Theodore.' Now, as to what's on my mind . . . well, to be quite blunt, it's the state of politics . . . indeed, the very direction of these United States.  And when I say 'politics,' I mean not to refer just to the Democrats or our fellow Republicans, although I must say -- and in this I  suspect you shall concur -- it is not at all the party we belonged to and led in our day.  It seems to me we used to be so much more concerned with people than with power . . . with speaking to the point rather than obfuscating the issue. I mean today, a typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues."

A. Lincoln: "Ah, you've noticed that too, have you?  Yes indeed, this current crop of Republicans -- and many Democrats -- when you get down to it, are seemingly incapable of addressing real issues with anything approaching sincerity or conviction.  Or of even speaking the truth.  Nonetheless, I am a firm believer in the people.  If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis.  The great point is to bring them the real facts.  And as for our party -- of which I am proud to have been its first standard-bearer, I remember us being for both the man and the dollar, but in the case of conflict, the man before the dollar.  I am greatly saddened to conclude that this is no longer the case.  These capitalists generally act harmoniously to fleece the people, and our partisans are either totally blind to the fact at best, or in full  agreement at worst."

T. Jefferson: "Excuse me gentlemen: mind if an old Virginian joins in the conversation? I couldn't help but overhearing what you are talking about, and am likewise quite exorcised by the craven mindlessness of our republic's leaders.  Seems to me that your party has been hijacked by a faction whose fuel is anger and fear . . . leavened with a rather large dose of sectarian apocalypticism."

T. Roosevelt: "Ah President Jefferson!  How wonderful having you and your felicitous phraseology enter our conversation . . . hope our chattering did not awaken you."

T. Jefferson: "No, not at all.  You may remember that in life, I rarely slept more than 3 hours at a stretch.  From the time I was a mere lad, I was always of the thought that too
much sleep would likely deprive me of too many experiences . . . In any event, I am  truly concerned about how little the nation's politicians or leaders actually lead or act; of how much they follow or react. And what's more, it seems to be a virtual mania these days to promote ignorance and denigrate knowledge.  If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects that which was never was . . . and never shall be.  Indeed, your party has definitely been taken over by a beast." 

A. Lincoln: "I certainly agree with you there Tom.  As I have often said, When you have an elephant by the hind legs and he's trying to run away, it's best to let him run away.  I think that before too long, our Republican leaders will wake up and see that the faction they nurtured and anointed is, if left unchecked, going to lead them into 40 years of wandering in the political wilderness.  I mean, this notion that by cutting taxes on the wealthiest 1% somehow the 99% will be better off is political alchemy;  I mean, how many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?  Four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg . . ."

T. Roosevelt: "With all due respect, President Jefferson . . . uh . . . Tom . . . As much as I do agree with you on the issue of political ignorance, I'm not so sure about your take on the religious aspect of the problem.  I mean after all, you've never been what might be called a 'believer.'"

T. Jefferson: "Ah, there you have it wrong, my dear Teddy!  As I once wrote my good friend, Dr. Rush, To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus Himself.  I am a Christian, in the only sense in which He wished any one to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to Himself every human excellence; and believing He never claimed any other." I have nothing against religion; it's just that I cannot fathom it playing such a seemingly crucial role in our national political discussion.  The truth is, the greatest enemies of the doctrines of Jesus are calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words.   Nonetheless I remain a thorough-going optimist.  A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolved, and the people recovering their true sight, restoring their government to its true principles . . ."

G. Washington: "Thomas: might your reference to "witches" be an illusion to that young woman from Delaware?  Seems to me that more than concerning ourselves with witches and warlocks hovering about the nation's political arena, we would do well to guard against the postitures of pretended patriotism." 

T. Jefferson: "How delightful having you join our conversation, Mr. President.  I certainly agree that I too am greatly bothered by those whose  patriotic fervor will not permit them to see -- or even consider -- the opinion of another without declaring it to be essentially treasonous.  These modern folks seem to have forgotten that every difference in opinion is not a difference in principle."

G. Washington: "Yes, Thomas.  There you have it right. I remember writing Mr. Hamilton, Differences in political opinions are as unavoidable as, to a certain point, they may perhaps be necessary; but it is exceedingly to be regretted that subjects cannot be discussed with temper on the one hand, or decisions submitted to without having the motives, which led to them, improperly implicated on the other; and this regret borders on chagrin when we find that men of abilities, zealous patriots, having the same general objects in view, and the same upright intentions to prosecute them, will not exercise more charity in deciding on the opinions and actions of one another. . ."

