The K.F. Stone Weekly

Clackity Clack, Clackity Clack

 

Audio Link to "Clackity Clack Clackity Clack"

 

Back in the days when the Internet was little more than a glimmer in Leonard Kleinrock's fertile imagination, journalists received and retrieved information via teletype. These steely behemoths -- one for A.P., one for U.P.I. and if lucky, one for Reuters -- droned the steady,
comforting clackity clack without which no newsroom was complete -- or real.  The wire's omnipresent clackity clack, clackity clack, clackity clack provided a muted cadence; it was, in a sense, muzak for newshounds.  About the only time that clackity clack became aurally manifest was when it was replaced by the harsh clanging of an adrenalizing bell.  This meant that a story of great urgency was about to come over the wire . . . all hands on deck!  (The first time I heard that "urgent bell" it was to give a heads-up that singer Jim Croce had died in a plane crash; the second, to announce the kidnapping of Patty Hearst - both major stories.) In those days, a story of developing urgency was a bit of a rarity.  When the bell sounded, everyone was on high journalistic alert.

Fast forward to a time when there is no more clackity clack.  Although certainly neither voiceless nor mute, the Internet and other purveyors of information  have made it virtually impossible to distinguish between the mundane and the momentous.  If the Internet -- or cable -- had an urgent bell, it would be clanging twenty-four/seven.  The rarely-used adrenalizing klaxon of yesteryear has been replaced by a never-ending "headline crawler," which turns every cough into a catastrophe, every misstatement into a moment of truth.  Simply stated, in a world where everything screams "urgent," people become both cynical and desensitized to that which may truly be important; the line between chimerical and critical has become blurred beyond reason.

Case in point: the ongoing Congressional hearings into "getting at the truth about Benghazi." True to form, House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa is doing everything in his power to suggest that the Obama administration -- which of course includes former Secretary of State (and potential 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton) -- has been less than forthcoming about last September's terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate. (Many will recall an essay I published back in early January of 2011 entitled The Issa Man Cometh, in which I predicted that  left to his own devices, Issa would investigate the dickens out of the Obama Administration.) Arkansas Governor -- and current FOX commentator -- Mike Huckabee has publicly stated that the Benghazi situation is so heinous, so critical -- so urgent -- that the president "will not fill out his full term."  Kentucky Senator Rand Paul told an audience in Iowa that he thinks the Benghazi attack "precludes Hillary Clinton from ever holding office."  

Clackity clack, clackity clack.

Retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering (who received diplomatic appointments by Presidents Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush and Clinton) who, along with retired Admiral Mike Mullen chaired the Accountability and Review Board which looked into Benghazi, says that Issa's hearings have failed to uncover any new facts or failings. His testimony has basically been ignored. Also, he has been denied the opportunity to appear as a rebuttal witness.  Despite this, Issa and Senators Paul, McCain and Ayotte persist in talking up a Watergate-like cover-up.  

And you had better believe at least a half-dozen other committee chairs are going to institute hearings over recent news that some mid-level IRS people in the Cincinnati office targeted some Tea Party groups for scrutiny.  Apparently, people in that office were investigating whether any of the new tax-exempt organizations created by the Citizens United case were, in fact, thinly-veiled partisan political groups.  To be certain, the IRS isn't anyone's favorite federal agency; especially if you're a member of the Tea Party.  But now, even before all the facts are in and any high-level investigation has even begun, people are referring to "Obama's IRS" -- as if he knows everything every auditor in every office is doing, and actually gave the order to harrass Tea Party groups. 

The clackity clack of normal news has morphed into the urgent claxon if screaming headlines: 

IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT!

WORSE THAN WATERGATE!

OBAMA'S WATERLOO!

Mind you, this is by no means meant to minimize either the horror of Benghazi or the inherent boneheadedness of the IRS screw-up.  I agree with The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky: "Benghazi at the end of the day was a terrible tragedy in which mistakes, bad mistakes, were certainly made, and in which confusion and the CYA reflex led to some bad information going out to the public initially, but none of this remotely rises to the level of high crime. The IRS cock-up was just that, a mistake by a regional office."

What Issa and a majority of the Republican caucus are after is "proof" that President Obama is guilty of what the Constitution calls "high crimes and misdemeanors," and therefore susceptible to impeachment.  But what precisely are "high crimes and misdemeanors?"  Whatever Congress says they are . . . which makes the current of events all the more frightening. 

Has the president actually committed a crime or impeachable offense?  Of course not.  But hauntingly, in today's political environment, that little fact makes not a wit of difference.  Despite the various hearings, the ink and headlines, the urgent bells and angry posturing, public opinion has not turned against President Obama. According to a poll released by Pew just a couple of hours ago, less than 45% of those polled say they have "paid close attention" to Congressional hearings on Benghazi.  To be certain, the GOP could care less about polling figures; they are content to do their base's bidding, not America's. They are far more interested in politics than policy -- in hamstringing the president, putting a hex on Hillary Clinton and making damn sure that nothing gets done between now and 2016. 

How many times are we going to hear ". . . what did he/she know and when did he/she know it?" with regards to President Obama and Secretary Clinton?  How many times are we going to be subjected to the opinion that "Benghazi is far, far worse than Watergate?"  I daresay more times than we care to count. A witch hunt is a witch hunt no matter which side carries it out.  

Clackity clack, clackity clack . . .

 

©2013 Kurt F. Stone

 

One Man's Elitist is Another Man's Rube

Audio Link to One Man's Elitist is Another Man's Rube

Those who read -- or listened to -- last week's essay, Riddle Me a Riddle, might recall a brief reference to Texas Senator Ted Cruz, whom John McCain took to the verbal woodshed after the upper chamber's junior-most member wondered aloud if perhaps former Senator Chuck Hagel -- Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense -- had received cash considerations from Iran and North Korea.  Elsewhere in the essay, there was a reference to an unsubstantiated blurb in the online "Breitbart News" which pondered whether Hagel had received funding from a (nonexistent) group called "Friends of Hamas."  Readers will recall that we characterized both of these off-the-wall assertions as coming straight out of the "Joseph McCarthy playbook." In the week since this essay was posted, both threads in the Hagel controversy -- the one emanating from the lips of Ted Cruz, the other from the keyboards of Breitbart News -- have become major news stories for media outlets on both the left and the right. 

When Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of Breitbart News was asked whether he stood by his claim (which originated in a sarcastic, off-handed comment by the New York Daily News' Dan Friedman) that Hagel "may have received the financial backing of 'Friends of Hamas,'" Shapiro responded, "The story as reported is correct. Whether the information I was given by the source is correct I am not sure.” This bit of elliptical reasoning comes perilously close to the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc -- namely, "Since 'A' occurred prior to 'B,' if nothing else, blame 'B' on 'A.'  Essentially, what the right-wing is demanding is that Hagel prove that a scurrilous rumor -- which has been shown to be nothing more than a childish canard - isn't true.  Hmmm.  It's tantamount to answering the question "Have you stopped beating your spouse?"  No matter how you answer, you lose . . . 

Then there is the matter of Senator Cruz, whose understanding of innuendo is second-to-none: 

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Turns out, when we characterized the above nonsense as being right out of the McCarthy playbook, we were actually hitting a nail more squarely on the head than we realized.  According to a blog post by award-winning New Yorker writer Jane Mayer, Cruz, speaking in  2011 at a Fourth of July gathering of the Koch-funded "Americans for Prosperity"  accused the Harvard Law School of harboring a dozen Communists on its faculty  when he studied there back in the early 1990s.  In this speech, Cruz -- who regardless of what one thinks of his politics is a fabulous orator -- began by describing Barack Obama as "the most radical president ever to occupy the Oval Office."  He then went on to say that Obama "would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School.” The reason, said  Cruz, was that, “There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we  were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who  would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the  United States government.” When asked to respond to this outrageous charge,  Cruz's spokesperson actually said his boss was right; that Harvard Law School was "full of Communists when he was a student there."

Cruz's rationale for this McCarthyistic charge is that during the early 1990s, Harvard Law School did have many left-leaning professors who supported what they called "Critical Legal Studies," a method of critiquing the political impact of the  American legal system.  Admittedly, the Critical Legal Studies Movement was undergirded by a more than a hint of Marxist ideology -- but then too so is the Israeli Kibbutz movement.  When queried about Cruz's accusation, Harvard Law School Professor Charles Fried, a Republican who served as Ronald  Reagan’s Solicitor General from 1985 to 1989, and who subsequently taught Cruz  at the law school, suggested that his former student had his facts wrong.“I can  right offhand count four “out” Republicans (including myself) and I don’t know  how many closeted Republicans when Ted, who was my student and the editor on the  Harvard Law Review who helped me with my Supreme Court foreword, was a student  here.”

According to Jane Mayer, who was in attendance at Cruz's Fourth of July speech back in 2011, he had the crowd up on their feet, applauding, cheering and in obvious agreement with his assessment of the number of Marxists teaching at Harvard Law.  For those of us who do not attend Koch-funded gatherings or Tea Party rallies, it comes as a bit of shock to learn that there are so many heirs to Joseph McCarthy out there.  Senator Ted Cruz is certainly not alone.  Consider folks like Senator Rand Paul, Representative Michelle Bachmann, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former Representative Allen West; all have made use of the "I have in my hand a list . . ." strategy to score political points and scare the pants off their innocent, largely gullible admirers.   And indeed, there are millions of Americans who believe that McCarthy -- like Cruz, Palin and West -- was right; that indeed, there is "a large cadre of Marxists" (including, they believe, Barack Obama) working day and night to overthrow the government of the United States.  According to these true believers, the enemy is largely made up of elitists; effete, privileged, latte-sipping products of effete Ivy League Schools. 

But wait; isn't conservative Tea Party darling Ted Cruz a graduate of Princeton ('92) and Harvard Law ('95)?  What about other conservatives like:

• George W. Bush (A.B Yale '68, MBA Harvard, '75),
• Bobby Jindal (B.A. Brown, '91, M. Lit. Oxford, 1994),
• David Vitter (B.A Harvard '5\83, B.A. Oxford, '85) and
• Pat Toomey (B.A Harvard, '84)? 

Why do fellow conservatives consider them to be "just one of the guys," when people like:

• Barack Obama (B.A. Columbia, '83; J.D., Harvard, '91),
• Charles Schumer (B.A. Harvard '71, J.D. '74), 
• Alan Grayson (B.A. Harvard,  '78, J.D. '83, M.A. '83) and
• Michelle Obama, (B.A. Princeton, 1985, J.D. Harvard, 1988) 

are considered by the rubes of the right to be snotty elitists? It just doesn't make sense. Tea Party folks love to pillory progressives with elite educations for having been born with silver spoons in their mouths and golden slippers on their feet.  Truth to tell, Barack Obama's mother spent time receiving welfare; Chuck Schumer's father was an exterminator (bugs, that is); Michelle Obama's dad was a city water plant employee in Chicago, and Alan Grayson worked his way through Harvard cleaning toilets and working as a night watchman.  Elitists? I think not. 

It is reminiscent of early Hollywood where, they use to say, that the only difference between a millionaire movie star -- who was treated like a member of the aristocracy -- and his manservant, was that the latter was literate. 

Yes indeed, the way things are in modern civil society, one man's elitist is another man's rube.  

The only question is, which is which?

 

©2013 Kurt F. Stone

The Adults in the Room

 

Audio Link to The Adults in the Room

Over the past several days, Republican leaders in Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania have proposed legislation that would effectively alter the balance of power in presidential elections.  "How's that?" you may well ask.   "By changing how most electoral votes are allocated," that's how.  According to these proposals -- which are so closely identical in their wording as to likely to have been crafted by a single hand -- most electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of individual Congressional Districts rather than the winner of the state as a whole. Since Republicans plan to implement the proposal in states that are heavily gerrymandered to favor the GOP, the resulting maps would guarantee that Republican candidates would win a majority of each state’s electoral votes, even  if the Democratic candidate wins the state as a whole.

Had these laws been in effect in the 2012 election, Barack Obama would still have tallied 4,660,833 more votes than Mitt Romney. However according to the proposed scheme, instead of trouncing Romney by a margin of 332-206 in Electoral College,

 

Romney would have won the presidency by capturing 11 more electoral votes than Obama -- despite the president's having won the same number of popular votes and carrying the same number of states. 

This political abortion, one of history's most naked, most insidious power grabs, is but one more indication of how increasingly rapacious and tone-deaf the GOP  has become since the end of the Reagan years. For instead of recognizing that any hope they have of recapturing the glory days of yesteryear will require equal measures of rethinking and repositioning -- on issues ranging from defense and the social safety net to guns, abortion and immigration -- the GOP brain trust has instead concluded that the best way to win elections is to game the system and put on a heavier base-coat of political makeup.  The current scheme is even more bald-faced than last year's "enhanced-voter-i.d.-requirements-in-the-name-of-protecting-society-against-voter- fraud" scam. At least with the latter the GOP could claim (albeit fraudulently) a noble civic motive.  "After all," they could ask, "who amongst us favors voter fraud?"  In the case of former -- the proposed reapportioning of states' electoral votes -- there is no claim of enactment for the common good.  Their rational behind the proposed legislation is crystal clear: "If we cannot win elections based on the positions and principles  we bring on to the field, we will simply change the rules of the game . . . because we are in a position where we can get away with it."   

