The K.F. Stone Weekly

Amendment 8: Beware of Creeps Bearing Gifts

    Nearly 3,200 years ago (1184 B.C.E., to be precise) the Greeks found themselves about to enter the second decade of a fruitless war against the city of Troy.  Fans of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Brad Pitt will recall that the Greeks had laid siege to Troy after Paris had spirited away Helen, the wife of the Spartan king Menelaus. Try as they may, the Greeks simply couldn't deal Troy that final punishing blow.  Year after year, the war dragged on -- sort of like the U.S. in Afghanistan. Finally, Odysseus, the Greek's go-to guy, hit upon a brilliant strategem which he believed would permit his troops to enter the city and bring the war to a close: a huge, hollow wooden horse containing a select force Odysseus' best soldiers.  Wheeling the gigantic horse to the gates of Troy, the Greeks then pretended to sail away. Thinking that Odysseus and his troops had given up, the Trojans pulled the horse into the city as a victory trophy.  Wrong! That night, the soldiers emerged from their equine sanctuary and threw  open the gates of the city for the rest of their comrades.  The rest is history; the Greeks quickly overtook Troy, thus ending the war.  In the Aenid, Virgil sums up the story thus:   timeo Danaos et dona ferentis -- namely "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts."

   And ever since, the term "Trojan Horse" has been a metaphor for any trick or stratagem that causes a target to invite a foe into a securely protected bastion or space.Like the folks of ancient Troy, we, the citizens of Florida have a Trojan Horse parked outside the gates of our once "securely protected bastion" 

Amendment 8

  For those in the dark, this Trojan Horse, which will be on the ballot this November 6, is a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment.  Its backers and supporters swear on a stack of Bibles that its passage is essential for the preservation of religious freedom here in the Sunshine State.  In matter of truth, it is a Trojan Horse, designed to do precisely the opposite.  Far from being a measure to preserve religious freedom, Amendment 8 is intended to enshrine state government funding of religious schools and organizations.  Its secondary purpose is to further weaken public schools by diverting more and more money to charter school -- read "religious school" -- vouchers.

     On the surface, the amendment's wording seems to be fairly straightforward:

   Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, governmental benefits, funding, or other support, except as required by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

  If passed, Amendment 8 would amend Article III Section I of the Florida State Constitution to read:

There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace, or safety. No individual or entity may be discriminated against or barred from receiving funding on the basis of religious identity or belief. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

   As benign as the wording may seem at first blush, it is, in truth, as dangerous as the Trojan Horse at the gates of Troy.  

   How so?

   According to Americans United For Separation of Church and State, The goal of Amendment 8 is to allow taxpayer money to flow to religious schools and houses of worship. Passage of the Amendment would strip the religious freedom protections currently enshrined in the Florida Constitution, thus allowing for direct funding of religious organizations that provide faith-based social services and opening the door to taxpayer funded vouchers for religious schools.

   This is not to say that the State of Florida has not heretofore funded faith-based organizations.  It certainly has. Florida has partnered with religiously affiliated organizations -- Catholic Charities, Jewish Federation, Lutheran Social Services -- to perform social service programs.  This is in keeping with a 2004 state court decision, Bush v. Holmes, which acknowledged that the state may fund nonprofit organizations that are affiliated with a religious order or organization. But, the current Constitution places safeguards on the partnership to guard religious organizations from government intrusion and to protect taxpayers from paying for or being subjected to government-funded proselytization. The proposed amendment would tear down the safeguards.

   Proponents of Amendment 8 claim that as currently written, the no-aid provisions of the Florida Constitution (as incorporated in 1885 and reenacted in 1968) reflect a late 19th-century bias against Catholics. This is both inaccurate and incredibly simplistic.  And, as Grandma Ann would have said, "You're really full of canal water!"  The no-aid provision in the Florida Constitution (as well as that of 37 other states) was based on the so-called "Blaine Amendment," an 1875 proposal which would deny federal aid to religious schools.  Although the amendment failed on a federal level, it was adopted by three-quarters of the states.  And while it is true that there was some Catholic animus behind the measure's failure in 1875, it did not emanate from James G. Blaine, the measure's eponym: he was the son of a Catholic mother. 

   The most dangerous aspect of Amendment 8 is that in providing aid for faith-based schools -- largely in the form of vouchers -- it will further gut public education.  In 1999 Florida became the first state to establish a statewide voucher system.  In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the program violated the state constitution. Nonetheless, charter schools -- which receive public funding but are not subject to the same standards as public schools -- continue to be sold as the answer to a failing public system. As has been shown in state after state, and in school district after school district, the more money taken out of public schools in the form of private- and charter-school vouchers, the worse it is for students.  Numerous studies have shown that charter school students do not "out perform" public school students on standardized tests.

   The voucher system, which passage of Amendment 8 would no doubt enhance, is part-and-parcel of the "privatize-privative-privatize" philosophy of so  many contemporary politicians.  

   In brief, Amendment 8 has as much to do with religious freedom as Odysseus' Trojan Horse had to do with surrender.

   May the citizens of Florida learn the lesson that the citizens of Troy learned nearly 3,200 year ago: Beware of creeps -- which rhymes with Greeks -- who come bearing gifts.

    AMENDMENT 8 MUST BE DEFEATED!

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

 

If a Tree Falls in the Forest . . .

   I would imagine that at one time or another, most of us have pondered that eternal question "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?  Hard as it may be to believe, that question has, over the years, attracted the attention of some pretty serious thinkers -- philosophers, physicists and garden-variety ponderers. 

   Jim Baggot, a well-respected British professor and author of, among other works, The Quantum Story: A History in Forty Moments, opined that "The answer depends on how we choose to interpret the use of the word ‘sound’. If by sound we mean compressions and rarefactions in the air which result from the physical disturbances caused by the falling tree and which propagate through the air with audio frequencies, then we might not hesitate to answer in the affirmative." 

   I guess some folks just can't resist the temptation to "complexify" where others would see the need to simplify.  In all fairness to professor Baggot, he is truly a marvelous writer and teacher; one endowed with sufficient genius to take things which are inherently complex and esoteric -- like quantum physics and the nature of reality -- and make them eminently understandable.  It takes a lot of brains to simplify that which is complex . . .

   On the opposite end of the spectrum are the folks who take things which are inherently simple and somehow make them seem as complex or esoteric as quantum physics.  From time to time, President Obama, I am sorry to say, falls into this category.

   Case in point, his recent use of the term social Darwinism.