   T. Roosevelt: "Gentlemen: I regret to say that the dawn is breaking, and soon the tourists are going to be gathering and taking all those interminable photos and videos.  Perhaps it will be best for us to continue the conversation in the near future, for there is so very much to discuss.  Next time, perhaps we can get into the  corruption which pervades the entire political process.   Perhaps as we sign off, each of us can ante up a thought in anticipation of our next chat.  For me it would be, When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer "Present" or "Not guilty."  How about you Abe?"

A. Lincoln: "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and cause me to tremble for safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic destroyed."

T. Roosevelt: Tom?

T. Jefferson: "You and I have formerly seen warm debates and high political passions. But gentlemen of different politics would then speak to each other and separate the business of the Senate from that of society. It is not so now. Men who have been intimate all their lives, cross the streets to avoid meeting, and turn their heads another way, lest they should be obliged to touch their hats. This may do for young men with whom passion is enjoyment. But it is afflicting to peaceable minds. Tranquility is the old man's milk."

T. Roosevelt: "The final thought goes to you, General Washington, and then we shall bid adieu to this moonlit night . . ."

G. Washington: "Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder . . ."

T. Roosevelt: "And together, may we all say, Amen . . . "

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

The Hijacking of Israel

This past Thursday, what remains of the Republican presidential field made a visit to a gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition. By the end of the evening, it was hard to tell if the six assembled candidates -- Rep. Ron Paul was absent, having been "disinvited" -- were running for POTUS (President of the United States) or PMOI (Prime Minister of Israel). One after the other, the six sought to portray him/herself as the best, the strongest, the most stalwartly unflinching friend of Israel in the room, if not on the planet. Each in turn gave their tum-lev yisrael (Israeli bona fides) and sought to outdo each other in the actions they promised to take on their first day in the White House.

All that was missing were the stereotypical Israeli shorts, sandals and raful hat.

Senator Rick Santorum received a solid round of applause when he informed the crowd that he and his wife " . . . have been to Israel where we purchased one of those tiles that says 'pray for the peace of Jerusalem' and we have that in our kitchen right above our sink . . ."

Not to be outdone, Governor Rick Perry shared that he and his wife had repeatedly been to the "Holy Land," especially, ". . . the Western Wall, that most sacred symbol of . . . where Jewish pilgrims gather to pray today."

Then came Rep. Michele Bachmann's turn: "The day after I graduated from high school, I got on a plane and went to Israel where I worked on a kibbutz . . ."

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich said that "Within two hours of taking the oath of office, I'll move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem." Not to be outdone on this particular issue, Rep. Bachmann added "I've already raised the money privately for moving the embassy, and I'll recognize any future annexation of settlements by Israel."

   Governor Romney chastised the Obama Administration for "pushing an appeasement policy," pledged that as POTUS, he would make Israel his first foreign destination, and firmly pledged that "Iran's Ayatollahs will not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons on my watch." To listen to Bachmann, Santorum and Gingrich, it would seem that they are more than willing to take America into a war with Iran. While this might make for a good applause line in front of a partisan conservative crowd, it is in reality nothing more than campaign rhetoric. For once a president takes the oath of office, co* (he or she) no longer has the luxury of demagogic independence; now co* must deal with Congress, the Joints Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, DIA, FBI and a thousand-and-one other governmental entities . . . and reality.

  Comedy Central's Jon Stewart skewered the candidates for pandering to the Republican Jewish Coalition with his exceptional satiric sense:

 

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

 

   Jon Stewart aside, there is far more going on here than mere parodic humor. For what these Republican candidates are attempting is nothing short of the hijacking of Israel as a positive political plank. Not only are the Republicans aiming for Jewish votes and dollars; they are also seeking the votes of evangelical Christians who make up large portions of Republican primary voters in South Carolina and caucus-goers in Iowa. They are also wagering that by making themselves out to be "the best friend Israel ever had," and painting President Obama and the Democrats as "blame Israel firsters," they can pick up crucial votes in general election swing states like Pennsylvania and Florida. And, by keeping Jewish voters' hearts and minds riveted on Israel, they hope to keep them from paying too much attention to GOP positions on a whole host of other crucial issues like women's rights, job creation, immigration, the environment, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, tax breaks for the rich and the separation of church and state.