Although it is too early to tell whether  any of the proposals will become law this year, the idea -- outrageous and bald-faced though it may be -- has attracted some support on the national level.   Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus, elected to a new term this past Friday, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently that the change was something that Republicans in blue states "ought to be looking at." If these childish proposals truly represent the Republican strategy for success, they are indeed in serious trouble.   

 

Fortunately for GOP, there appears to be a few adults in the room.  Within the past 48 hours, such Republican heavyweights as Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and former Mississippi Governor (and RNC Chair) Haley Barbour have come out against any change in the way electoral votes are apportioned. MacDonnell's position is crucial; without his support, there is virtually no chance for any legislative enactment.  In Florida, Republican House Speaker Will Weatherford expressed opposition to changing the way the largest swing state allots electoral votes, which almost certainly dooms any chance that it will happen here in the Sunshine State.  The speaker told the Miami Herald that Republicans don't "need to change the rules of the game; I think we need to get better." Michigan Republican Governor Rick Snyder told the AP that he could "go either way" on changing the method for allocating his state's electoral votes but doesn't plan to push the idea -- thus putting a major roadblock in its path. 

 

A cynic would say that all this "adult activity" on the part of such players as  Barbour, MacDonnell or Snyder is due more to their reading of the political tea leaves (and desire to win the next election) than to some great epiphanic moment of moral clarity. I for one could less; even doing the right thing for the wrong reason results in a positive good here on terra firma.  I leave it to God to mete out rewards and punishments in the world beyond that are based  on underlying motive.  I mean, here in Florida, Governor Rick Scott has proposed giving the state's public school teachers a $2,500 bonus, and recently announced that he wants to expand  voting hour.  Now mind you, Scott is the fellow who pushed for -- and got -- one of the steepest cuts in education spending in Florida history, as well as signing into law a measure that curbed early voting in 2012. And by the way, he's up for reelection in 2014, and has a public approval rating slightly higher than that of Donald Trump.  Could his newfound generosity and civic concern based on something less honest than generosity or civic concern?  Yes indeed, but I for one don't care; $2,500 spends the same regardless of the underlying motive.  The trick is taking money, rejoicing in the expanded voting hours, saying thanks for both, and not being fooled .  .  .

 

The other day, John Boehner, speaking from notes likely provided by the folks at ALEC told members of the RIPON Society that "We're expecting here, over the next 22 months, to be the focus of this administration as they attempt to annihilate the Republican Party." The speaker said that as the GOP pursues an agenda of fiscal responsibility, tax reform and economic growth, "We're going to be doing it in an environment that is going to be far [more] hostile than anything that I think we've seen for a long, long time. And we're going to have to make some big decisions about how we as a party take on this challenge. Where's the ground that we fight on? Where's the ground that we retreat on?" 

 

Seems to me that if the GOP is really going to be in danger of annihilation, it will be because they are listening so hard to the ranting and railing of their deluded base, that they are incapable of making heads or tails of the more measured, more reasonable thoughts, words and suggestions of the adults in the room. 

Hey, here's a thought . . .  listen to the adults!

©2013 Kurt F. Stone 

What's in a Name?

 

Audio Link to What's in a Name

Question: What do French diplomat Jean Nicot (1530-1600), the French Controller General Etienne Silhouette (1709-1767) German Astronomer Franz Mesmer (1734-1815), French physician Joseph-Ignace Guillotin (1738-1814), British editor Thomas Bowdler (1754-1825) and Austrian novelist Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch (1836-1895) all have in common?

Answer: Their names have all been immortalized as either nouns (nicotine, silhouette and sado-masochist) or verbs (to mesmerize, to guillotine and to bowdlerize).  

English abounds in this sort of thing.  Think of all the eponymous verbs we use on a daily basis: To "sue," "mark," "pat," "jack," "rob," "hope," "pierce," "don," "grace" and "chuck" are but a few.  Then, there are all the brand names which have either taken on generic lives of their own -- Kleenex, Saran Wrap, Xerox (also used as a verb), Jacuzzi, Chapstick and Vaseline, to name but a few -- or have become generic verbs -- such as "to Photoshop" or "to Google." 

In the political realm there is the verb "to gerrymander," defined as "Manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to favor one party or class."  Etymologically, the term comes from Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814), the 5th Vice President of the United States and salamander.  Goodness knows there are millions who use the term without knowing who Gerry (pronounced with a hard "g") was.  Likewise, how many people know what it means "to Mirandize" a suspect without having the slightest idea who Ernesto Arturo Miranda actually was, or what Miranda v Arizona was all about?

And then there is "Borking," a term named after the recently deceased judge and legal scholar Robert Bork.  "To Bork" (a verb used with an object) means "Trying to block candidates for public office by systematically defaming or vilifying them.” The term
goes back to 1985, the year that President Ronald Reagan nominated Bork to the high court.  Many will recall that in nationally televised hearings, the Senate Judiciary Committee delved into Bork's judicial ideology, not just his legal qualifications or competence.  His past commentary on hot-button issues such as the Civil Rights Act ("While the ugliness of racism is clear, having the state coerce you into more righteous paths is a principal of unsurpassed ugliness. . ."), and the court's 1965 decision  establishing a constitution right to privacy, caused committee Democrats  - and Republican Senator Arlen Spector, to oppose his nomination with a heretofore unseen level of ferocity.  Led by then-Senator Joe Biden and the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Bork would be turned down by a roll call vote of 58-42 -- the most votes ever against a Supreme Court nominee.  Looking backward, the "Borking of Robert Bork" was a pyrrhic victory for which both the Democrats in specific and the American public in general have been paying reparations for more than a quarter century.

Prior to Robert Bork, Supreme Court nominees -- along with virtually anyone else a president might name -- were ratified by the Senate with both dispatch and dignity.  Ever since Robert Bork, presidential nominees -- and increasingly, not just for the bench -- have been subjected to intense scrutiny both in committee and before the cameras.  Since the beginning of the Obama Administration, tens of dozens of presidential nominees have never even received a hearing; their positions have gone unoccupied.  In 2012, "Borking" is far more than a verbal term; it is a vile technique; a technique whereby the wheels of government can be ground to a virtual halt in the name of ideological purity.