   The other day, the president was speaking about the House Republican budget plan -- the one Governor Romney termed "marvelous."  The plan would save millionaires a minimum of $150,000 a year in taxes while gutting Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, transportation, child nutrition, college aid and almost everything else average and lower-income Americans depend on.  Where former Labor Secretary Robert Reich attacked the plan -- created by Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan -- in rather simple terms, calling it ". . . the most radical reverse-Robin Hood proposal propounded by any political party in modern America," the president took the "complexifier's" path, stating, "Disguised as deficit reduction . . . it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country.  It is thinly veiled social Darwinism."

   While what President Obama said hits the nail on the head -- the Ryan plan does smack of "social Darwinism" -- it is a statement which sadly, very few people will understand.  Case in point, the arch-conservative who just the other day demanded that I explain to her, "How in the hell can Obama accuse Governor Romney of being a Socialist?"  I tried to explain that "social Darwinism" has nothing to do with Socialism, and next to nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution -- which in any event, a huge number of Americans -- herself included -- don't subscribe to.

   Indeed, as correct and trenchant as his assessment of the Ryan Plan may be, President Obama really should avoid using a term like "social Darwinism," which few people have ever heard of.  "Social Darwinism" is a 19th concept that originates with sociologist William Graham Sumner.  Sumner (1840-1910), who taught social and political science at Yale for nearly 40 years, argued that laissez-faire economics is justified by the theories of Charles Darwin.  In numerous essays, he argued for near-absolute individual liberty and staunchly opposed all forms of business regulation, labor unions and public welfare.  Accused by his critics of being hard-hearted, Sumner wrote, "The sociologist is often asked if he wants to kill off certain classes of troublesome and bewildered persons. No such interference follows from any sound sociological doctrine, but it is allowed to infer, as to a great many persons and classes, that it would have been better for society and would have involved no pain to them, if they had never been born."  

   Sumner -- like modern day Republicans -- treated the market the way Darwinians treat natural selection — as the sole natural and correct mechanism for distributing rewards.  He saw the free market as a moral arbiter, not merely a tool for creating wealth.  This attitude was in perfect step with America's Calvinist tradition, which from the time of the Pilgrims understood wealth to be a tangible sign of Divine approval, and poverty an obvious sign of Divine rejection. Those who  received their college educations in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, likely learned about this from reading the late Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought.

   Greg Mankiw, one of Mitt Romney's key economic advisors put the Republican allegiance to social Darwinism (even if not specifically called that) rather starkly when he wrote, "People should get what they deserve. A person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions. Society permits him that higher income not just to incentivize him, as it does according to utilitarian theory, but because that income is rightfully his."

   As much as conservative writers like David Brooks, Geoffrey Norman and the above-referenced Greg Mankiw might disparage Barack Obama for "smearing" them with the term "social Darwinism," the president was speaking the truth.  Unfortunately, truth -- like the tree which falls in the forest without benefit of a set of ears -- may make a sound, but if it comes wrapped in words or phrases that the majority does not understand, can  be neither appreciated nor apprehended.  

  If I could give the president and his campaign advisors a bit of advice, it would be this: please, ladies and gentlemen, do a better, less complex job of explaining.  The fewer the syllables, the less the academic terminology -- regardless of how correct it is -- the greater the chance you have that the voting public will conclude that indeed, you know what you're talking about. 

   It's just that simple. 

  As simple as a tree falling in the forest.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

  

To Believe or Not to Believe

  For any blogger with a penchant for politics, the past several days have produced a veritable embarrassment of riches.  Consider than within less than 168 hours (a week), we have been learned that:

• Mitt Romney's wife drives two Cadillacs;
• That while the former Massachusetts governor does not follow NASCAR closely, he is "great friends" with several team owners;
• That Romney declared himself to be against the "Blunt Amendment" -- which would permit employers to opt out of certain kinds of health coverage for moral reasons -- then backtracked, claiming that he misunderstood the question and "of course" supported the measure.
• That John F. Kennedy's landmark 1960 speech on the separation of church and state made Rick Santorum want to vomit;
• hat the former Pennsylvania senator thinks President Obama is a "snob" for urging people to continue their education beyond high school.  (Santorum, it should be noted stayed in college long enough to earn a B.A., M.B.A. and J.D.)
• That Maryland Governor Martin O'Mally signed a gay marriage bill into law;
• That at almost the same moment, his next-door neighbor, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell was ruining his chances of ever becoming a GOP vice presidential candidate by getting ready to sign legislation mandating that  women seeking an abortion must first undergo an ultrasound. (The demand for an ultrasound represented a bit of backtracking; as originally written, the legislation would have required all women to undergo a transvaginal -- not an external ultrasound.

 And if all the above were not enough, there was the entire "turn-back-the-clock-at-least-50-years" argument over women, sex and contraception in which talking head Rush Limbaugh called Georgetown law student Sandra (he called her "Susan") Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" because of her belief that women should have access to birth control. The stridently woman-bashing Limbaugh declared that Ms. Fluke couldn't afford contraceptives because "she's having so much sex." (Sorry Rush, women don't take a pill every time they're about to enter into a conjugal act!  On the other hand, if you're speaking of men and condoms . . . well that's another story!) Limbaugh then made the leap from garden-variety idiot to drooling cretin when he added: 

 

   "So miss Fluke and the rest of you Feminazis, here's the deal.  If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it.  We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."  

   (As of 6:30 p.m. Saturday March 3, five of Limbaugh's on-air sponsors -- Sleep Number, the Sleep Train, Quicken Loans, Legal Zoom and Citrix have all pulled ads from his program, and several others are considering following their lead.  Also, it remains to be seen whether or not Ms. Fluke will pursue a defamation claim against Rush Limbaugh; there is, as I understand it, the question of whether her status as a "limited purpose public figure" insulates him from a suit.)

  Fellow conservative talker Michelle Malkin added her two cents, proclaiming "Young Sandra Fluke of Georgetown Law is not a 'slut.' She’s a moocher and a tool of the Nanny State. She’s a poster girl for the rabid Planned Parenthood lobby and its eugenics-inspired foremothers."  When asked what he thought about Limbaugh's tirade, Speaker John Boehner used the rather tepid word "inappropriate," then in the same breath criticized Democrats for "using the issue to raise funds . . ." 

  Newt Gingrich avoided criticizing Rush Limbaugh but was quick to attack President Obama, saying he acted “opportunistically” when he called the Georgetown Law student to express his disappointment in Limbaugh’s comments. “I think the president will opportunistically do anything he can,” Gingrich said. “I think the most important use of language in the last week has been the president’s apology to religious fanatics, and I want to stay focused on what the president has said, and I think what he said was inexcusable and is exactly the wrong policy at a time of life and death, and playing political games is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.” (If you can figure out what that means, you're a better man than I, Charlie Brown!)