  In hijacking Israel, Republican strategists seem to have reached the cynical conclusion that for Jewish voters, Israel is the main -- if not the sole -- concern they have in determining who they will support for president; that somehow the so-called "pocket book issues" are of secondary or even tertiary importance.

  Here in Jewish voter-rich South Florida that strategy has, to an extent, been working. By repeatedly portraying themselves as more Hawkish than Moshe Dayan -- as opposed to President Obama, whom they portray as more than ready to "throw Israel under the bus" -- the Republicans have indeed been making some inroads.

   The other day, I was giving a lecture before a fairly large group of Jewish seniors. During the Q&A at the end of the lecture one elderly woman asked me "What do you think about President Obama when it comes to Israel?"

 "What do you think?" I asked her.

 "He's the worst president we've ever had. When it comes to Israel, he's on the side of the Palestinians. He wants Israel to go back to the pre-1967 borders . . . and, he's always apologizing for America to the Arabs."

   "Actually," I began in response, "President Obama never said he wanted to 'go back to the pre-1967 borders.' Rather, he said . . ."

  "That's not true," the woman interrupted. "He did say that!"

  "And where did you get that bit of misinformation?" I asked.

  "It's . . . it's just true!" the woman shouted.

  "And how many of you here this afternoon agree with our friend?" I asked.

  About a third of those in front of me raised their hands. I had my work cut out for me . . .

  "In reality," I said, President Obama called for using the pre-1967 borders with 'mutually agreed-upon swaps' as the basis for future negotiations. And in that, he was saying the same thing as Presidents Clinton, and George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu . . ."

  "That's not true," a man answered. "That's just not true. The Israelis hate Obama . . ."

  I then went through a brief laundry list of things this president and his administration have done for Israel:

• Sent Israel the largest-ever security package ($2.775 billion) in 2010.
• Surpassed the 2010 package with a $3 billion package in 2011.
• Repeatedly opposed unilateral efforts at a Palestinian state.
• Provided Israel with the most sophisticated missile defense system in the world.
• Vetoed the 2010 Security Council resolution criticizing Israel's construction of settlements,
• Ordered the largest-ever joint US-Israel military exercises in history, and
• Supported, along with 10 other nations, the Gaza Counter-Arms Smuggling Program.

  I also informed them that according to a poll released just this week by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, 54% of the Israeli public says they have a favorable view of President Obama, as opposed to just 41% a year ago.

   "That's not true," a woman responded.

   "OK," I said. "The hour's getting late and I have to be leaving. But before I go, let me ask you a question: If President Obama's so bad for Israel, who are you going to vote for? Are you going to be happy voting for someone who wants to privatize Social Security, cut Medicare, eliminate a woman's right to choose and erase the line separating church and state? Please, do yourselves a favor and think about it."

   Indeed, think about it . . .

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

There's Something About the Name

   For nearly a half-century, I have been slowly, surely, inexorably making my way through the entire Dickens literary corpus; all twenty novels, four short story collections, plus nine additional works of non-fiction, poetry and plays. Some, like Great Expectations, A Tale of Two Cities and David Copperfield, I have already read five or six times. Others, like Dombey and Sons, Little Dorrit and Our Mutual Friend, I have  read only once. I've yet to crack the cover of The Uncommercial Traveller, Mugby Junction or The Frozen Deep, Dickens one and only play. But I'll get to these any day now . . .

   Besides being hands down the greatest prose writer in the history of the English language, Charles Dickens was an activist who used his novels as vehicles for underscoring some of English society's most egregious wrongs. Along the way, he also managed to imbue hundreds upon hundreds of characters with the most delightfully whimsical and telling names.  Among my all-time favorites are:

• Serjeant Buzfuz, a barrister in The Pickwick Papers.
• Mr. M'Choakumchild, the nasty teacher in Hard Times.
• Thomas Gradgrind, a retired mill owner, also in Hard Times.
• Abel Magwitch, the convict who was Pip's benefactor in Great Expectations.
• Newman Noggs, the impoverished clerk in Nicholas Nickleby
• Seth Pecksniff, the architect who "never built anything" in Martin Chuzzlewit.
• Wackford Squeers, the proprietor of Dothboy's Hall in Nicholas Nickelby.
  
• Prince Turveydrop, the dance school proprietor in Bleak House, and
  
• Alfred and Sophronia Laemlle, the deluded society couple in Our Mutual Friend.
  