Whether practiced by Democrats or Republicans, Borking is both puerile and counter-productive; it has turned United States Senate -- once called "The world's greatest deliberative body" -- into a sandbox.  Until recently, senators gave sitting presidents tremendous leeway when it came to naming people to the Cabinet or federal bench.  Indeed, in all American history, only 21 nominees have been defeated or withdrawn.  That number will likely double within the next four years.

And if it does, it won't just be because of "Borking," for indeed, as of a few days ago, there is a newer, even more pernicious political gerund making its way to the front of the line: "Ricing" . . . as in U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.  What makes the latter far worse than the former is that that one need not even have received an official nomination for the process of "Ricing" -- of defamation and vilification -- to commence.  Remember, Senate Republicans began questioning whether Dr. Rice was qualified to become Secretary of State when she was nothing more than the purported front-runner -- not the nominee.  Slashing attacks on her suitability, her temperament, and her political judgment quickly became page-one headlines; so much so that she removed her name from consideration.

Who knows, maybe Ambassador Rice wouldn't have turned out to be the greatest Secretary of State since Thomas Jefferson or William Seward.  The fact that she was forced to withdraw her name from consideration means we will never know, and is yet another indication of just how partisan and spiteful the art of governance has become.  Believe it or not, no Secretary of State nominee has ever been defeated . . . and we've had some real doozies reigning at Foggy Bottom.  Senator John Kerry, who just became the president's official nominee for State, will likely avoid most of the traps and pitfalls set for Ambassador Rice and be confirmed.  It certainly helps that he has been a senator for more than a quarter-century, is well-known to those who will pass judgment on him, and has specialized in foreign policy. 

But "Ricing" continues.  Former Nebraska Senator -- and Vietnam War hero -- Chuck Hagel is being touted as the next Secretary of Defense.  He too is is getting "Riced" over statements he made in years past about what he called "The Jewish lobby," and the perception in some quarters that he is not sufficiently hawkish when it comes to Iran or Hamas.  (This may well be true, but it is always good to keep in mind that the Secretary of Defense does not set U.S. military policy; his -- or her -- responsibility is to carry out policy as set by the President of the United States.  And yet, the name, record and reputation of this non-nominee are also being Riced.)

Make no mistake about it: "Ricing," like "Borking" has as much -- if not more -- to do with partisan politics than with what's truly best for America.  It is yet one more indication of how much we have come to treat governance and leadership like some fantasy league blood sport.  

To paraphrase Juliet, "What's in a name? That which we call 'Ricing' by any other name would smell of defeat . . . "    

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

 

Sharia Law -- Bluegrass Style

Audio Link to Sharia Law -- Bluegrass Style

In the main, South Florida -- with the exception of the defeated and unlamented Rep. Alan West -- is a reasonably sane chunk of political real estate.  We can be counted on to provide reliable majorities for progressive Democrats and, for the most part, to shun extremists from either side of the aisle.  While geographically, the distance between Boca Raton to the state capital, Tallahassee, is just a hair under 450 miles, politically, it is measured in decades.  Here in Broward and Palm Beach we tend to be insulated -- if not isolated -- from much of the lunacy which affects our beloved Sunshine State -- and a goodly chunk of the nation as well.

As a result of our relative political equanimity, we tend to get blown away by some of the more incredulously "Talibanistic" things various legislators propose and occasionally even enact.  Less than 3 weeks ago, Florida voters were faced with no fewer than 11 proposed hard-right amendments to the state constitution.  These proposed amendments -- 8 of which the voters narrowly rejected -- would have done everything from allowing more state funding of religious schools and severely restricting abortion rights, to banning the required purchase of health insurance and the ouster of three Democrat-appointed Supreme Court justices.  Once voters began reading between the lines of these legislatively-drawn amendments, our isolation and insulation began to erode. Soon, revulsion set in.  And were it not for the fact that in order to be passed a constitutional amendment requires 60% of the vote, we could have been saddled with some pretty outlandish new laws.  

One thing this past election cycle pointed out -- in enormous 36-point font -- is that there are some really crazy people out there -- and not just in Florida.  We learned that there are people who have no problem giving voice to such inanities as:

• "Rape is God's will."
• "Legitimate rape does not lead to pregnancy."
  
• "Osama bin Laden is alive and well."
• "Hurricane Sandy proves that there is no such thing as global warming."
  
• "If he is reelected, President Obama will confiscate all guns," and
  
• "If he is elected, Alan Grayson will remove Bibles from people's homes."
  

Strikingly, few responsible Republican leaders -- including its titular head, Mitt Romney, chose to distance themselves from these remarks.  They likely felt that taking people like Todd Aiken, Richard Mourdock, Allen West or Todd Long to task would alienate voters on the right; something they were loathe to do. Well, it gives me endless joy to report that all those giving voice to these inane fables were defeated, and now must go out and find jobs in the real world.  There is hope for the future.

At the same time, there are still more crazy people doing crazy things than one might care to imagine. 

As of today, 49 out of 50 states (Vermont being the lone exception)  have submitted petitions to WhiteHouse.gov, calling on the president to allow states to secede from the United States, peacefully. Texas, which has attracted more than 116,000 signatures and is currently selling "SECEDE!" bumperstickers (one for $2.00/three for $5.00) is leading the charge.  Interestingly, Texas is one of seven states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming being the others) without a state income tax.  Let 'em secede; the first thing they'll have to do is institute a tax, which won't win them too many fiscal plaudits . . .

In addition to the secession nonsense, there is an unbelievable law on the books in Kentucky; one which is about as "Talibanistic" as you can get.  Enacted in 2006, this homeland security law actually requires the state's citizens to acknowledge the security provided by God Almighty -- or risk 12 months in prison. 

The law, which is the brainchild of 41st District Representative Tom Riner, states,

"The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God as set forth in the public speeches and proclamations of American Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln's historic March 30, 1863, presidential proclamation urging Americans to pray and fast during one of the most dangerous hours in American history, and the text of President John F. Kennedy's November 22, 1963, national security speech which concluded: "For as was written long ago: 'Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.'"

The law requires that plaques celebrating the power of the Almighty God be installed outside the state Homeland Security building-and carries a criminal penalty of up to 12 months in jail if one fails to comply. The plaque's inscription begins with the assertion, "The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God." Unbelievably, the Kentucky Supreme Court has refused to review its constitutionality, despite its clear and obvious violation of the First Amendment's separation of church and state.

Rep. Riner, who is an ordained Baptist minister, told Fox News that "The safety and security of the state cannot be achieved apart from recognizing our dependence upon God."