  For his part, Rick Santorum, when asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer what he thought about Limbaugh's remarks, said: 

 

  Well, he's taking -- you know, he's being absurd. But that's, you know, an entertainer can be absurd. And -- and he's taking the absurd, you know, the absurd -- absurd, you know, sort of, you know, point of view here as to how -- how far do you go? And, look, I'm -- he's -- he's in a very different business than I am.

   I'm -- I'm -- I'm concerned about the public policy of this president imposing his values on the people -- on -- on -- on -- on people of faith who morally object to -- to the government telling them they have to do something which they believe is a grave moral wrong. And government should not be in the business of telling -- you know, when you talk about the separation of church and state, you hear it all the time."

  "Well, the -- the real separation of church and state in -- that -- that our founders believed in was that the state cannot tell people of faith what to do and run over their rights.  And that's what this president is doing right now.  (Again, what in the world is he talking about?)

   As a lifelong dyed-in-the-wool political junkie, I've been following the careers, positions and pronouncements of Romney (both George and Mitt), Gingrich, Santorum, Boehner and literally hundreds of other governors, senators, representatives, and presidential aspirants for years and years.  (Indeed, the first presidential campaign I followed was Eisenhower versus Stevenson back in 1956 when I was all of 7 years old; I even have a hazy recollection of the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings).  Over the years, I have observed politicians on both sides of the aisle whose positions are based on the consistency of principle -- progressives like William Proxmire, Tom Harkin and Paul Simon, moderates and conservatives such as Barry Goldwater, Warren Rudman and former Oklahoma Representative Mickey Edwards. These individuals -- to name a mere handful -- could be counted on to vote their conscience; they were all firmly grounded in a set of principles, and staked out consistent positions with intelligence and collegiality. And whether one agreed or disagreed with the positions they took, there was at least the comforting knowledge that their beliefs ran far deeper than mere political expedience.

    I have also paid close attention to the creatures of expedience; to the vast majority of politicians who over the course of a career -- or a single campaign -- can attach themselves to many different positions.   These are the men and women who seemingly don't, won't and can't make a pronouncement without first checking with their in-house pollster.  These are the politicians -- like Romney and Gingrich to name but two -- who don't seem to believe anything they say but will say anything that they believe will get them elected.

   So the question becomes: which is worse?  The politician or candidate who doesn't believe much of anything and will say just whatever it takes to get elected -- like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich -- or folks like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, who truely believe in returning to a world in which money was backed by gold, mothers stayed home and schooled their children, gays remained locked in a closet and Ward Cleaver was everyone's ideal father?  

   Then there's the special case of the shock-jocks, pseudo-journalists and other mass-media opinion shapers -- like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannaty, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and the rest, whose belief structure can be summed up in one word: RATINGS.

   To believe or not to believe . . . which is worse? 

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

An Essay With Something For Everyone to Dislike

   We begin with a handful of quotes on the subject of conservatives and conservatism:

• Alexis de Toqueville: “I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social
  

      Alexis de Tocqueville
  advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all.” 
• Mark Twain: “Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals.“
• Woodrow Wilson: "A conservative is someone who makes no changes and consults his grandmother when in doubt."
• William F. Buckley, Jr.: “A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling ‘Stop!’.”
• William E. Gladstone: “Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.”
• Barry Goldwater: “Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.”
• P.J. O'Rourke: “The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then get elected and prove it.”

 Now that we've got the conservative diastolic on the rise, let's move on to a handful of quotes about liberals and liberalism:

• Thomas Sowell: "Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face."
• Robert Frost: "A liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel."
• E.J. Dionne, Jr.: "Liberals and conservatives disagree over what are the most important sins. For conservatives, the sins that matter are personal irresponsibility, the flight from family life, sexual permissiveness, the failure of individuals to work hard. For liberals, the gravest sins are intolerance, a lack of generosity toward the needy, narrow-mindedness toward social and racial minorities.
• Charles Krauthammer: To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. 
• Ann Coulter: “Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.”
• Yevgeny Yevtushenko: "Why is it that right-wing bastards always stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity, while liberals fall out among themselves?"
• Lenny Bruce: "The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."

  The above should raise the liberal systolic by a few points. 

  Now on to a statement that should get both sides riled:

  If, God forbid, America ever becomes a second-rate nation, it will undoubtedly be because the cupidinous morons on the right have been aided and abetted by the weak-kneed cowards on the left.  You read me correctly: the conservatives are morons; the liberals are cowards.  The former is scientifically verifiable; the latter, anecdotally conjectural. 

   Last month, Gordon Hodson, a widely respected Professor of Psychology at Brock University in Ontario (Canada) published a long-awaited study in the journal Psychological Science.  Entitled Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes, Professor Hodson's controversial study compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people. Hodson and his colleagues came to the conclusion that " . . .  lower general intelligence in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and [that] this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology." In other words, as summarized by the Daily Mail's Rob Waugh, "Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views . . . . Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others . . . . People with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe."

   This by no means is meant to suggest that all conservatives are stupid.  Goodness knows, it certainly takes clever people to convince a fearful segment of the American public of such patent inanities as:

• Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
• Those who claim that climate change is man-made are elitist members of an eco-fascist-communist-anarchist conspiracy.
• A tax break for the 1% is the only hope for the 99%.
• Any regulation that claims to prevent big banks and corporations from exploiting us, is in reality, an assault on working man and woman.
• The federal deficit results largely from the greed of the poor.
• The President of the United States is waging a war on religion.

   Writing about the new conservatives in the online journal Truthout, former longtime GOP congressional staffer Mike Longren noted, To be sure, the [Republican] party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots . . . .  But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman . . . Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy."

   Not to be outdone, former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum (who coined the phrase "Axis of Evil") wrote in a recent New York article:

 Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama, whatever his policy errors, is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) the only place in the world where it doesn’t matter who your parents were or where you came from.

   Creating and selling (if not fully believing) this right-wing reality takes a lot of craftiness, if not downright intelligence; it also takes a trainload of cash and a cadre of folks who have no problem taking advantage of millions upon millions of what Lofgren calls "low-information voters."  What the likes of the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friese and the other right-wing billionaires (among those possessing the trainloads of cash) have discovered is that there is no pool too shallow in which millions cannot and will not drown.

   But beyond the creating, the funding and the selling of this "alternate knowledge," there is the cowardice and downright complaisance of America's liberals and progressives.  As Thomas Frank notes in his latest book, Pity the Billionaire much of the blame rests with liberals and progressives, who suffer from what he calls "terminal niceness."  As the Guardian's George Monbiot describes it, the Democrats, ". . . fail  to produce a coherent analysis of what has gone wrong and why, or . . . make an uncluttered case for social justice [and] regulation." Instead, he argues, they "triangulate and accommodate, hesitate and prevaricate." 