   You just don't run across such fantastic names in novels -- let alone everyday life -- anymore, and for one obvious reason: Charles Dickens has been dead for more than 140 years.

   But wait: What about Newton Leroy Gingrich?  Although the name was obviously not dreamed up by Dickens, it nonetheless does carry the onomatopoetic whimsicality for which "Boz" was famous.  And if the name Newton Gingrich is  purely Dickensian in sound, so too, in many ways is the man in reality.  Who but a Dickens character would come up with the idea of repealing child labor laws and making 9-year olds clean toilets in public schools, or resurrecting orphanages for the purpose of housing the children of welfare recipients? (It is somewhat ironic that the one fellow who is offering the loudest, most resounding defense of Gingrich these days has an even more Dickensian-sounding name and persona than he: Rush Limbaugh.) 

   Who but a creature of Dickens could be so pompously self-important or motivated by the all-mighty dollar? How about Hard Times' Josiah Bounderby and Martin Chuzzlewit's Tigg Montague?    Then there is the monumental hypocrisy of the man: Gingrich is the fellow who actually sought to convict President Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual dalliance with a White House intern at the precise moment that he -- Gingrich -- was cheating on his second wife with a junior member of his House office staff . . . who would become his third wife.  How reminiscent of Dickens' most hypocritical creation, Seth Pecksniff, whom Boz likened to ". . . a direction-post, which is always telling the way to a place, and never goes there." 

   Then too, Gingrich is the fellow, who when asked last month about precisely what advice he gave to Freddie Mac back in 2006-07 in his role as a "historian" that was worth more than $1.6 million, responded:

   "My advice as a historian, when they walked in and said to me, "We are now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that's what the government wants us to do," as I said to them at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible."

   And yet, in the best Pecksniffian tradition, in an April 2007, interview promoting the virtues of Freddie Mac, Gingrich said:

    "I think it is telling that there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining the GSE (Government-Sponsored Enterprise) model in housing. There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And I think it’s clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to home ownership and the housing finance system . . . . Millions of people have entered the middle class through building wealth in their homes, and there is a lot of evidence that home ownership contributes to stable families and communities. These are results I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as possible. So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself."

   In this, the former Speaker reminds one of Dickens' Professor Redlaw (The Haunted Man and the Ghost's Bargain), who, visited by a phantom on Christmas Eve, is given the "gift" of forgetting the past.  The gift turns out to be a curse as it is passed on to all those Redlaw touches.  For Gingrich, this would be nirvana -- if everyone he touched were to forget what he did or said in the past.  Fortunately, Professor Redlaw -- and his curse are pure fiction.  Oh that Newt were so.

   Newt Gingrich has been in the media crosshairs for so many decades that, as one pundit noted, " . . . even his baggage has baggage."  Most believe that his initial impetus for getting into the race was not becoming president, but rather extending the reach -- not to mention the profitability -- of "Gingrich, Inc."  Now that he is experiencing the phenomenon that goes variously by the name "Flavor-of-the-Moment," and "Anybody But Mitt," he is taking his candidacy seriously.  And that is why he is spewing even more "transformational ideas" than normal; it keeps him in the headlines.  Gingrich has just enough political smarts to know that in the event he actually manages to capture the Republican nomination, many of his current statements  are going to come back to bite him on the rear.  Statements like:

• "Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it’s illegal.”
• "I am much like Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, I'm such an unconventional political figure . . ."
• "I was not a presider, I was the leader . . . . I think Henry Clay's probably the only other speaker to have been a national leader and a speaker of the House simultaneously."

   Gingrich, like Dickens' most infamous candidate for political office -- Horatio Fizkin of Pickwick Papers fame -- is never going to be elected.  As the New Republic's Jonathan Bernstein notes, "He’s still the same candidate with all the same baggage. He’s still got his history of deviations from party orthodoxy on practically every issue, and the ethics violations, and the marital problems. He’s still the same guy who wound up not being trusted at all by those who worked with him when he was in office. And he’s still got a long history of just not being very popular with anyone outside of the most intense of intense partisans . . ."

    I would recommend that if Newt Gingrich -- who seems to believe that he is the equal of history's great men and women -- wants to do something truly transformational, he should memorize the fictional Sidney Carton's exit line from A Tale of Two Cities, and then simply fade away.

©2011 Kurt F. Stone