 

Also in 2006, Riner, who is a Democrat, had "In God We Trust" written in large letters above the daises of his state's House and Senate chambers.  He was also instrumental in passing a measure to erect a monument with the Ten Commandments in front of the State Capitol.  And he sponsored the legislation that permitted the Ten Commandments to be displayed in other public buildings, as long as they appeared with "other historical documents." Over the past several years, legal challenges to Riner-sponsored legislation have cost the state and various municipal agencies more than $160,000 in legal fees; they still owe more than $400,000 for a 2005 case (ACLU v McCreary County) in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in public buildings.

From what I understand, the Taliban also demand that people believe in their God . . . or else.  And while it is true that the punishment for not believing in God in the proper manner is much less harsh in the Bluegrass State then in, say, Afghanistan (a year in prison versus stoning), it is nonetheless suffused with the same noxious fume of theocratic intolerance.   I for one find it incredible that at the same time in which state after state is seeking to follow Kentucky's example and legislate "proper religiosity," there are more than 33 bills in 20 state legislatures (including those of Kentucky and Florida) debarring state courts from using Sharia or international law in making its decisions . . . as if there were any such problem.  To me, this is the living, breathing definition of inconsistency at best, damnable hypocrisy at worst.

What was that about secession . . .?

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Which is Worse?

 

Audio Link to Which is Worse

 

This past Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced that the nation's unemployment rate had dipped to 7.8% -- the first time it had gone below 8% in four years. In its report, the Labor Department announced that employers had added nearly 115,000 jobs in the previous month. Buoyed by the news, the New York Stock Exchange rose some 66 points, reaching a five-year high of 13,641; likewise, the S&P 500 reached its five-year high, closing up 8 points at 1,469. Meanwhile, the NASDAQ closed at 3,136.19, a twelve-year high. (By way of comparison on January 20, 2009, the day Barack Obama took the oath of office, the Dow Jones closed at 7,949; the S&P was at 805.22, and the NASDAQ 1,476.42 This past Friday's close represents -- respectively -- gains of 58.3% 54.8% and an astounding 112.4%.)

   Predictably, both the Obama White House and the Democratic National Committee were upbeat, seeing the BLS report as a sign that although there is obviously much more progress to be made, the nation's economy is moving in the right direction.  Again predictably, progressive economists and partisan pundits opined that the report would likely help compensate for what many saw as the president's lackluster performance at the first presidential debate.  The upbeat report, they suggested, might dampen whatever political bounce Romney acquired as a result of his debate performance. 

   (A sad side note: the fact that I -- along with just about every other pundit have used the term "performance" to describe last Wednesday's encounter between Obama and Romney, speaks volumes for how debased and unenlightening political discourse has become in this country.  Most pundits reviewed this so-called debate in the same manner that Janet Maslin or Richard Corliss would review the latest film; paying vastly more attention to mien than to message. Well, as the old Hollywood expression goes, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and for those who aren't even capable of teaching, they become critics . . .)

   Just as predictably, the Republican political establishment saw virtually nothing positive or redeeming in the latest jobs report.  Governor Romney issued a statement which said in part, "This is not what a real recovery looks like." To his credit, the former Massachusetts governor did not join the burgeoning conspirators' chorale,

                         Jack Welch

which accused both the White House and the Bureau of Labor Statistics of engaging in a pernicious conspiracy of numbers doctoring -- of issuing a phony report. Jack Welch, the former chief executive officer of General Electric breathed life into this latest conspiracy when he went on Twitter to accuse the president's team of lowering the unemployment rate to 7.8% for the sole purpose of giving him a boost. "Unbelievable jobs numbers . . . These Chicago guys will do anything . . . can’t debate so change numbers,” Welch Tweeted.  The formerly sober-sided Welch's charge was then picked up by, among others South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and Florida Representative Allen ("There are at least 80 card-carrying Communists in Congress") West.  Making the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows, Newt Gingrich opined that the American people are “losing respect for Washington” and simply don’t believe the economy is improving, no matter what a jobs report says. 

 

   That no self-respecting Republican has said anything positive or hopeful about the latest jobs figures is understandable; it is, after all, in the very nature of politics to only say good things about your own team.  However, to contend that these figures are nothing more than the product of a grossly unethical, immoral, and illegal conspiracy -- that's a horse of a different color.  For here, we are racing headlong around a surreal track of treachery -- the same track whose mile markers include among others, "Birtherism," "Death Panels," "Acorn," "Fast and Furious," "the Cloward-Piven Strategy," and, at one time, "Vince Foster."

   To be certain a segment of the American public has been uncovering -- and occasionally believing in -- pernicious conspiracies ever since the days of the Salem Witch Trials.  Many believed both the American Revolution and the War of 1812 to be a conspiracy promulgated by the either the Masons or Bavarian Illuminati (some thought they were one and the same); many believed that the Panic of 1837 was caused by a cabal of Irish Catholics who were digging a tunnel under the Atlantic in order to connect the Vatican to America's East Coast; early twentieth century foes of the Federal Reserve claimed that it was the brainchild of a none-too secret society made up of, among others, the Schiffs, Warbergs, Rothschilds and Rosenwalds.  Closer to our own time, there are people who firmly believe that the assassination of JFK, the lunar landing, the so-called "Philadelphia Experiment," the "Men in Black," and 9/11 are all part and parcel of far-flung government conspiracies. Why just the other day someone told me that Osama bin Laden is still alive and well and being paid by Barack Obama to keep a low profile!

   The truth of the matter is, pulling off a successful government conspiracy is next to impossible.  As in the case of last week's labor statistics, there are simply too many bureaucrats who -- in the words of G. Gordon Liddy" -- " . . . and incompetent and can't keep their mouths shut" in order for a conspiracy to succeed.  Moreover, the BLS is made up of perhaps the wonkiest, least partisan of all civil servants in the entire Federal Government.  There are hundreds of safeguards in place which make it virtually impossible to "cook" the figures.  Then too, if the Obama White House really wanted to make the jobs picture look better, they likely would have done it before, not after the first debate . . .

   Why do people believe in highly improbable conspiracies?  Part of it deals with what  Scientific American writer Michael Shermer calls paternicity (the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise) and agenticity (the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents). According to Shermer, "Conspiracy theories connect the dots of random events into meaningful patterns and then infuse those patterns with intentional agency."

   OK, so there will always be people who believe in conspiracies.  Or, as novelist Benjamin Disraeli wrote in a long-forgotten 1844 novel entitled Coningsby, "The world is governed by very different personages to what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."(As a side note, this quote would be used by the forger of the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion to "prove" the international Jewish conspiracy to enslave the world . . .)

   While perhaps we can understand -- if not completely forgive -- the petty and the paranoid for seeing the world through the lens of conspiracy, what about those who promote conspiracy for political or monetary profit?  To my way of thinking, they are traitors to reason, poisoners of the intellectual well. 