   Indeed, the conceptual stupidities of conservatism are more than matched by the strategic stupidities of liberalism.  If ever the American political system is to right itself, the Right will have to stop feeding caustic misinformation to a haunted, fearful, low-information public, and the Left will have to overcome its reticence and shout     STOP!   

  Enough of this even-handedness!  Let us end with one last quote . . . from John Stewart Mill:

“Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Lies to Live By

The study of history can be both instructive and curious; instructive in how it illuminates the progress of man; curious in that often, the more one learns, the less one understands. Shining a light on the events -- not to mention the personalities and politics -- frequently tarnishes the patina of noble ingenuousness with which said historic ingredients have long been imbued. This is because history -- as instructive and curious as it is -- is also filled with myth, half-truths and outright lies. Or, as Mark Twain would have it, The history of our race, and each individual's experience, is sown thick with evidences that a truth is not hard to kill, and that a lie told well is immortal.

History, of course, has its quaint myths: Every Jewish child knows that the "miracle" of Hanukah is a cruse of oil that lasted for eight days. (In fact, the real miracle is that a group of farmers, shopkeepers, artisans and scholars went to war for an idea and
actually defeated a professional army.) It used to be that every American school child knew the story about the young George Washington who, after being confronted by his father about the chopping down of a cherry tree famously proclaimed, "I cannot tell a lie . . ." (This engaging little tale was actually invented by Parson Mason Locke Weems in his biography of the great man, written shortly after his death.)

History can also be numbingly repetitive; when Congress gave President Lyndon Johnson a blank check for war in Vietnam, it was based on a lie ("The Maddox and Turner Joy were fired on by North Vietnamese torpedo boats!") -- and Johnson knew it; when President George W. Bush beat a mendacious drum for war in Iraq it was based on a lie ("Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!"), and he knew it. In so lying, both men were -- perhaps unknowingly -- following in the footsteps of Cato the Elder who purposefully misrepresented the Carthaginian threat to Rome (Carthago delenda est -- "Carthage must be destroyed!"), thus precipitating the Third Punic War. Moreover, Rome's utter destruction of Carthage, gave rise to one of history's most dubious -- yet durable -- claims: that Rome, seeking to ensure that Carthage would never rise again, sowed the fields with salt so that nothing would ever grow there again. (n.b. This is highly dubious; salt was an expensive commodity in the ancient world. The amount needed to permanently destroy the fertility of the soil would have been so enormous that the supposed benefit would not have been worth the financial cost.)

Myths and lies have a long history in American politics. Now, before any of our more conservative readers say, "Oh, he's at it again . . . he's going to go after the Republicans and give the Democrats a free pass . . ." let me assure you that in politics all sides, all parties lie. Federalists, Whigs, Republicans, Democrats, Tea Partiers, Libertarians, Socialists, Flat-Earthers . . . It goes with the turf. Then again, this is a progressive blog, so if it appears than we're going after one party more than another well, that too goes with the turf . . .

Moving from the realm of Cato, Carthage and conspiracy to the present day, we present several lies currently being promulgated; lies we sincerely hope will not become a part of history:'

• The salvation of the American economy lies in lowering taxes on corporations and the rich, cutting middle-class entitlements, deregulation, extreme deficit reduction and a balanced budget. This mantra, sung by virtually every Republican in America is, to be diplomatic, a gross mistruth. The economic quagmire known as "The Great Recession" was far more the result of the deregulation of banks and tax cuts for the rich than entitlements for the middle-class. And while it is certainly true that deficits and debt do matter -- and must ultimately be addressed in a serious, purposive manner -- clamoring for draconian cuts in the midst of an economic downturn isn't mere fiscal imprudence; it betrays an utter disconnect. For too long, we've heard that placing ever greater wealth in the hands of corporations and the already wealthy will ultimately benefit everyone -- that "a rising tide raises all boats." This, of course, presumes that everyone has a boat . . .
• No one has ever died because they didn't have health care: This maddening mistruth came from the mouth of Republican "flavor-of-the-month" Rick Santorum, during a Q&A session with students at a small Christian college in Iowa this past December 5. A student asked the former Pennsylvania senator about health care and the Christian responsibility of caring for the poor. The student said "I don't think God appreciates the fact that we have 50 to 100,000 uninsured Americans dying due to a lack of health care every year," citing a 2009 study out of Harvard University. “Dying?” Santorum answered. "I reject that number completely . . . that people die in America because of lack of health insurance. People die in America because people die in America." Actually, according to the Harvard study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, if you take two Americans who are physically identical – same age, same gender, same race, same weight, same smoking history – and one of them has health insurance and one does not, then the one without health insurance is 40% more likely to die each year.
• States need to pass laws to ensure against voter fraud: Of late, an increasing number of states -- all of which have Republican governors and Republican-majority legislatures -- have been introducing and passing legislation cutting back on early voting, changing rules for presenting absentee ballots and requiring voters to present state-issued i.ds in order to vote. Their argument is that all of these moves are necessary in order to "protect the sanctity of the ballot from unscrupulous voters." And yet, according to a recent study by the Brennan Center for Justice has shown that instances of voter fraud in America are extraordinarily, unbelievably rare. Ohio, as an example, has documented four instances of voter fraud (out of more than 9 million ballots cast) in the last two presidential election cycles. Kansas, where the secretary of state pressed the legislature to pass a draconian i.d. law, admitted that his office could only document 221 cases of voter fraud since 1997. The real purpose behind all this is to make it far more difficult for certain groups -- students, ethnic minorities and the elderly -- to vote. Not surprisingly, all three of these groups have a greater tendency to vote Democratic than Republican. This is a naked attempt on the part of Republicans to create a "cure" for a problem that does not exist. One has a greater chance of being hit by lightening or winning the lottery than engaging in an act of voter fraud.

This is by no means meant to be an exhaustive list of "lies to live by." We could easily have included such canards as "President Obama wants to turn America into a European Social Welfare state," or "The mainstream media is run by liberals for liberals," or "Corporations are people," or "There is no such thing as man-made global warming," or "Ronald Reagan never raised taxes . . ."

The truth of the matter is that from Cato to Cantor, and from Maccabees to McConnell, lies abound.

Which makes history both instructive . . . and curious.

©2012 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

With Apologies to Boz

   Permit me to badly paraphrase Charles Dickens: "It was the best of weeks, it was the weirdest of weeks, it was a time of fascinating possibilities, it was a time of unfathomable lunacy . . ."

   First, that which was "best" and carried with it "fascinating possibilities":

• After more than five years as a prisoner of Hamas, Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was finally set free, in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian criminals, -- many of them terrorists and mass murderers serving life sentences in Israeli prisons.  And despite the extraordinary one-sidedness of the prisoner exchange, nearly 80% of the Israeli public stood behind the Egyptian-brokered deal.  For more than five years, Shalit name, face and plight has been kept alive on a daily basis -- not only in Israel, but in synagogues and non-Jewish houses of worship around the world.  Many have questioned what Israel truly gains by securing the freedom of one soldier in exchange for more than one thousand terrorists -- many of whom have pledged themselves to future acts of violence?  Although this is a question without a simple, straightforward answer, Israel's actions are not at all surprising.  There exists within the great corpus of Jewish law (halacha), the principle known as pidyon sh'vuyim -- literally, "Redemption of Captives."  Indeed, the Talmud calls pidyon sh'vuyim a mitzvah rabah -- literally, "a great commandment."  In Jewish law, captivity is viewed as being even worse than starvation and death; hence the command to redeem all captives. Might this lopsided prisoner exchange signal a change in relations between Palestinians and the Jewish State?  Likely not, for Hamas still has the utter destruction of both Israel and the Jewish people as the central focus of their charter.  Nonetheless, its great that Gilad Shalit is back home . . .
• This week saw yet another of the world's most disgusting, psychopathic despots come to a violent end: Libyan dictator Moammar Kadhafi.  Few -- if any -- mourn his passing.  President Obama proclaimed that "The dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted."  UN General Secretary Ban ki-Moon said that Kadhafi's death "marks an historic change" and warned that the "road ahead for Libya and its people will be filled with challenges." Alone among world leaders, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called Kadhafi's death "an outrage," saying that the ousted Libyan mass murderer would be remembered "our whole lives as a great fighter, a revolutionary and a martyr." (Thereby proving that psychopaths are different from you and me . . .) What will become of Libya now that Kadhafi is dead is anyone's guess.  In any event, his death is a definite step forward for a people, a country long imprisoned.
  
• Lastly, just this past Friday President Obama announced that the 40,000 American troops remaining in Iraq will be "home for the holidays," thus fulfilling a campaign promise and acceding to the reality of a depleted treasury and overwhelming public opinion. In more than eight years, the war has cost a minimum of $1 trillion, and brought 4,400 American and more than 100,000 Iraqi deaths.) Predictably, the announcement has met with broad support within Democratic circles, and derisive commentary on the part of the G.O.P. (Mitt Romney: "President Obama's astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women.") And while American forces leave behind what one journalist called "a stumbling democracy, still beset by sectarian violence and tilting closer to its neighbor Iran," it is a likely sign that the Obama Administration has finally learned an important lesson: that if the U.S. is to transform the Middle East, it cannot be done through military might.  Better to bring the troops home and begin to work on solving crises here at home.

   Next, that which was "weird" and suffused with "unfathomable lunacy":

• During the most recent Republican presidential debate Texas Governor attacked former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for once knowingly hiring a landscape firm that hired illegal immigrants.  "The idea that you stand here before us and talk about that you're strong on immigration is, on its face, the height of hypocrisy," Perry scolded, wagging a finger at the erstwhile Republican frontrunner.  "What's so weird about that?" one might well ask.  Two things: first, this precise issue was raised again and again when Romney ran for the Republican nomination in 2008; second, when America's unemployment rate is above 9%, whether or not Romney had an illegal pulling weeds in his backyard isn't terribly on point.  The plain fact is that most Americans who employ gardeners or landscaping services, go to the car wash, hire roofers to make repairs, or eat California-grown lettuce are benefitting from the labor of illegal aliens.
  
• Just hours after he stood next to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and accused Pakistan of harboring the enemies of his government, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said his country would support Pakistan if it ever went to war with the United States.  This is the very definition of weird.  In making this bizarre statement, it's almost as if Mr. Karzai were unaware that without the the United States -- and other Western allies -- he wouldn't be President of Afghanistan.  He seems to have conveniently forgotten just who has been shoring up his administration with tens upon tens of billions of dollars and military support over the past decade. 
  
• But the prize for unfathomable lunacy goes to Florida Governor Rick Scott, who has seen fit to post the salaries of tens of thousands university professors online.  This move comes on the very eve of his going to the legislature and pushing substantial higher education reforms.  Having already dramatically shortchanged public in favor of charter schools, eliminating tenure for K-12 teachers and basing their salaries on how well students perform on an as-yet-to-be revamped standardized test, the nation's least popular governor is now going after university professors -- whom he wants voters to believe are vastly overpaid and thus, represent a serious roadblock on Florida's highway to economic recovery. In defending the governor's move, his spokesman said "it's just part of [his] effort to enhance the transparency of state government."  At the same time, Scott has expressed interest in ending university tenure and "weeding out unproductive professors."  (Note: as a longtime adjunct professor at both Florida Atlantic University and Florida International University, I can tell you that many of my colleagues are funded primarily through outside grant dollars, and not through the state.)  Interestingly, while Scott has put the salaries of more than 50,000 professors out there for all to see, his office has yet -- despite repeated requests -- to release the names of companies that got taxpayer dollars over the past decade to create jobs that never materialized.  The head of Scott's Department of Economic Opportunity said requests for the names of six companies paid $38 million despite not creating a single job posed a "quandary" to him.  "The governor's office," he said, "doesn't want to embarrass them by releasing their names." Such unfathomable lunacy!
  

 Perhaps good old Boz was right:

"Vengeance and retribution take a long time; it is the rule!"

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Herman & Hillary: The Simple Solution vs. The Hard Truth

  During last week's Washington Post-Bloomberg Republican debate, former Godfather's Pizza CEOHerman Cain unveiled 9-9-9 -- his utterly simple (and utterly simplistic) solution to curing the nation's economic woes.  Based on the notion that America's Byzantine tax code must be overhauled, if not totally scrapped, Cain's 9-9-9 -- which both political and economic cognoscenti have proclaimed "Dead On Arrival" -- would eventually repeal and temporarily replace said code with:

• A 9% tax on income
• A 9% business transactions tax, and
• A 9% federal sales (AKA "flat") tax
  

   Regardless of whether or not 9-9-9 has legs, it has propelled Herman Cain to the top of the Republican presidential heap -- at least for now.  In a sense, he has become the newest "flavor-of-the-week."

   When asked the day after the debate who or what the genesis of 9-9-9 was, Cain (an ardent support of Steve Forbes and his flat tax proposal back in 2000) named Rich Lowrie of Cleveland, whom the charismatic candidate characterized as "my lead economist."  