  I don't know if Allen West believes much of what he says -- that there are those 80 card-carrying Communists in Congress or that the president is enriching African Americans at the taxpayers expense. I would make a small wager that West doesn't believe much of what he says, but propounds these notions in order to garner greater name recognition and votes.  Then too, I don't know if Georgia Representative Dr. Paul Broun, M.D. really, truly believes that Evolution, the Big Bang Theory and Embryology are ". . . lies straight out of hell," or that the world, which he claims was created in six days, is no more than 9,000 years old.  Perhaps he does, and that certainly is his right -- as much as I find his positions to be first-class head-scratchers.

   In the end, the question is:

   Which is worse: To believe in things which are inherently at odds with the past 200 years of human progress and scientific discovery, or to say things you really don't believe in order to garner publicity and win votes?
 

   ©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Mitt Romney's Faustian Bargain

 

Audio Link to Romney's Faustian Bargain

 

The story is told of a feudal land baron who proffered a challenge to three of his  overseers: whichever one gave the best answer to three questions would have a job for life; the other two would be fired at the end of the month.  The baron's questions were:

1. What is the biggest thing in the world?
2. What is the fastest thing in the world?
3. What is the best thing in the world?

Two of the overseers received permission from the baron to go in on the same answers.  Being guileful sycophants, the pair quickly agreed that in order to win, their answers had to provide the maximum in flattery.  And so, they responded:

1. "The biggest thing in the world is the baron's heart."
2. "The fastest thing in the world is the baron's prize stallion."
3. "The best thing in the world is working for the baron."

The baron pondered their answers, frowned, and then said: "What kind of a simpleton do you take me for? I was looking for a bit of wisdom, not base flattery.  Pack your things and be off the estate by the end of the month."  Utterly deflated, the two slunk dejectedly out of the room.  

This left the third man, a rather simple and artless soul.  Fearful that he would lose his job -- and certain that he was nowhere near as smart as the other two -- he swallowed hard and stammered out his answer to the first question:

"The b-b-b-iggest th-th-thing in the world is . . . is . . .  the w-w-world itself." 

The baron smiled broadly and said but a single word:  "Brilliant!" 

And here we pause . . .

It follows that if the single biggest thing in the world is the world itself, then the single most important issue facing the planet is the planet itself . . . namely man-made global warming.  I sincerely doubt that any reader of the K.F. Stone Weekly considers global warming to be a hoax or seriously questions the science behind it.  The signs are both omnipresent and ominous: blistering heat, shorter winters, devastating crop losses, disappearing water sources, and rapidly shrinking polar ice caps to name but a few. Most of us understand that although history does record ages of greater and lesser terrestrial temperatures, this time, it is largely -- if not entirely -- our doing.  Our addiction to burning fossil fuels is the major culprit; each year the people of planet earth burn some 33.5 billion metric tons of CO2, of which slightly more than 55% (18.4 billion metric tons) goes into the atmosphere, thus depleting our all-important ozone layer.

Climatologists and policymakers warn that unless the United States and other industrialized nations move to rein in emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 2020, most aspects of life — from the food chain to the oceans to communicable disease — could be altered, largely for the worse. 

And yet, despite a welter of scientific and anecdotal evidence -- and innumerable well-conceived and doable steps we can take to deal with it -- there are still millions upon millions of people who consider global warming to be unproven at best, and some sort of liberal conspiratorial hoax at worst.

Among these -- if we are to take him at his word -- is Mitt Romney.  To my way of thinking, of all the Faustian bargains the former Massachusetts governor has had to make in order to capture his party's nomination (healthcare, abortion, gun control, immigration to name but a few), none is so dangerous -- or damnably, dumbly obvious -- as his new-found disbelief in science.  You know, there was a time not so terribly long ago when Romney -- like 99.9% of his Crimson (Harvard) classmates -- agreed with all the scientists who concluded that global warming was real, mostly man-made, and potentially catastrophic unless properly addressed.

Oh for the days when Romney thought and acted more like a college-educated adult and less like a loutish Luddite. When Romney was governor of Massachusetts, from 2003 to 2007, his staff included prominent environmentalists who developed a state climate action plan and a regional cap-and-trade system.

As recently as June 3, 2011, Romney said, “I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you’re seeing,”  Less than 5 months later (October 28, 2011), Romney was whistling a different tune.  Speaking at the Consol Energy Center (Consol is the largest producer of both natural gas and high-BTU coal in the Appalachian region), Romney said, "“My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.”

Romney is running on a platform which focuses heavily on expanding the supply of fossil fuels.  Romney's plan makes no mention of climate change and would end subsidies for cleaner sources of energy, such as wind and solar.  In places like Iowa, where close to 3,000 utility scale turbines employ more than 7,000 people, provide more than 25% of the state's electricity needs and has increased the assessed property valuation by $2.3 billion, Romney's plan would be more than a mere step back; it would be devastating.  Ironically, Romney initially unveiled this "no more wind power" energy plan in New Mexico, where he had to fight the wind as he showed flip charts of his policy.  Further, the Romney/Ryan plan would open up oil and gas development off the Atlantic Coast, as well as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And he proposed putting states in charge of regulating oil and gas development on federal lands.

In accepting his party's nomination, Romney actually turned global warming into a laugh-line, deriding President Obama for promising to heal the planet:

 

Landing the nomination caused Romney to make a Faustian Bargain with the likes of Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe.  Author of The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, Inhofe believes that " . . . only God can change the climate . . . " and told one interviewer, "The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." 

This is the kind of 19th-century thinking that Romney has had to accept in order to gain the nomination.  But what is a nomination worth if in the end you have so boxed yourself into a far-right corner as to be unelectable?  Especially when that corner requires you to knowingly place the future of the planet in jeopardy?

Now this is not to say that President Obama is thoroughly green and the best thing to environmentalism since Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold  or Roderick Nash. The Obama Administration has issued more oil leases than anyone might have imagined, and has wavered on the issue of off-shore drilling.  But at least everyone from the president on down is on the same page when it comes to global warming and the dire necessity of creating alternative sources of clean energy. And just this past August 28, the president announced a new set of fuel economy standards that will require car companies to average 54.5 mpg across their fleets by 2025. Romney, by the way, has already said that if elected, he will cancel this order. "Too many federal regulations," he argues. "They are job killers." When it comes to future-thinking ideas, Obama and the Democrats leave Romney and the Republicans in the hard baked dust.

Which brings us back to our tale . . .

Gaining confidence from the baron's response to his first answer, the simple soul continued:

"The fastest thing in the world is an idea . . . it just happens."