   Not so fast, Mr. Cain.

  According to Mr. Lowrie's Linkedin profile he has a B.A. in accountancy from Case Western Reserve University, not economics. When questioned by the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler, Lowrie said he did not consider himself to be an economist.  In his piece on Cain's 9-9-9, Kessler wryly noted, "It almost sounds like something out of the movie 'Dave,' in which  the accidental president [Kevin Klein] enlists his accountant friend. Murray Blum [Charles Grodin], to help him figure out the federal budget." 

   According to Lowrie, Cain's 9-9-9 is " . . .  an attempt to shift the tax burden away from production and towards consumption to balance the load."  He explains that by "ripping out a whole bunch of taxes," prices of goods  will fall, U.S. exports will be more competitive  and business will thrive.  He also claims that once enacted, 9-9-9 will create 6 million new jobs as business becomes more competitive.

   Right.  And next year's World Series will pit the Houston Astros against the Minnesota Twins . . .

   As noted above, the vast majority of economists, business people and political pros have seen Cain's 9-9-9 for what it really is: an easily trumpeted campaign slogan masquerading as a serious solution to the nation's dire straits. To the extent that it is really little more than a campaign slogan, it has worked brilliantly; "Herman Cain" and "9-9-9" have been front page news for nearly a week. Tens of millions of people who are likely unaware of what a 9% national sales tax would mean to their pocketbooks say they support it.  

     It is yet another stunning example of how the press can turn its 500,000 megawatt spotlight on an amoeba, thereby making it appear to be a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

   The truth is, if ever instituted 9-9-9 would impose new taxes on easily more than half the American public, and, in essence, rob the seriously imperiled Peter to pay the already prosperous Paul.  It never ceases to amaze what supposedly serious candidates will do, say or propose in order to get noticed.  Don't people like Herman Cain understand that the restoration of America's economic health -- and with it our status in the world -- will require far, far more than "simple solutions" and pithy slogans?

   Apparently not.

   While the press has been busily turning Herman Cain and 9-9-9 into the latest and greatest symbol of national salvation, it has, sadly, given precious little coverage to a  hard truth presented by another person with the initials "H.C." -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  In a speech last Friday before the Economic Club of New York, Secretary Clinton said something of surpassing importance which by comparison, makes Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan even  more obviously simpleminded:

   "Today our foreign and economic relations remain indivisible.  Only now, our great challenge is not deterring any single military foe, but advancing our global leadership at a time when power is more often measured and exercised in economic terms."

    In other words, in today's world, economic power counts far more than military punch.

   This is a point that most world leaders have grasped since the end of the Cold War more than 20 years ago.  But it does not seem to have registered in Washington. As journalist Leslie Gelb wrote in a piece on Secretary Clinton's speech, "There in the home of the non-sequiteur, the inaccurate fact, the seven-second 'truth bite,' and the economics-challenged, the talk is about how much will be cut from the precious Pentagon budget over the next ten years."  The Pentagon budget is all the legislators on Capitol Hill and the media covering them know or understand about America's fiscal house of horrors.  Again, to quote Mr. Gelb, "For legislators, it's their political honey pot.  For foreign-policy experts, it's their way to show their toughness. For media, the planes and tanks are visual lollipops."

   Today, China is the first global power in history not to be a global military power.  Its military might is pretty much restricted to its own borders; its money travels everywhere.  Today, Brazil, India and Turkey top the list of emerging powers.  Why?  Not because any of them is a regional military superpower, but because they can carry what economists refer to as "market weight."  As Secretary Clinton put it in her speech to the Economic Club, "And everywhere I travel, I see countries gaining influence less because of the size of their armies than because of the growth of their economies. . ."

   In concluding her speech, Secretary Clinton noted, "A strong economy has been a quiet pillar of American power in the world.  It gives us the leverage we need to exert influence and advance our interests.  It gives other countries confidence in our leadership and a great stake in partnering with us."  

   Talk about delivering a hard truth!  In comparison to the trenchant message delivered by the Secretary of State, candidate Cain's 9-9-9 proposal has all the reality of a parlor silhouette; a shifting of tectonic plates as compared to a hiccup.  Although Clinton and Cain are ostensibly speaking on the same subject, they approach it from a position of bipolar temporality: -- Cain's righting the revenue stream for the sake of getting elected, vs. Clinton's rethinking the entire federal budget for the sake of America's future in the a radically changing world.  We've become so accustomed to simple solutions that do not and cannot work, even while turning a blind eye and deaf ear towards hard truths that we will ultimately have to face.  Simply stated, this cannot bode well for the future of our country.

   It's the difference between presenting a simple solution and propounding a hard truth.  Herman Cain has chosen the former; Hillary Clinton the latter. 

   The former, like junk food, looks and tastes great but ultimately contains little of nutritional value.

    The latter, like a diet of fruits, vegetables and plenty of water, may be less tasty and hard to get used to, but ultimately leads to a longer, stronger, and healthier life.      

 ©2011 Kurt F. Stone

From Telegraph to Twitter: A Ray of Hope at the New Year

   A little over a year ago -- just before the Jewish New Year -- I published a piece entitled With the New Year Comes Hope. In it, I discussed President Obama's push to get the Israelis and Palestinians to sit down and talk seriously with one another, the prospect for peace in the Middle East and the fact that at the time of a new year, there is always room for hope. 

   Well, here we are, more than a year later, and some things are a bit better, some a bit worse, but for the most part, things are pretty much the same: 

• Nothing came of the much-hyped direct talks between Abbas, Netanyahu and the Obama Administration;
  
• Despite pressure from both the American Administration, and members of his own government, Netanyahu refused to extend an embargo on new construction projects in disputed areas --  a major sticking point with the Palestinians;
• President Obama got himself into a firestorm of controversy when, in giving a speech at the Pentagon, he mentioned "pre-1967 borders" as an aspect of future negotiations;
• Hamas and Fatah -- heretofore the alpha and omega of Palestinian political factions -- affected a "reconciliation," agreeing to form an interim government; 
• Oppressive Arab regimes fell in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, while Syrians and Yeminis took to the streets with their demands, and Saudi King Abdullah proclaimed that women will have the right to vote beginning in 2015.
  
• Young Egyptians surrounded the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, thus necessitating the emergency evacuation of all Israeli diplomats -- with an able assist from the Obama Administration.
• Despite an official UN determination that the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza was both "legal" and "a legitimate security measure," the Turkish government expelled the Israeli Ambassador.  In announcing his government's actions, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said, "The time has come for Israel to pay for its stance that sees it above international  laws and disregards human conscience. The first and foremost result is that Israel is going to be devoid of Turky's friendship."
  
• The 2012 presidential campaign got underway in earnest, with virtually every Republican hopeful trying to sound like the second coming of Ze'ev Jabotinsky while simultaneously portraying Barack Obama as a Muslim appeaser who doesn't know the difference between a katyusha and a falafal;
• Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas went before the United Nations seeking statehood; President Obama flatly stated that the United States would veto any such resolution in the Security Council.  Despite what many saw as a brave and supportive stance, the president was once again pilloried -- even prior to making his speech -- for being both naive and an enemy of the Jewish State.

   Yes, it's been quite a year.

   In response to the Palestinian statehood proposal, the so-called "Middle East Quartet" (the U.S., the U.N., the European Union and Russia) strongly urged that Israel and the Palestinians resume peace talks with the goal of making a deal by the end of 2012.  Almost immediately, President Abbas said that while he would review the Middle East Quartet's idea for peace talks to start within a month, he is both firmly and irrevocably against any plan that does not require Israel to stop building settlements:  "We will not deal with any initiative that does not contain a halt to settlement or the '67 borders."

   Sound familiar?

   Who amongst us can remember the last time two or more sides agreed to sit down and seriously discuss the issues which divided them without first etching prior demands into case-hardened concrete? What sense does it make to say "I will gladly talk to you just so long as you give in to me before we begin our discussion?" Yes, I recognize that a lot of this is political posturing, plain and simple; throwing some raw meat to the base, so to speak.  And yet, we see this "agreement-must-precede-discussion" nonsense not only on the international stage, but in virtually every issue arising in Congress; in our local, state and national elections; in negotiations between management and labor; and certainly in most international disputes.  And what makes matters worse  -- regardless of whether the venue is Congress, the United Nations or the court of public opinion -- is that one side views the other -- and its attendant world view, opinions, and claims -- as being flat-out wrong . . . a mendacious evil to be denied at any and all costs.  

   It would appear that the further we progress -- if indeed, "progress" be the correct term -- the more our points of view are not, in fact, the products of education, experience, knowledge and contemplation, but rather believed to be matters of "divine revelation."  And that which is believed to have emanated from some historic mount -- whether it be Sinai, Gerizim, Gilboa, Nebo, Ararat or Jabal Musa -- or through the mouth of God's anointed prophet -- whoever he or she may be -- is, by definition,  sacred, immutable and beyond question.  In a world increasingly given over to fanaticism, is the inability to reach compromise or rapprochement -- let alone even consider it -- all that shocking?   

   In political economics, those who favor increased government spending are accused by those who insist on cutting taxes and regulations of being Socialists; those who wish nothing more than to wreck the capitalist system.  Conversely, those who insist that cutting government spending is the only way to save the American economy are tarred with the brush of heartless misanthropy; those who would steal the coal from Tiny Tim's Christmas stocking.

   Likewise with the Middle East: each side sees the other as being conscious agents of evil who are incapable of perceiving even an ounce of humanity in their enemy.  Both sides accuse the other of unspeakable crimes against humanity -- regardless of what the historic record may prove.  How can one even hope to reach settlement when both sides say "You are wrong, wrong, wrong!"  Truth to tell, there is plenty on the record to prove that over the years, Israel has gone the extra mile -- and more than once -- to accept Palestinian Statehood.  And yet, for many, that record is non existent, because it was "created" by an evil people for their own evil purposes. 

   Back in 1848-1849, Europe went through a period known to history variously as the Spring of Nations, Springtime of the Peoples  or the Year of Revolution.  From late February 1848 through early 1849, people's revolutions spread like wildfire from France to the German States, to the Austrian Empire, the Italian States, Denmark, and many other places.  In all more than 50 countries were affected.  And yet, despite the fact that many of the revolutions failed in the short-run, they did set the wheels in motion for a new Europe.  One of the unsung "fathers" of that continent-wide uprising was Samuel F.B. Morse, whose telegraph made it possible for people from Paris to Budapest and from Amsterdam to Warsaw, to be in contact with one another.  One thing they were able to learn -- for perhaps the first time in history -- was how very similar they were in their wants, their needs and their desires.  This knowledge, if nothing else, gave them hope.

   Fast forward to the Arab Spring of 2011.  It is possible that when the history of this era will one day be written, that the name of Christopher Isaac "Biz" Stone, the co-founder and Creative Director of Twitter will be writ large as one of the unsung "fathers" of that movement.  For just as Morse's telegraph made it possible for people throughout Europe to discover how much they had in common, Stone's social networking sites are providing Muslims and Jews, Arabs and Israelis, Socialists and Capitalists, an opportunity to go a bit beyond politics and get to know one another as human beings.

   If the new year brings renewed hope -- and I for one believe it does -- then perhaps this is where it will be at ... with young people breaking down the barriers raised by their elders and finally discovering that just beneath the surface, we are all pretty much the same . . .

   Here's to hope in 5772!

   ©2011 Kurt F. Stone

  

 

The Speech President Obama OUGHT TO Deliver This Week

   Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress and my fellow Americans:

   I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you, the American people and your elected representatives.  I come before you this evening, to speak plain words that tell  some pretty harsh truths; to, in a sense, take each and every one of us --  myself included -- out to the political woodshed for what might be called "corrective action."  I also mean to set forth a number of eminently doable proposals which deal directly with our great nation's number one challenge: creating jobs.

For far too long, the nation's unemployment rate has been right around 9%.  When I took the oath of office on January 20, 2009, the rate stood at 7.7%, which was a 14-year high.  That more than two-and-one-half years later the rate is even higher -- meaning that even more people are without jobs -- is a failure for which every one of us in this room here tonight must share the blame.  Every one of us  -- whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, Keynesian or Supply-Sider -- have failed in our primary economic mission; to put  more than 14 million unemployed Americans back to work and thus back on the road to economic recovery.

   Let us be honest: for the past few years America has been at an historic economic crossroads.  We no longer have an economy in which a single worker, working  but a single job can hope to earn enough to buy a home, raise a family and send children to college.  That used to be the goal -- if not the reality -- of the great American middle class.  The vast majority of all jobs that involve repitition -- i.e. factory line jobs -- have been exported, and likely never to return to our shores. Most of us are all too painfully aware of how much times have changed; those who are fortunate enough to be employed, do as best they can from paycheck-to-paycheck, use plastic to make up the difference, save next to nothing, and worry lest their job or jobs are about to be sent overseas.  And, at the same time, our roads, bridges and schools are grossly substandard, our children's classrooms are overcrowded, and we are privatizing everything from prisons to public health facilities.