"And your answer to the third question?" the baron queried.

"From where I stand," the man replied, "the best thing in the world is a good night's sleep!"

Who can disagree?  When it comes to the biggest issue in the world -- the world itself -- good ideas put to work will help speed its repair, which in turn, should permit all of us a good night's sleep.

It sure beats making a deal with the devil . . .

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

A Note to the People of Minnesota's 6th Congressional District

 

Audio Link To the People of Minnesota's 6th CD

To the Good Folks of Woodbury, Blaine, Stillwater and St. Cloud:

   Although I am writing this note from South Florida, am a native Californian and  have probably spent less than 150 hours in the North Star State, your neighborhood -- the 6th Congressional District -- nonetheless plays a significant role in my family's history. The family matriarch, Anne Hyman Kagan, was born in your neck of the woods nearly 120 years ago. 1896 was a very good year for the 6th District, for in addition to grandma, F. Scott Fitzgerald was born a few weeks later in the very same neighborhood. 

   Grandma Anne, who bore an eerie resemblance to Helena Rubinstein was one of nature's naturals: funny, smart, successful, emancipated, artistic, imaginative, energetic and for her time, slightly bawdy. And, usual for her generation, she was a professional working woman for more than a half-century. One of my fondest memories of grandma took place at the Elm's Hotel in Excelsior Springs, Missouri, where she and Grandpa Doc summered every year -- and she would act as the unofficial director of whacky entertainment.  One night she staged a "Come as Your Favorite Fruit" party for all the hotel's guests; she came as a can of fruit cocktail.  Quintessential Anne . . .

  Grandma lived into her mid-to-late nineties and even today continues to exercise tremendous influence over her daughter (my mother Alice) her grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nieces, nephews and all those privileged to have known her.  She was one of those people who are absolutely unforgettable . . . a character who was imbued with character.  And although you folks never knew her -- she would spend most of her life in Chicago, Kansas City and Los Angeles -- you should be proud that she -- along with Scott Fitzgerald -- is your historic neighbor.

  Fast forward a bunch of decades to the year 2012.  Today, I guess your most famous neighbor would be someone who doesn't actually live in the 6th District: Representative Michele Bachmann. It goes without saying that most everyone in the United States -- if not the Western world -- is aware of Ms. Bachmann . . . and not necessarily for reasons that should make you proud.  From the first moment she burst on to the national political scene she, unlike Grandma Anne or Scott Fitzgerald, has been an utter embarrassment.  Bachmann, who unbelievably has only been in the House of Representatives for three terms (Yes, it does seem like an eternity) is best known for:

• Accusing Barack Obama of having "anti-American views";
• Alleging that "The Executive Director of Planned Parenthood in Illinois said they want to become the Lens Crafter of big abortion";
• Claiming that "There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists -- many of them holding Nobel Prizes -- who believe in Intelligent Design";
  
• Chairing the House Tea Party Caucus;
• Raising vast sums of money;
• Sponsoring the "Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act" -- her sole legislative effort;
  
• Questioning the patriotic bona fides of her Democratic colleagues;
• Declaring the U.S. Census to be unconstitutional;
  
• Flatly stating that greenhouse gasses are "good for the environment"; and
  
• Averring that homosexuality can be "cured" with psychological counseling.

  And, if all the above isn't embarrassing enough, Ms. Bachmann the person you have seen fit to represent your interests in Congress, now accuses Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief Aide, Huma Abedin -- among others -- of being complicit in a grand scheme to institute sharia law in America!  She, along with four of her Tea Party colleagues (GOP Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Thomas Rooney of Florida, and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia) has fired off letters to various Federal agencies demanding an inquiry.  And just yesterday -- despite ever increasing condemnations from her Republican colleagues -- Bachmann asserted on radio chatterbox Glenn Beck's program that Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN -- the first Muslim ever elected to Congress) "has a long record of being associated with the Muslim Brotherhood." Bachmann, of course, has yet to offer a shred of proof for any of these slanderous accusations, because she has no proof.  Once again, she has entered that grey conspiratorial empyrean so reminiscent of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy. 

   Tell me: is this really the person you want representing you and your interests in Congress?

    Uniquely, Bachmann's latest foray into Never Never Land has actually stiffened a few heretofore thixotropic conservative spines.  In the past several days, Republicans icons Ed Rollins (Bachmann's former campaign manager), Speaker John Boehner, and Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Marco Rubio -- among others -- have pilloried Bachmann, characterizing her charges as "dangerous," "sinister," "extreme," and " downright vicious."  To give Bachmann her due, she has performed one positive service: getting politicians from one end of the political spectrum to the other to finally agree on something . . . that the woman representing you in Congress sounds like an escapee from the Asylum of Charenton (although perhaps without the direction of the Marquis de Sade).

   Until recently, not a soul on the Republican side of the aisle had either the courage or desire to put Michele Bachmann in her place.  For despite her long and inglorious record of sounding like the village idiot, she was held in high esteem by her party's far right wing.  And, even more to the point, the GOP has always felt they needed her for the simple reason that she is one of their most prodigious fundraisers.  Consider that going in to her 2012 reelection against Democrat Jim Graves she has amassed a campaign war chest in excess of $15 million -- more than any member of the House save Speaker John Boehner, and easily enough to run a highly competitive senate race in most states.   Today things are different; where once Michele Bachmann seemed to be a leader with a future -- a female reincarnation of Paul Revere -- now she is looking more and more like the Lady Macbeth.

   Friends in the 6th District, you have a great alternative in Democrat Jim Graves.  He is a fellow who is truly the American Dream of Success. Through his "Graves Hospitality," he has created tens of thousands of jobs throughout your district.  And what is more, looking at how you've voted over the past half dozen years, you've never really been that much in love with Michelle Bachmann in the first place.  You may or may not recall that if it had not been for third party candidates in both 2006 and 2008, Bachmann would have lost; that in 2010, despite outspending her Democratic opponent nearly 3-to-1, she won by slightly less than 20,000 votes out of nearly 300,000 cast.  In other words, you've never really been that sold on her.  And this year, 2012, there is no third party candidate.

  And so, dear friends of Minnesota's 6th District, I urge you to come out en masse this November, and defeat Michele Bachmann. Put us out of her narrow-minded, fact-challenged, self-righteous, fear-laced misery. Goodness knows, you deserve far, far better.  The state will thank you; the nation will thank you, and goodness knows Grandma Anne will be beside herself with glee.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Buzz Windrip is Alive and Well

   Depending on what you watch, read or listen to, the Supreme Court's landmark 5-4 decision upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare is either an overwhelming victory for freedom that will be the salvation of tens of millions, or a staggering defeat for individual liberty which signals the beginning of the end for America. That the majority decision was written by Chief Justice Roberts comes as a shock; it was largely assumed that he would vote against the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

   Most -- though certainly not all -- Democrats are hailing the decision as a clear-cut victory for both President Obama and the tens of millions of Americans who currently have no health insurance, are saddled with pre-existing conditions, or are in danger of being "maxed out" on their current policies.  This swathe of America firmly believes that health care is a right, not a privilege.

   At the same time, nearly all Republicans are damning the high court's decision with some sounding a bit like President Andrew Jackson who allegedly responded to the court's decision in Worcester v Georgia (1832) by saying "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let us see him enforce it." (In reality, Jackson never did).  Unbelievably, there have already been calls for the taking up of arms against the implementation of Obamacare. Paleoconservative chatterboxes like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage have flatly stated that the only reason Chief Justice Roberts found the ACA constitutional  was that he was on medication which "introduces mental slowing" and "other cognitive problems."

   Despite the court's decision -- which makes the ACA the law of the land -- polls show the American public widely split over the issue of health care: 44% want Obamacare repealed; 37% wish it to remain in place.  It should be noted that included among the 44% are a sizeable number of progressives who never truly supported the Affordable Care Act because, in their estimation, it did not go nearly far enough. To their way of thinking, where single-payer, universal health care should have been the Affordable Care Act's focus, what America got instead was universal health insurance.

   The public's view of Obamacare is rather skewed -- thanks in large part to the nearly quarter-billion dollars that groups like Crossroads has spent on attack ads.  There are millions upon millions of Americans who still believe that Obamacare is socialist; that medical care will now be rationed, cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars, kill millions of jobs and give unlimited power to government bureaucrats to decide who lives and who dies.  And yet, despite this, a majority of the American public has a favorable view of various parts of the ACA, such as those dealing with preexisting conditions, permitting children to remain on their parents' policy until age 26, and removing lifetime caps.  

  Many view the court's decision as a personal victory for Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) itself.  Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich noted that after so many 5-4 decisions in which conservatives held sway -- including, most infamously, 2000's Bush v Gore and Citizens United v FEC -- Roberts likely "saved the court from a growing reputation for political partisanship."  In the run-up to Thursday's decision, the lion's share of speculation surrounded Justice Anthony Kennedy  -- the court's so-called "swing vote" --  not the Chief Justice.  It was just naturally assumed that Kennedy's would be the decisive vote.  Then too, there was near universal agreement that the decision would hinge on the court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Applying what one scholar termed "convoluted constitutional logic," Roberts and the court's four liberal justices reasoned that the penalty to be collected by the government for non-compliance with the law is the equivalent of a tax . . . and the federal government has the power to tax. 

   So in the end, it was Roberts, not Kennedy, and Congress' right to tax, not the Commerce Clause, which would tip the balance . . .

   If America's political culture was peopled by even remotely mature adults, Thursday's Supreme Court decision would have been met with a bit of cheering, a bit of groaning, and the understanding that this is now the law of the land.  But our political culture is not peopled with mature adults.  Rather, it is populated with playground bullies and petulant adolescents.  For no sooner had word gone out about the court's 5-4 decision than Governor Romney stood at an outdoor podium and proclaimed that he would repeal Obamacare on his first day in office.  (Someone  really should explain to him that presidents don't have the constitutional authority to simply repeal the law of the land -- unless they have a huge majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate). Romney, the spiritual father of Obamacare, has yet to say what he would replace it with.  And small wonder, for he really doesn't have a clue.

   One response to the Supreme Court's decision which is gaining supporters and sends a horrifying chill up the spine comes from within the bowels of the Militia Movement. Mike Vanderboegh, who calls himself one of the "midwives" of the Fast and Furious scandal (more about that in the coming weeks), is actually advocating armed insurrection.  Vanderboegh is of the opinion that the government has no right to force anyone to purchase anything -- like health insurance -- let alone levy a fine (actually a tax) and then enforce its collection.  Vanderboegh's solution is chilling to say the least:

 "If we refuse to obey, we will be fined. If we refuse to pay the fine, we will in time be jailed. If we refuse to report meekly to jail, we will be sent for by armed men. And if we refuse their violent invitation at the doorsteps of our own homes we will be killed -- unless we kill them first. ... I am on record as advocating the right of defensive violence against a tyrannical regime."

   Before anyone concludes that people like Mike Vanderboegh are on the absolute fringe of American society and are only supported by the seriously delusional, chew on this: Vanderboegh is a prime source and frequent guest on Fox News.  Vanderboegh is not the only one pushing disobedience and insurrection.  Many within the Republican ranks are turning the Supreme Court's decision into the 21st century version of "No taxation without representation!"  . . . and worse.

   Within hours of the SCOTUS's decision, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul announced that:

  “Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.”

   One fears for the future of politics in this country.  Ironically, while in the process of researching this article, I have been rereading -- for perhaps the 12th time -- It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis.  Published in 1935, Lewis's  dystopian satire envisioned America in thrall to a homespun fascist dictator named Berzelius ''Buzz'' Windrip. Buzz is a regular guy, personable, plainspoken, "with something of the earthy sense of humor of a Mark Twain . . . a Will Rogers."  Windrip cozies up to the electorate by stoking their disdain for fancy ideas, and encourages them to follow their hearts, not their minds. He appeals to rural white populism, knownothingism, cultural resentment and "good old-fashioned American values."  Windrip campaigns on he calls "New Freedom," which, it will turn out, is essentially a freedom from freedom.  Once elected, all hell breaks loose, because Buzz, it turns out, is really a tool -- and doing the bidding of -- the corporate elite.  By the time it begins to dawn on America what is really going on, it is too late; it has happened here.

   I am not suggesting that Mitt Romney is Buzz Windrip; goodness knows, he lacks the folksy common touch personified by Lewis' everyman.  However, there are hundreds -- if not thousands -- of Buzz Windrips running for various local, state and federal offices all over the country.  Many, if not most, are preaching a "return," a "taking back America" from the hands of "effete intellectuals," "socialists," "atheists," "heretics" and "illegals."  They are railing against the Federal Government, taxes, "socialized medicine" the "Nanny State," Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, abortion and a thousand-and-one other things which they believe are sins against God, truth, justice and the American way.

   Aided by the unstinting largesse of mega billionaires like the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Harold Simmons, Warren Stephens and Kenny Troutt, Buzz Windrip is alive and well . . . and seeking to do one heck of a lot more than just repealing national health insurance.

©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 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