    Without question, we have been presented with a challenge of historic proportion; to come together as one and repair a fractured economy, or to retreat to our various corners and hide behind the hedges of political rhetoric.

   For far too many of us in this historic chamber, the pointing  of fingers and scoring of political points has been a greater priority than job creation and the righting of our economic ship of state.  For far too many of us, we stare into the looming maw of economic doldrums and neither see the challenge nor hear the call.  Instead, for far too many of us -- Republican and Democrat, progressive and conservative, independent, Libertarian and Tea Partier -- we have chosen to hold America's destiny hostage to our political desire rather than to attack and affect a cure over that which is dragging us down as a nation.  America -- indeed, the entire world -- looks at the three-ring circus our political process has become and wonders "Whatever became of the United States of America, that light unto the nations?"

    Is it any wonder that we in this magificent chamber are held in such low esteem? Our Congress is divided into so many factions; we have Democrats who want a return to the days of FDR; Plutocrats who want to drag us back to the Gilded Age, and Theocrats who would appear to favor a return to the days of the Salem witch trials.  Instead of creating jobs -- which was the focus of our most recent election -- we have concentrated on anything but the creation of jobs.  Many of our newest Congressional colleagues highlighted their love of the Constitution in their campaigns -- as if their opponents did not.   It seems strange that for a group that evinces so much reverence for the Constitution, you spend so much time denigrating the very federal government that is the material expression of the principles embodied in that document.   

    We have recently come through a bruising battle which pitted the national debt against the debt ceiling -- a false dichotomy if ever there was one.  Yes, it is absolutely true that America is reeling under a staggering debt.  And yes, it is absolutely true that getting a handle on it is going to only come about through a combination of judicious spending cuts, enhanced revenues -- more taxes -- and an across-the-board program of shared national sacrifice.  And yet, because so many of you  on the Republican side of the aisle have a Manichaean view of the universe -- seeing a black-and-white world in which there is nothing but absolute good and absolute evil -- compromise is a virtual no-no.  In the recent debt ceiling debate many of you were willing to shut down the government and deal world financial markets a fatal blow rather than submit to even a penny's-worth of increased revenue.  This is no way to create jobs; this is no way to repair a fractured economy.

   Shame on us all!

   And so, what is it that I propose we all do about creating jobs and beginning to repair the economy?  

   First and foremost, I urge Congress to enact Representative Schakowsky's "Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act," a highly cost-effective plan to put over two million people to work over the next two years.  Rep. Schakowsky's plan calls for spending $100 billion to create

• 400,000 school construction and 250,000 maintenance jobs;
  
• 100,000 jobs for youths between the ages of 16 and 25 to staff a "Park Improvement Corps";
  
• 40,000 health care providers including physicians, nurses and physicians assistants to expand access in underserved rural and urban areas:
• 100,000 Child Care Corps jobs in early childhood and education through additional funding for Head Start.
• 750,000 Community Corps jobs which would provide needed work in our communities including housing rehab, weatherization, recycling and rural conservation.

   An alternative version of this proposal would have the federal government spend approximately $2.2 trillion over the next five years to upgrade our roads, highways, seaports, rail lines and bridges -- most of which have been ignored for more than a generation.  This alone could provide upwards of 2 million new jobs.

   Let's face it: with yields on 10-year treasury bonds at about 2%, borrowing costs are as low as they've ever been which makes this an opportune time to invest in the nation's infrastructure.  And for those who, predictably, are going to start moaning about "those tax-and-spend Democrats," and proclaiming that this is far too ambitious in a time of stark fiscal austerity, let me state a single economic fact: each dollar spent generates a minimum of $1.44 in economic output.  As a result, about half of the money we propose spending would come back to the government through increased tax revenue.

   I am neither as politically naive nor idealistic as to think that any proposal which involves increased spending -- or increased revenues -- is going to be met with open arms.  A majority of the members of the 112th Congress have proven themselves to be more concerned about placating their wealthy benefactors than in doing what is necessary to create as many jobs as quickly as possible. 

   Closing Planned Parenthood Centers does not create jobs. 

   Cutting funding for the Federal Aviation Administration does not create jobs.

   Closing national parks does not create jobs.

   Cutting spending alone does not create jobs.

   I would remind the American people that during the recent Debt Ceiling/Deficit debate, the White House offered up a $4 trillion deficit reduction package.  I would further  remind you that it was the Republicans, who have steadfastly beat the drum for reduced spending refused our offer because they could not abide as much as a one-tenth of one percent increase on tax rates for billionaires like the Walton family or the Koch brothers.  You may recall that in the end, Republicans finally settled on a deal that had far less deficit reduction -- and even less spending reduction -- than our offer.

   I ask this Congress and the voters who elect its members: what are we to do?  Are we going to continue expecting middle- and lower-income Americans to carry a disproportionate share of the economic burden?  Will we continue rewarding the hyper wealthy by extending their tax cuts while at the same time cutting back the social safety net which protects the most vulnerable?  Will we continue sitting idly by as our schools, highways and bridges crumble, our ability to train and educate the next generation of scientists and engineers wanes and more and more people lose jobs, homes and hope?

   The future is in the hands of the American public.  It is up to us to make demands, and ask questions of our elected representatives:

• Whose side are you on? The rich and powerful or the middle class?
• How can you justify a "No New Taxes Ever!!" position when smart economics demands a combination of spending cuts and additional revenue?
• Why do you persist in trying to cut Social Security and Medicare as if they are programs we really don't deserve?  The truth of the matter is that neither one is an "entitlement."  Rather, they are both "earned benefits" -- we all contribute to payroll taxes to fund them.
• Are you so very much against any and all tax increases -- especially in light of the fact that taxes are at an historic low -- that you would prefer seeing this country default on its financial obligations?  And lastly,
  
• What is the logic of holding office in a federal government you believe to be the cause -- and not even partly the solution -- to the nation's problems and challenges?
  

   These are the sorts of questions that all of us, as concerned citizens, must direct to our elected officials -- via phone, surface and email, and at town hall gatherings.  Make sure they know that unless and until they learn what it means to compromise -- to work together for the good of all and not just the good of their backers and benefactors -- that they will not, under any circumstances, be receiving your vote. 

   Period.

   The time for action is now -- not after the next election.  Our job as citizens is clear: to make sure our elected representatives do everything in their power to work together in order to put America back to work.

   I know we are up to the task, for this is the United States of America; a country filled  with people who have a long history of turning dreams into reality.

   Thank you. . . . And may God bless us even as we bless ourselves by once again making our dreams come true.

©2011 Kurt F. Stone